Drag setting

[Carl Watts]

Nice curves, probably explains why I found 134-136 to be the area I row at these days.

[LarryRow]

Funny enough I also did all my previous rowing at 110. I think I had it set to "4" and the drag factor was close to 110 so I just tweaked it and kind of stuck on it for no reason. I did a half-marathon today (the C2 Summer Solstice challenge) and rowed at 136 which is about right according to that table/graph for my weight. I have to say it did feel a lot easier than the 110 I've been using to date. It was just the right balance of acceleration and slowdown on each stroke and felt more in tune with how I was feeling. I completed it aerobically averaging around 22 spm, it felt nice and steady. When I've had it at 110 I have a tendency to up the stroke rate in order to 'catch' the flywheel, to the detriment of form/posture.

I guess you can just change it to around where that graph says it should be and try it for, say 10K, to give yourself enough time to get into the sustainable rhythm, and see how it feels. I'd be interested to read your feedback once you've played around with it a bit.

Regards,
Chris

Chris,

I think you've described how I feel, with the upping of the stroke rate in order to catch the flywheel! I'm going to try tomorrow's class with the stroke rate from this chart to see how it feels.

I'll report back.

[chrisl]

I played around with the graph a bit more and extrapolated a trend line to work out a handy equation for the drag value. This being an approximate drag value optimised for an efficient, sustainable aerobic workout (versus a different setting for sprinting or anaerobic strength work). Based on Chris Wyant's figures for efficient rowing from that Crossfit thread.

Take the weight in lbs, divide by 5 and add 90

Eg your 188 lbs works out as 188 divided by 5 equals 38 (rounded) add 90 equals 128.

Regards,
Chris

[LarryRow]

Coach vetoed my plan of trying to row the workout at a drag factor of 126. He probably saved my life.

How about some fudge factor for strength? I don't lift weights. I'm not that strong. Why would I want to pull 126 instead of 110?

[chrisl]

For the same reason you don't want to drive everywhere in first gear even through it offers the greatest torque for the power applied. Using the same logic why would you want to pull 110 instead of 90? I'm not saying you "should" be using any particular DF, those figures came from a champion rower, and now coach, and represent efficient loads for aerobic endurance based on weight, ie they present the least stress on the body in that mode.

At 110 I was having to work harder to keep up with the flywheel, whereas now it feels right, slowing down enough like a boat would feel in water after each stroke so that the next stroke is a smooth acceleration, giving me less work to do. If I took it much higher then extra work would come back in as a strength requirement. You're right, strength plays a part, the figures are starting point approximations based on weight and, according to Wyant, widely recognised. I suspect your coach is working an existing longer term plan for you personally and you should follow his advice!

To use the gears analogy, it seems that a damper of 1 would be like trying to drive at speed in 1st gear, while a damper of 10 would be like trying to get the car moving in 5th gear. Neither is useful and lower gear doesn't equate to better. The ideal depends on the existing speed and inclination, and similarly the ideal drag factor depends largely on existing weight (mass) and strength (all other things like form being equal). The chart gives a reasonable starting point to base it on.

Regards,
Chris

[hjs]

Coach vetoed my plan of trying to row the workout at a drag factor of 126. He probably saved my life.

How about some fudge factor for strength? I don't lift weights. I'm not that strong. Why would I want to pull 126 instead of 110?

Drag has little to do with strenght. You yourself make the resistant, you can pull very hard on a low drag, and very softly on a high drag.
A lower drag will need a more precise, faster stroke, something a lot of people find difficult. High drag is easier, the stroke gets slower and less technique is needed.

[LarryRow]

This is all very interesting, I will experiment with the drag factor that corresponds to my weight to see how I feel after some sessions.

Luckily, I learned that the numbers near the plastic handle are useless for setting the drag factor. It takes 5+ to get 110 at the gym due to the accumulation of dust in the machine, and 3-4 in the rowing studio.

