foot plates - feet angles - heels and toes

[johnlvs2run]

I'd like to make some flat foot plates for my D, with the flex feet on top.

My idea is to either replace the top plates with flat pieces of wood, and place the flex feet on top of those, or else make flat pieces that will go over the top of the plates, again with the flex feet on top. If anyone would like to share ideas of how to do this, let me know.

Jon,
Thanks for the update.
I'm still looking for a way to get flat foot plates, with the flex feet on top.
Are there any flat foot plates made by C2 (with no big hole under a protrusion),
where I could put the flex feet on top?

Or would I be better off trying to make new plates out of wood.

Also, do you have wider flex feet or are they only made narrow.

[c2jonw]

John, regarding your question about footplates, if you were to replace your current footplate with a flat board, then attach the toepiece cover and flex foot to them you would end up with effectively the same setup as you have now on your new Model D. Unless you plan on not using the toepiece cover? In any case the full flat surface footplates that we have are the Model A&B wooden plates and the C/early Model D aluminum plate/bracket assemblies. .....C2JonW

[johnlvs2run]

John, regarding your question about footplates, if you were to replace your current footplate with a flat board, then attach the toepiece cover and flex foot to them you would end up with effectively the same setup as you have now on your new Model D. Unless you plan on not using the toepiece cover?

The "toepiece" is what I want to get rid of. You must keep your feet very low, if only your toes are touching it. My toes go right to the top of the raised protrusions (1/2 inch higher than the flex feet), and I've only got 4 holes showing. If I had 5 holes showing, my toes would be off the end of them. The balls of my feet are either on the raised protrusions or the edge of them, and it's quite uncomfortable pushing off the hard edges.

If I lowered the position, say to 2 holes showing, then the lower part of my feet would be flat but my toes would still be sticking up in the air, and not flat like the rest of my feet. Maybe if the flex feet were in the lowest position then my feet and toes would be flat. I don't know as I've not tried the lowest position for awhile. I'm not that tall though, so having my feet in a low position would tend to drive me up off the seat.

In any case the full flat surface footplates that we have are the Model A&B wooden plates and the C/early Model D aluminum plate/bracket assemblies. .....C2JonW

Would either of those replace the foot plates, and screw into the base?

What I'd like to have are totally flat foot plates, with the flex feet on top of them, and nothing on top of the flex feet.

[PaulS]

I just knew John's 40.8 degrees for the B footplate sounded funny so I checked the measurement a little more carefully (the machine is actually hanging up on a wall in out workout room) and came up with a difference of 8 7/8" between the top and bottom of the B footplate, which is about 43 degrees to the floor.
Also note that we've always put a 3 degree toe-out into the flex feet (models C,D,E) or a 6 degree included angle. C2JonW

Yep, I've placed an angle gauge on several Machines, all the various models, and it has always come out close enough to 45deg that I didn't try to get any finer resolution. Mostly assuming that C2 split the difference and stuck with it. Though 43 deg is often cited in Rigging literature as a footplate angle.

As for the rest of this discussion, it would appear that we are hindered by a complete failure to communicate, using a common language.

[PaulS]

An angle gauge only gives you a rough idea and is hardly worth using.

The best way to determine the angle is to measure the rise divided by the run,
which determines the slope, and then to convert the slope to the angle.

But then you rely on equally imprecise linear measurements, and my assumption was closer than you were to reality, wasn't it? By 10%.

When are you going to cite some sculler that said "steep and high" for the footplates, in an attempt to bolster your position, which in fact still remains as much of a mystery as your overall knowledge of rowing? I'd suggest getting on with your project, reporting some findings, and avoiding to appear more silly than you already are. I was just trying to help you out, no need to get snippy.

[PaulS]

Paul,

The issue with the foot plates, as stated from the beginning, is not only the angle, but the fact that with the protrusions, they're not flat. I would like the foot plates to be flat, with my feet able to be flat on the top of them, not with a gap in the middle of them, or the balls of my feet or toes sticking up in the air.

Also, my intention was not to make you look silly. Apologizes to you if it feels that way.

Easily done:
1) Make some flat wood foot plates (With an adjustable heel support just as you had on the Model B)
2) Attach them to the Foot supports on any Model that you have now.

Better get back on your meds, it looks as if "reality inversion" is happening to you once again. But do carry on; As mentioned in another thread, it would be boring without your unique point of view.

[Byron Drachman]

I'd like to make some flat foot plates for my D, with the flex feet on top.

