| |
| Home : Volume 32 : Winter 2006 | |
| Team effort yields THREE-PEAT championship | |
UW-Madison Concrete Canoe Team. Back row, from left: Robbie Sivak, Jay Hille, Arick Groth, Dave Chmielewski, Sean Schutten, Brad Groh, Alex Rexrode, Adam Reinbold and Joe Monahan. Front row, from left: Ivy Harmon, Dana Dentice, Llinda Vanevenhoven, Amy Roth, Megan Martiny, Jaime Kurten, Ann Thielmann, Kelly Greuel and Samantha Thompson. Not pictured: Kevin Forrest and faculty advisor Steve Cramer |
It took members of the UW-Madison UW-Madison Concrete Canoe Team more than 3,000 hours to prepare themselves and their canoe for the 21-team national competition, June 25 though 27 in Clemson, South Carolina. In just 72 hours, the contest was over — and the two-time defending national champion Wisconsin team became the first in American Society of Civil Engineers National Concrete Canoe Competition history to earn three consecutive wins.
The team's 175-pound, 21.5-foot canoe, Taliesin — a nod to Frank Lloyd Wright's Spring Green home — topped Clemson's 202-pound, 21.4-foot boat and Michigan Tech's 175-pound, 20-foot canoe to earn a $5,000 scholarship from Degussa Admixtures, Inc.
“Our students are very proud and excited, and deserve our congratulations,” says Professor Steve Cramer. “This is an incredibly competitive event. All of the students in this competition pour their hearts and souls into designing and building the best boat possible. So it's fun, it's educational — but they are also very serious about it.”
Although races are the competition's most visible and physically grueling aspect, they count for only 25 percent of a team's total score. Teams also submit a written paper (25 percent) and participate in an oral presentation and question-and-answer session (25 percent) with judges. In addition, both judges and students evaluate each boat in a number of categories, including appearance, materials, and compliance with the rules (25 percent).
The UW-Madison team took second in the race category, posting second-place finishes in the women's endurance race, the men's sprint and the women's sprint, and first-place finishes in the men's endurance race and co-ed sprint. The team's design paper took first place, its oral presentation earned fifth place, and its final product (the canoe itself) received second place.
Although heat, humidity and sometimes rain were race factors, team members were most nervous about the oral presentation, says Dave Chmielewski, a senior and the team's new co-chair. Four team members have five minutes in which to present whatever information they deem necessary — including team management and structure, canoe materials choices, and boat shape — to the judges. “After the five minutes is done, the six judges can ask anyone who was in the presentation anything that we did this year,” he says. “We can get our presentation down, we can practice paddling so we're confident in the races, we can spend time finishing the boat and writing and rewriting the paper, but the Q&A is the most unknown part of the competition.”
As you might expect, all eyes were on the returning two-time champions — but rather than intimidate the 18 team members who attended the competition, the attention inspired them, says Chmielewski. “Since we had won the past two years, other teams wanted to see what we do so they can achieve the success we have,” he says. “I enjoyed seeing the more inexperienced people on our team notice that other teams were looking at us. I think it made them excited to be involved in coming years.”
That excitement and continuity is what originally made the team great, says Linda Vanevenhoven, a senior who designed the canoe's hull, paddled in the races and helped to give the oral presentation. “I feel extremely lucky to have been able to be a contributing member of the team for our last three consecutive national championships,” she says. “I give the most credit to the students involved on the team before I was. They were the ones with the vision to bring UW-Madison's team to a new level at the national competition and had the motivation to begin our successes. This year's team just had to keep up the good work!”
Senior Jaime Kurten co-chaired the group. She says one secret of the team's success was involving as many team members as possible. In the process, she created invaluable connections. “I've made some really great friends through doing this, but also have established relationships with professors and other faculty members that I may have not gotten the opportunity to do otherwise,” she says.
Chmielewski agrees, and says it's rewarding for team members not only to work hard together, but to enjoy the benefits of their hard work. “There were parts when we were all business,” he says, speaking of the competition. “But there were plenty of times when we just had a good time. One evening there was a dinner followed by a DJ and dancing. Of the 21 teams there, we were one of the last groups to leave. By the end, we had all of our people up and dancing”.
Now that fall is here, however, the team is ready to get back to work. “'Three-peat' to me, as one of the people in charge this year, means the pressure is still on,” says Chmielewski. ”There's only one place to go from the top — and that's down. We don't want to do that.”
Content by perspective@engr.wisc.edu
Date last modified: 03-Feb-2006
Date created: 03-Feb-2006
Thank you for visiting!
