Filippi Bow Wing

[rowingallday]

It looks like Filippi has come out with their carbon bow wing: https://www.filippiboats.com/eng/media/ ... er-aliante

There’s a lot of text about how the rigger doesn’t deform during the stroke. But what about the boat itself?

Drew a simple schematic for how i would understand the forces. If the rigger is the stiffest component of the system, then it seems to me that torsional force will be passed to the boat.

Pocock seems to only have their bow wing on the smaller 8+, not on the big one, and also look like they significantly reinforce the hull around rigger points.

Are these sweep bow wings just going to shorten the lifespan of shells? Bow sculling wings make sense to me - equal forces everywhere, and it seems most of the rowing world has adopted them. Bow sweep wings though, I thought we would get to that once material technology was at a point the forces rowing puts on carbon were negligible. Are we at that point already?

[sandor]

Where do they mention that the rigger is the stiffest component of the system?

I only see mention that it is their stiffest rigger yet/nondeformable during rowing.

[rowingallday]

they don’t mention that it’s the stiffest component

I would hypothesize it is the stiffer component, compared to the shell itself, but that’s just based on a guess.

So if indeed the rigger is the softer component, then I guess the hull doesn’t need to worry

[sandor]

they don’t mention that it’s the stiffest component

I would hypothesize it is the stiffer component, compared to the shell itself, but that’s just based on a guess.

So if indeed the rigger is the softer component, then I guess the hull doesn’t need to worry

that was my thought - that if they created the gunwales/hull/something in there stiff enough, the force would be transferred without ado (or flex).
someone with more knowledge than me would most likely have a simple time calculating the force applied & strength of material needed to do so.

[yeahbuddy]

carbon filippi riggers flex ( most of all brands )and are quite fragile.

[Mango]

From the way I understand it, the bow mount is supposed to drastically decrease lift, because force is being applied to the direction (bow) the boat is going. While carbon is stiff it is brittle. Generally the higher grade you go, the more brittle it will be.

The hull can handle the forces applied by sweep rowing. It is more or less moving some carbon around internally. I think the issue for some of the manufacturers when integrating the bowmount is not torque on the hull so much as it is more weight. distance from the hull, and torque on the rigger itself. A bow mounted rigger is significantly longer than a stern mount, in aluminum the difference is about 30-40 lbs in an 8+ when you put it on a scale. The brittleness of the carbon bowmount with the forces involved is an issue as well.

[lt.wolf]

Pocoock did this already, pretty good structurally and nice on the eyes as well.

[Withoutmercy]

From the way I understand it, the bow mount is supposed to drastically decrease lift, because force is being applied to the direction (bow) the boat is going. While carbon is stiff it is brittle. Generally the higher grade you go, the more brittle it will be.

The hull can handle the forces applied by sweep rowing. It is more or less moving some carbon around internally. I think the issue for some of the manufacturers when integrating the bowmount is not torque on the hull so much as it is more weight. distance from the hull, and torque on the rigger itself. A bow mounted rigger is significantly longer than a stern mount, in aluminum the difference is about 30-40 lbs in an 8+ when you put it on a scale. The brittleness of the carbon bowmount with the forces involved is an issue as well.

Nuts.. 3.75 lbs per rigger for alum? No.
Problem is the extra length and the inherent weakness of alum tubing.
Carbon can be done but failure will be catastrophic and sudden.
My thought of weakness is the pocket oarlock. extreme amount of torque on the single bolt without a back stay to hold the slippage in check.

[Mango]

From the way I understand it, the bow mount is supposed to drastically decrease lift, because force is being applied to the direction (bow) the boat is going. While carbon is stiff it is brittle. Generally the higher grade you go, the more brittle it will be.

The hull can handle the forces applied by sweep rowing. It is more or less moving some carbon around internally. I think the issue for some of the manufacturers when integrating the bowmount is not torque on the hull so much as it is more weight. distance from the hull, and torque on the rigger itself. A bow mounted rigger is significantly longer than a stern mount, in aluminum the difference is about 30-40 lbs in an 8+ when you put it on a scale. The brittleness of the carbon bowmount with the forces involved is an issue as well.

Nuts.. 3.75 lbs per rigger for alum? No.
Problem is the extra length and the inherent weakness of alum tubing.
Carbon can be done but failure will be catastrophic and sudden.
My thought of weakness is the pocket oarlock. extreme amount of torque on the single bolt without a back stay to hold the slippage in check.

The aluminum seem to hold fine as long as the welds are good. But an 80kg hull weights in at about 240 ish pounds if memory serves correct. Right around 205 with carbon bow mounts. Because of that Wintech doesn’t currently do an aluminum bow mount 8.

I think the larger issue is manufacturers do a lot with measuring elite force. Your standard HS or masters crew will hold fine. But take the torque and wattage of Washington or the Germans, and it won’t hold very long.

Your issue with the C cup is less about holding per say and more about securing. A stern rigger pin is held away from the point of force. Bow mounted riggers are secured at the point of force. So you need something with teeth to hold pitch and span. Fluid actually does a good job with this.

Eventually the sport will move full bowmount. It has to. It just isn’t there yet because R and D is expensive and for all the people with money in rowing, there isn’t a lot of money in rowing.

[Mango]

Pocoock did this already, pretty good structurally and nice on the eyes as well.

Pockock only offering this in their smaller hulls is actually the exact point I’m making. The reinforcing the hull isn’t the issue, it’s the longer rigger and distance from the boat combined with big wattage.

[str8four]

I can't speak to the physics on a carbon bow mounted sweep rigger for a pair, four , or eight. But I can say "that looks f***in awesome."

Filippi has done a great job infiltrating Empacher's stronghold on World Championships and the Olympics across boat classes. That has not trickled down to college or HS rowing in the US as we continue to see a lot more German boats then Italians. Offering this advantage (perceived or real) at a slightly discounted price to Empacher could change things with the right marketing and approach.

[Stelph]

From the way I understand it, the bow mount is supposed to drastically decrease lift, because force is being applied to the direction (bow) the boat is going.

Just to pull you up on this - there isn't any difference in a bow/stern/side rigger with respect to an effect on the boat itself - when bow riggers appeared you often heard manufacturers talk about how a bow rigger is more effective in transfering the rowers force to the boat somehow - the maths doesnt add up with this respect - bow riggers are all about aesthetic and, with respect to sculls, comfort as it opens up the cockpit for the sculler - in a sweep boat other than stroke im not sure itll have the same effect - looks lovely tho

[lt.wolf]

Pocock has them in bigger boats

[LakeGator]

On Saturday, one of the guys from the Fluidesign factory stopped by our boathouse to offload some boats they took in trade at the Sarasota Invitational Regatta. While chatting with him I asked about the rationale for the bow mounted riggers. He said that the idea had been around a long time and that Filippi had them before Fluidesign did. Fluidesign moved to the bow rigger with the idea of reducing rigger and pin deflection by using compression pressure rather that tension and torque as is the case on a stern mounted rigging.

He said they discovered that their tank studies did indicate a slight but measurable reduction in hull drag with the bow mount. He said that there is always some vertical component to the drive and that by having the rigger closer to the bow the bow gets the benefit of the vertical lift resulting in a lower hull drag. I am not sure I buy this. It has been a few decades since my statics and dynamics classes.

It seems that the better a sculler the less vertical component will be present. He indicated that there is no real benefit to boat speed beyond a double or pair. The bottom line is that the move to the larger boats is, as others have stated, is more about aesthetics than actual performance.