[Anth_F]

Very informative thread! I have been rowing with a DF of 120 for the past couple of workout sessions, which is right on the half way marker between 4 & 5 on my machine! I feel that is perfect for me at the moment, but will continue to experiment with it. Before i experimented with DF, i was just rowing with the damper setting @ 5, and now looking back, was probably burning myself out too early on longer sessions.

[jackarabit]

Larry, there are reccs for df which predate that graph of crossfitter choices. Try those of the Canadian and Australian rowing associations. These will be related to age and sex (juniors, men,women) as well as to weight class. They have, imo, the advantage of NOT being a prescription of drag factor derived from the choices of a population of ergers with a median performance emphasizing strength over endurance.

[LarryRow]

Larry, there are reccs for df which predate that graph of crossfitter choices. Try those of the Canadian and Australian rowing associations. These will be related to age and sex (juniors, men,women) as well as to weight class. They have, imo, the advantage of NOT being a prescription of drag factor derived from the choices of a population of ergers with a median performance emphasizing strength over endurance.

Ah, excellent point! I will search but do you have any links?

I'm certainly interested in building my endurance over my strength.

[rowerblue]

Larry, there are reccs for df which predate that graph of crossfitter choices. Try those of the Canadian and Australian rowing associations. These will be related to age and sex (juniors, men,women) as well as to weight class. They have, imo, the advantage of NOT being a prescription of drag factor derived from the choices of a population of ergers with a median performance emphasizing strength over endurance.

Ah, excellent point! I will search but do you have any links?

I'm certainly interested in building my endurance over my strength.

As a rule of thumb, for women use 110 for lightweight (60kg/130lbs) and 120 for open. For men, use 120 for lightweight (72.5kg/160lbs) and 130 for open.
Source, see page 9 (RCA). For open women, in competitions the 120 is used a lot more often then the 110.
Also, if you don't want to die, don't do the RADAR...

[jackarabit]

Rowerblue has the Canadian reccs. The Australian here: http://highperformancerowing.net/journa ... tocol.html

Scroll down past the step test to find.

[LarryRow]

Thanks for all the links.

I worry about the amount of stress I'll put on my back with higher drag factors. I'm at 111 DF.

I'm a 51 year old guy, new to rowing. I have only two goals, to avoid injury and to get fit.

How much do I increase my chances of injury by rowing with a higher drag factor?

[rowerblue]

Thanks for all the links.

I worry about the amount of stress I'll put on my back with higher drag factors. I'm at 111 DF.

I'm a 51 year old guy, new to rowing. I have only two goals, to avoid injury and to get fit.

How much do I increase my chances of injury by rowing with a higher drag factor?

If I were you, I'd go to 120, gradually if needed.
Having a low drag factor can have an impact on your technique. If you are new to rowing, I'd go to a local rowing club and ask them to show you the right technique with classes. The erg is a fantastic tool for a full workout, but without the good technique you can do real damage to your body, especially if you row frequently.

[jackarabit]

The problem of df tied directly to weight is that weight says nothing about strength to weight ratio. I myself am living proof that fat can be "taught" to work. Not quite the case of course. The ratio of muscle to body fat increases as a reaction to PT and we are able to do more and faster work. I often wish that my body fat percentage would drop a lot faster than it has, but that's not really germaine to the df question.

What is germaine is that in the relatively untrained state in which many of us first encounter the rower, we can't push fast enuf with our legs to "catch the wheel" at low df so we try higher drag factors. After a bit, we discover that we fatigue very quickly or tweak muscles in the lower back or shoulder girdle (which is attributable to high df combined with a dependence on arms and back). We then learn the advantage of low df (both enables and rewards faster leg drive and limits stress on arms, shoulders and back). After a while, many of us return to slightly higher df to optimize the efforts of stronger and faster muscle response and find the performance "sweet spot". I believe these choices are simply a reaction to and a record of our physical adaptation.