Resistance Issue

[Enda777]

Hi all.

This is a post that may have been covered before, but here goes...

My concept 2 is behaving more stiffly than normal. The resistance seems greater than before, and I am struggling to get the 500m splits down to what they were before. They are about 10 secs too slow.

The chain is behaving normally, its just the handle is tougher to pull. I have tried at damper 1, even this seems much stiffer than it was before.

Is this a chain issue, ie does it need lubrication?

Thanks in advance.

[jamesg]

Your PM can give you a DF number. What is it at Damper 1 and 10?

[Cyclist2]

If you noticed a sudden change, maybe there is something happening in the return mechanism. If you noticed it after you haven't rowed for a long time, maybe it's you out of shape (?) . As James says, check the drag factor. If it's greater than 100 at damper 1, and is far greater than 200 at damper 10, then it needs cleaning or something in the fan unit is happening.

The chain may not look like it needs lubing, but do it anyway. It's easy and quick and will eliminate that variable.

[Carl Watts]

Did the problem happen overnight or have you taken a few months off rowing ?

I jumped on the Erg a month ago and thought there was something wrong with the Drag but after the row I checked it and it was fine. Felt like the resistance had doubled in the time off and it was not fun.

[Enda777]

thanks for your replies...

I had a few months off my erg but was training on other ergs with the club etc.
Fitness is very good.
I will come back in a couple of weeks and let you know if the machine splits come down.

I sprayed chain with ptfe lubricant yesterday. The fly wheel is clean. So we will see!

[Citroen]

I had a few months off my erg but was training on other ergs with the club etc.

There's the problem, those club ergos will be full of dust, crud & cruft. They will have a significantly lower drag range than your home ergo.

Main menu-> More Options -> Display Drag Factor

Get the drag off the fitness club machines, compare it to the drag of your machine. Take three readings on each on with the damper on 1, one on 5 and one on 10.

[Nomath]

There's the problem, those club ergos will be full of dust, crud & cruft. They will have a significantly lower drag range than your home ergo.
...

I am not so sure that this is the problem or the explanation.
A significantly lower drag of the club erg's does not cause 10 secs faster 500m splits compared to the home erg.

My concept 2 is behaving more stiffly than normal. The resistance seems greater than before, and I am struggling to get the 500m splits down to what they were before. They are about 10 secs too slow.

[JaapvanE]

There's the problem, those club ergos will be full of dust, crud & cruft. They will have a significantly lower drag range than your home ergo.
...

I am not so sure that this is the problem or the explanation.
A significantly lower drag of the club erg's does not cause 10 secs faster 500m splits compared to the home erg.

It could be, easily. A human isn't a static machine that will churn out power regardless of circumstances. When you lost rhythm, or lack the strength-endurance to see a certain pace at a certain DF through, the 10 seconds will be lost easily.

When I look at the rowers in my gym, they range from DF 70 (damper 1) to DF 100 (damper 10). A new RowErg ranges from DF 70 to DF 225. So setting a specific damper (say 4/5) and getting DF 80 instead of DF 135 is a big difference. In my personal experience, a 10 point difference can have a lot of impact when you cross certain thresholds. You can lose your stroke rhythm, as the flywheel is too heavy at the catch, which blocks acceleration, etc..

As an illustration (admittingly, N=1): I used to row at DF 135. I tore my biceps and 10 months ago I was allowed to row again, at the lowest dragfactor possible. ONLY when I could row without pain for two weeks, I was allowed to increase drag with 10 points. I am now at DF95, as the step between DF90 and DF100 proved to be too big. First time back at DF 100, I lost 4.5 seconds with respect to my normal pace on any distance (I row 2 6K's, 2 10K's and a HM weekly). The rhythm is broken and has to be found again. For me, that is an area of improvement now, but it is good to realize that certain boundaries are there in performance and as an athlete, you need to grow before you can cross them.

It can go the other way as well: the step from DF80 to DF90 was fantastic. I improved all my seasonal bests on the longer distances from day one, and even start to improve PR's despite the extremely low DF. That was a very good six weeks. I finally got a perfect catch and I was able to transfer my energy to the slower flywheel much better. I could maintain rhythm much better, but I was able to use my energy much more efficiently, so I went faster.

