Having tried both systems several times a week for several
months I have observed that our fixed square oar set up makes for a more
predictable and technically easy row, which is restrictive in terms of
positioning, is robotic and is less interesting but in which you might
arguably go faster as you are less likely to make a mistake and are more
able to ‘just heave’.

On the other hand the pin and kabe round oar set up makes for a
more responsive, challenging, skilfull and, therefore, interesting
row. Rowers have to totally focus on what their oar is doing, and when
it all comes together and all four move smoothly ‘as one’ it’s fantastic
– the boat flies through the water.

I also find the fixed system much harder to do anything quickly
with, both in terms of getting oars ready to row fast (eg launching in
surf) or getting them out of the way fast (avoiding an obstacle). I
think this makes the fixed system more dangerous.

I sincerely hope that SCR, as a fairly new organisation, takes
these issues into account in considering the development of this
brilliant sport and leaves us free to challenge ourselves and improve
our skills and technique and stay interested, whilst allowing teams to
compete on a level playing field.

To answer your question in your reply to John above – metal rowlocks would not be as efficient in many ways as Ullapool’s system (and others’ also) because they do not fix the pitch of the oar. The oar is allowed to slip pitchwise in a metal rowlock which is not a good idea if you are trying to be efficient in pulling on the oar.
Also, I think you would be restricted to a round section oar of around 60mm diameter. (I can’t find any bigger than this on internet – but maybe you know of a supplier?) This would consequently limit the length of your oars as a round section does not resist bending stress as efficiently as a rectangular section (for same amount of material).
So… my vote would be against commercial metal rowlocks. (But if others wish to use them – fine by me too.)
Ian (Crail)

The current situation is entirely artificial and we should be using the best traditional means of retaining the oars…METAL OARLOCKS!!

It’s been nice, that.

Within all of our clubs, some people get their kick on for rowing, some for coxing, some for woodworking, and some for for innovation and design.

Please don’t kill one of my favourite aspects of the sport. I’m not an innovator or designer myself, but I really love it when those of our club who are turn up with their latest design and explain how they ‘love it when a plan comes together’.

I
generally agree with RowPorty’s safety concerns:

Whilst
the safety implications of having fixed oars is not a great
problem at the moment, I feel that in the future it may be. In my
limited experience of Coastal Rowing races, I have generally noticed
that there is a frantic start (with a possibility of oar clashes in
tricky conditions) after which the race soon becomes mostly a
procession where there is only a fairly slim risk of bad clashes,
even at buoy turns. However, I suspect that our club is not the only
one which intends to spend less time at the back of the fleet next
season and I predict that over the next few years that as standards
improve, the fleet will compress significantly with a much greater
risk of clashes, especially at buoy turns. In that situation, I would
not want to be up against a crew with oars that do not ship readily.
I hear what people say about how easy it is to ‘ship’ the fixed oars,
but I have doubts about how well this can and will be done in the
‘heat of battle’. Non fixed oars on the other hand would be much
safer in every respect. I know of no other branch of rowing which
uses completely fixed oars, probably for this reason.

I
disagree greatly with the suggestion that ‘more competitively
minded’ rowers will loose interest if holding the oar at the
correct gearing and pitch is made easier. As John has said, there are
plenty more skills to improve in developing an efficient rowing
stroke to keep us interested. I see no disadvantage whatsoever in
making rowing ‘easier’. Although one member of our crack under 11
squad did comment that he would find it harder to set a rhythm
without the clonking sound of oar on kabe! (He will soon learn the
joys of listening for the gentle splosh of a unified catch.)

Feathering
– I personally think nothing should change here and it should be
allowed where clubs wish to use it. (As in every other branch of
rowing.)

It seems
that next season many clubs intend changing to the pin/fixed oar
system currently used by Coigach etc. I have been looking forward to
using my own ingenuity to develop a system which has the benefit of
the reduced friction of the pins, but still holds the oar at a fixed
gearing and pitch whilst allowing the oars to be shipped when
required. Ie: an adaption of the oars with stops (which are a
substitute for the ‘buttons’ described by Topher) which we already
use with our kabes. It is this experimental aspect of the St Ayles
Skiff that makes the whole thing so interesting.

I agree
with the ethos that everything should be made of timber and hand
crafted by members of the clubs. Preferably with easily obtainable
and affordable materials.

If there
are likely to be restrictions imposed, (aimed at improving the
levelness of the playing field) please give us all an indication of
how long this process might take as soon as possible so we know whether to delay
our experiments.

Ian
Mills, Crail Coastal Rowing Club