Cast a vote here if you think it should move up in the Top-100 ranking:
You will be transferred to the Top-100 site, but may then return here by going "BACK"
Rather than to alter the program code to produce a new and modified model it suffices to accomplish a similar result by altering the input data file. One need only redistribute the appropriate masses between rower and boat (live-weight and dead-weight) and to make sure that the results are calculated at equal total rower power output.
In the example offered the rower's weight is 90kg and that of the single scull 14kg, for a total of 104kg not counting the oars (about 3kg). A set of sliding riggers is assumed to add about 11kg live-weight to the system. So, in the case of the sliding rigger model subtract 11kg from the rower's weight (90 -11 =79kg) and add it to the weight of the shell (79 +14 =93kg); and assign 11kg to the weight of the rower.
The oarhandle and slide geometry and excursions are assumed to be about the same.
That this mass exchange cannot be the whole story is that, while the rower's hips now become part of the shell's deadweight, the mass of the rower's torso does not. The live weight contribution from the rower's torso is reduced with sliding riggers, but by an uncertain amount. The weight distribution assumed here is further an over simplification because there is a contribution to the weight of the rigger assembly from the "attached" portion of the rower's feet and lower limbs. These unconsidered effects reduce the sliding rigger advantage.
The ROWING model result is as follows:
Fixed riggers: Sliding riggers:
Rower weight, kg 90 11
Shell weight, kg 14 93
Oars weight, kg 3 3
Total weight, kg 107 107
Peak oar handle pull, N 774 774
Total rower power, W 497 497
Average shell speed, m/s 4.43 4.77
Time 2000m, s 452 420
Rating, 1/s 24.3 32.2
Stroke period, s/cycle 2.47 1.87
Shell advance/sweep, m 13.4 13.5
Speed variation amp., m/s 1.6 0.9
System mechanical eff. 0.62 0.75
Oar blade efficiency 0.72 0.78
Absolute blade slip, m 0.74 0.57
Rower momentum work:
External, J/stroke 135 27
Internal, J/stroke 220 (lost) 38 (lost)
The saving lies in the work the rower must do in order to overcome the
momenta in the system. One-hundred and eight (135 -27)J/stroke is taken from
the work done to advance the shell but that is nullified by the overall
momentum saving and the increase in blade efficiency (inefficient blade slip
is reduced owing to a shorter immersion time at the higher rating). Note the
reduction in the amplitude of the shell speed variation. VanHolst has made a new estimate based on the same simple mass exchange getting a positive but much smaller benefit; partly because he compares at equal rower oarlock power (which excludes internal momentum losses) rather than at equal rower total power. It seems clear that some benefit accrues to sliding riggers but better estimates will have to await the writing of specific modeling code or of difficult on-the-water evaluations.
Had my comparison been made at equal rating (24.3 1/s) the new shell speed would have been only 4.31m/s (worse) but the rower would have been loafing along but with a power output of only 373W (vs. the comparable 497W), ready to pick it up to 32.2 1/s at the same original energy expenditure. This illustrates the absolute necessity of making all such comparisons at equal rower total power.
Boats with sliding riggers can be found at Virus Boats and at Ron Rantilla's FrontRower site. The FrontRower's arrangement is somewhat different from the pure sliding rigger, but I think it confers a similar advantage.