When you look at the power-endurance, you see this as well. I find myself struggling at longer distances at a higher DF: a HM with a peak-force of 550N (DF90, 2:16 pace at 22 SPM) is doable, at 650N (DF90, 2:12 pace at 22 SPM) it is challenging, at 730N (DF 100, 2:10 pace at 22 SPM) I see stroke distance decline and SPM go up after 16K. So depending on a persons strength, build and fitness, they might get into new territories.

[Nomath]

It could be, easily.
...

No, definitely not easily.
A difference of 10 sec in the 500m split is a huge in terms of power in watts!
Instead of quarelling over your personal history, I refer to the topic Effects of the drag factor on performance and physiological parameters, a few years ago. Two scientific studies with some 10 participants in each.
A group of college rowers executed a stepwise increased power load at DF=100 and DF=150, in random order. There were several interesting physiological differences, but the 500m splits were virtually the same.

This is the key graph from these studies

[JaapvanE]

Two scientific studies with some 10 participants in each.
A group of college rowers executed a stepwise increased power load at DF=100 and DF=150, in random order. There were several interesting fysiological differences, but the 500m splits were virtually the same.

Aside the small sample size in the study, and that the DF's I used are outside the studied range, it just shows I'm physically not comparable to college rowers. My wife confirms this on a daily basis.

So what is your point? Because this is quite an extrapolation/projection you are making. College rowers are assumed to be young, have decent technique and probably train at various DF's on the Erg and train OTW. Projecting that data on an average middle aged gym goer will not work, IMHO.

[Nomath]

My point was this :

A significantly lower drag of the club erg's does not cause 10 secs faster 500m splits compared to the home erg.

You questioned my point, and you want us believe that the evidence of N=1 is big and a scientic study with N= ±10 is small.

[JaapvanE]

My point was this :

A significantly lower drag of the club erg's does not cause 10 secs faster 500m splits compared to the home erg.

You questioned my point, and you want us believe that the evidence of N=1 is big and a scientic study with N= ±10 is small.

When you start to compare apples (19 year old well-trained collegiate rowers) to oranges (most likely middle aged men with mediocre technique), your sample size is irrelevant as the populations do not match on ket properties.

[Enda777]

Really good debate going on here. Thanks for your input.

For the record, I pulled a 3.07 1km in a competition in Feb, so I am not unfit. Yes I am middle aged though!

[Nomath]

When you start to compare apples (19 year old well-trained collegiate rowers) to oranges (most likely middle aged men with mediocre technique), your sample size is irrelevant as the populations do not match on ket properties.

I didn't know the age of the topic poster nor his technique, but probably neither did you. I prefer to extrapolate from a serious scientific study about the effect of the drag factor, even if the populations might not match.
Note that the college rowers in these two studies are far below 'elite' level. Pulling roughly 260W in a 3-min all-out effort (500m split about 1:50) is what even trained seniors can manage.
Extrapolating the N=1 experience from someone in a rehab phase who's mind is worried about pulling too heavy, seems rather odd to me.

I want to extend this debate for one specific reason: it is not the first time on this forum that club or gym ergs that in the well-known phrase of Citroen are suspected to be "full of dust, crud & cruft" are also conveniently thought to be the explanation for significantly lower 500m splits (or a much higher wattage).
My question to those who support this explanation is : by what mechanism ?

If a lower drag factor from dust, crud & cruft improves the 500m split, why don't we all emulate such a poorly-maintained erg by setting the drag factor on the home erg much lower? Doesn't C2 teach us that when set at the same DF, all ergs behave similar ?

[jamesg]

"full of dust, crud & cruft" are also conveniently thought to be the explanation for significantly lower 500m splits (or a much higher wattage). My question to those who support this explanation is : by what mechanism ?

Just basic engineering. The erg is a machine that transfers power, so load must match source to offer best operating conditions. The damper is there for this reason. Most would not find a clean machine on D10 ideal for a fast full length pull, especially if using mostly their arms.