My idea is to either replace the top plates with flat pieces of wood, and place the flex feet on top of those, or else make flat pieces that will go over the top of the plates, again with the flex feet on top. If anyone would like to share ideas of how to do this, let me know.

Also, could someone with a model B let me know the length of the foot plates, and the distances from the top and bottom ends of the top surface of the foot plates to the floor.

Hi John,

I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind. I added some wooden supports so I could have my feet angled out more on my model D. I walk with a toe-out position and I find having my feet pointed out feels more comfortable and is easier on my knees. I did some fiddling with the footstretcher on my 1x and have my toes out as far as possible, but I'm limited by the width of the boat.

Of course this gives me the same angle as before: It's tilted about 45 degrees relative to the rail, which as you know is slanted. The angle relative to the rail is more than what the angle between the footstretcher and seat deck in a boat would usually have, but the feet are lower on the C2 so it is just about as easy to get full compression at the catch:


Byron

[johnlvs2run]

I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind. I added some wooden supports so I could have my feet angled out more on my model D.

Hi Byron,

Yes that's exactly what I'd like to do, except to have just the flex feet on top.

Is that 1/2 inch plywood, with longer screws, into the C2 bases?

[Byron Drachman]

I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind. I added some wooden supports so I could have my feet angled out more on my model D.

Hi Byron,

Yes that's exactly what I'd like to do, except to have just the flex feet on top.

Is that 1/2 inch plywood, with longer screws, into the C2 bases?

Hi John,

Yes, that is 1/2 inch plywood, and I used some nuts and bolts to attach the wooden pieces to the C2 bases, and attached the plastic footstretchers supports into the wood with some screws. Please show us a picture when you've made your change.

Byron

[johnlvs2run]

Byron,

Will do. Thanks.

[johnlvs2run]

The foot plates are on schedule. Here are a few observations to bring things up to date. First of all regarding the knees.

KNEES
The knees basically follow the feet. The C2 foot plates are turned out about 3%, which puts the knees farther apart through the drive, which can be seen from the following test. #1- Stand with feet shoulder width apart, pointing straight ahead, and squat 1/2 way down to the floor. Notice the distance apart of the knees. #2- Stand with feet shoulder width apart, this time with the feet pointed outward, and again squat 1/2 way down to the floor. Notice the knees are wider apart than before. #3- Stand with feet shoulder width apart, with the feet pointed slightly inward, and squat 1/2 way down to the floor. Notice with #3 it is very EASY to bring the knees together, whereas in #2 it is difficult. The same is the case with the position of the feet on the erg.

My conclusion is that the feet should not be pointed outward at a 3 percent angle.

FOOT PLATE ANGLES
The angle on the model B of about 42.3 degrees was much less than the 45 to 47 degrees of the C, D and E. However, the angle is significantly reduced by wearing shoes that have heel lifts, which most modern shoes have. Not that this is a good thing, but they do reduce the angle of the feet. Shoes with 1/4 inch soles and 3/4 inch heels reduce the 47% angle by 6%, to a 65.3% slope and a 42.3 degree angle.

ANGLES OF THE FEET - CATCH
More important than the angles of the plates, are the angles of the feet. In cycling, the rotation of the spindle is free, to allow the feet to maintain a natural angle, roughly 90 degrees to the lower leg at all times. This is not possible to do with the base of feet maintaining contact with the foot plates on the erg. Squatting down with feet straight and the wall behind results in a 56.9% grade, the slope of my lower legs in relation to my feet.

This converts to a 33.8 percent angle.

The foot plates would need to be at a 33.8 percent angle, in order for me to have my lower legs perpendicular to the ground at the catch, and my feet firmly on the plates. This is considering that my feet would be at their maximum angles.

ANGLES OF THE FEET - FINISH
I've not yet determined approximate angles at the finish, but imagine they would be roughly 90 percent to the lower legs. I plan to work out what that would be for the plates, and design something simple that would work to rotate between the two angles. Suggestions on how to do this are most welcome.

[PaulS]

The foot plates are on schedule. Here are a few observations to bring things up to date. First of all regarding the knees.

