What’s New in Rowing? The Filippi Oarlock 3.0

Without a doubt, the new Filippi oarlock 3.0 is long overdue and is arguably one of the most important rowing innovations in recent years. This innovation is part of Filippi’s mission to make in-house, high-quality, robust and easy-to-use equipment. The 3.0 oarlock enables three adjustments to be made, including pitch, height and oar rotational movement. Astonishingly, the new design enables these changes to be easily made within arm’s reach and without any tools. 

The Filippi Oarlock 3.0

These innovations are in line with David Filippi’s passion for being a leader in design excellence in our sport. It also opens up the conversation on the current design principles of the oarlock and what a future design concept could look like. 

I wonder if you can tell me when you last changed the pitch on your blade or adjusted your hand heights? When was the last time your oar felt a little bit loose in the gate and you adjusted the gate nut? For a host of reasons, rowers don’t make these changes in the first place, we plug and play, set it and leave it. Yet this is exactly what the Filippi’s 3.0 is all about – giving rowers the means to make these changes – It is a recognition that things need to change in our sport and that they are going to be leaders to create an important cultural shift. The 3.0 is the most important innovation that we have seen in rowing for many years for it empowers individual rowers to make adjustments to their equipment within reach and with just their fingers so that they can perform at their best.

Filippi has faced a classic chicken or egg question: is our disengagement with the finer measurements of rigging because the standard oarlock is so cumbersome to adjust, or is it because rowing culture gives little autonomy for individuals to make the changes to accommodate their own rowing preferences?  We have all had the experience of pushing off from the boathouse only to find that you are dragging your hands along your thighs on the recovery or your blade is washing out no matter how deep you drive it. There are no options other than to grin and bear it or to head back to the shed, wasting the session trying to fix it. Rarely would a crew or even a coach carry the tools required to adjust an oarlock. Even if you did, would you dare to try out on the water, soon spanners and washers will be swimming with the fish! Making changes to the current rigging requires a full toolbox, a manual and attendance at a weekend rigging course.  Even elite rowers are expected to be able to row in any boat and are often tossed in with a new crew with just enough time to adjust their foot stretcher. Borrowed equipment is common and there is often not enough time or staff to complete a full biometric setup. This differs greatly from other high-performance sports, like cycling, where individual athletes are carefully accommodated with specific individual biomechanical equipment settings. Why would this not be the case for rowers? Filippi’s answer to this chicken or egg question is the 3.0, now you can make the changes, will you actually now make the changes?

I would like to spend a moment to ponder the future of the oarlock and consider what design issues still need to be solved. This section will be of interest to budding young designers, future rowing start-ups or perhaps anyone with access to a 3D printer … I think I may be onto something.

Firstly, Performance Data needs to be integrated and standardised so rowers can measure the effectiveness of the fine-tuning they make. Rowers blindly make the adjustments to equipment without any way of quantifying the effects. We are in the era of big data and not being able to measure critical changes is frustrating. Although the gold standard for measurement is the Empower Oarlock, NK cannot make the 3.0 adjustments as the NK oarlock is set at 4-degrees pitch. With the 3.0 we can easily change our rigging but the future needs to see the capacity to measure performance. 

Secondly, Oar Movement needs to be eliminated. When you hear the “clunk” sound of the catch and the “dunk” of the release, this is a systemic energy loss through unwanted and uncontrolled movement of the oar in the oarlock. The design problem is the oar/oarlock interface – we are taking a round object (oar shaft), putting a square on it (sleeve) and then trying to rotate it in a square (oarlock). The most recent attempt to solve this was the Majik Gate. This design made a good attempt to secure the working edge of the oar, by using a tight silicon band, tight up against the working surface of the oarlock. It produced smooth and silent catches and built a small cult following. Detractors of the Majik Oarlock said the added tension created additional wear and tear and the complicated gate-locking mechanism saw some gates come undone – nevertheless – it was a recognition of the design problem.

Majik Oarlock

Another previous design solution to solve oar movement was the Roller Lock. This was a totally integrated solution that was never developed beyond the prototype phase. It was a research initiative across several countries that eliminated all unwanted movement and proved a new design concept was possible. The Roller Lock also enabled the standardisation of oar depth by optimising the path of the oar, and extraordinary foresight of performance potential. 

Roller Lock

Thirdly, Oar Pitch needs to be eliminated. Standard blades need four degrees of pitch to have control during the drive, yet this is systemic energy loss which is controlled within the oarlock. The need for pitch represents the acceptance of this inefficiency of blade design, though with the Randall foil pitch can now be zeroed out. You wouldn’t think it but oar pitch is a cultural issue that is affecting current designs. I had an opportunity to have the foil design tested with the Chinese Olympic team. Yet the Chinese team strictly rowed with a uniform five degrees of pitch and simply refused to change this, such is the level of entrenched acceptance. With the foil, the sport of rowing can eliminate the inefficiency of blade pitch and enhance performance, yet we continue to religiously accept it, perpetuating compromised design concepts and keeping our sport from progressing. 

I would like to offer a Design Solution for oarlocks which has the potential to solve the issues I have highlighted. We are in a whole new era of sports science and at the dawn of a new material technology. The application of Compliant Mechanisms, such as those shown in the video linked here, offers extraordinary possibilities for complex moving parts. With commonly available software and 3D printers, we have the ability to integrate the oar with the rigger without any of the existing issues of the current oarlock design. With a compliant mechanism, we could replace the oarlock entirely with a junction point of integrated linear and rotational motions plus enable oars to travel at various orbits and paths. This could be a whole new research avenue and see the removal of any 19th Century moving parts.

Compliant Mechanism

Rotating Mechanism

We need to deliver rowers a range of new performance options and we have an entirely new field of design solutions through which this can be achieved. The future of our sport is dependent on those who can recognise the design problems that we face and invest time in creating innovative solutions to maximise performance.

Rowing belongs to the next generation, who have the will to transform equipment design through innovation. I would like to see that 3.0 Oarlock is the beginning of a design and cultural shift in rowing and creates momentum in innovation to sweep through our sport.

Over to you, junior rower, the future is now and of course, the future is yours.

About The Author

Ian Randall

See author's posts