KNEES
The knees basically follow the feet. The C2 foot plates are turned out about 3%, which puts the knees farther apart through the drive, which can be seen from the following test. #1- Stand with feet shoulder width apart, pointing straight ahead, and squat 1/2 way down to the floor. Notice the distance apart of the knees. #2- Stand with feet shoulder width apart, this time with the feet pointed outward, and again squat 1/2 way down to the floor. Notice the knees are wider apart than before. #3- Stand with feet shoulder width apart, with the feet pointed slightly inward, and squat 1/2 way down to the floor. Notice with #3 it is very EASY to bring the knees together, whereas in #2 it is difficult. The same is the case with the position of the feet on the erg.

My conclusion is that the feet should not be pointed outward at a 3 percent angle.

FOOT PLATE ANGLES
The angle on the model B of about 42.3 degrees was much less than the 45 to 47 degrees of the C, D and E. However, the angle is significantly reduced by wearing shoes that have heel lifts, which most modern shoes have. Not that this is a good thing, but they do reduce the angle of the feet. Shoes with 1/4 inch soles and 3/4 inch heels reduce the 47% angle by 6%, to a 65.3% slope and a 42.3 degree angle.

ANGLES OF THE FEET - CATCH
More important than the angles of the plates, are the angles of the feet. In cycling, the rotation of the spindle is free, to allow the feet to maintain a natural angle, roughly 90 degrees to the lower leg at all times. This is not possible to do with the base of feet maintaining contact with the foot plates on the erg. Squatting down with feet straight and the wall behind results in a 56.9% grade, the slope of my lower legs in relation to my feet.

This converts to a 33.8 percent angle.

The foot plates would need to be at a 33.8 percent angle, in order for me to have my lower legs perpendicular to the ground at the catch, and my feet firmly on the plates. This is considering that my feet would be at their maximum angles.

ANGLES OF THE FEET - FINISH
I've not yet determined approximate angles at the finish, but imagine they would be roughly 90 percent to the lower legs. I plan to work out what that would be for the plates, and design something simple that would work to rotate between the two angles. Suggestions on how to do this are most welcome.

Would you please clarify the difference between "Percent angles", "Degrees", and "Grade"? I have not seen the terms used as you are and am wondering why the inconsistency is being applied here.

[johnlvs2run]

ROTATING SERVER
These are aka "lazy Susan", I don't know why not called lazy Hank or something like that. The bearings for them are readily available and these would be easy to make. However, I feel the sideways rotation is not important, provided the fore and aft angles have a reasonable range.

HINGE
These would be very easy to make, with 2 plates on each side, a built up area somewhere in the middle of them, and a hinge in between. However, a hinge would probably be weak and break easily.

BALL JOINT
This would be quite feasible and allow motion in all directions. However, I don't know how to design the plates with these, and such sideways motion might not be desirable.

WOOD T
My current idea is to make a wood T rocker board, so the plates would rotate between a base that was set up to accommodate the forward and aft angles.

[schweinlew]

Personal stuff aside, I do think that John Rupp has a point.

The catch-foot-angle of the C2 footstretcher does seem -- subjectively to me if not more reliably measured by John Rupp -- to have increased with the evolution of the C2 footboard/flex-foot and the increased height of the "toe-piece." This topic is of particular interest to me, because I badly broke an ankle in college and have limited flexibility in that ankle as a result.

One solution I tried was shortening my stroke. It worked OK, but limited my performance quite a bit (Xeno Muller helped me to see and understand this. Thanks, Xeno). I also tried rolling onto my toes at the catch, which seemed to help me compress fully, but took away a lot of my power at the catch and made me utterly check my single on the water or slam my C2 slides into the stern. I have since developed a compromise stroke that is not as long as it should be but does take some advantage of my height (~6'7").

I have been doing thought-experiments for a year or so, trying to come up with a solution that will make a Model D footboard feel more like a Model B footboard with respect to my foot angle at the catch. I have always found the Model B footboard more comfortable at the catch and that it allow me a longer stroke and more powerful catch.

One thought I have had is simply cutting off the raised "toe-piece" of the flex-foot and gluing or screwing down the "flex" ("flapper???") part at my my desired number of holes showing. This would work well for my personal erg, which nobody but I use. This solution would not work, however, at an indoor regatta...

I have even considered designing some sort of widely variable attachment for the erg footplate -- real Rube Goldberg sort of thing. But, this would seem unwieldy and unnecessary if the rubber wedgie (below) would work.

My latest idea is making a rubber wedge out of thick, flexible but non-compressible gasket material that sat on top of the flapper and was cut specifically to fit over the toe-piece and angle up a little at the heel to give an essentially flat surface and lower footplate angle. I could attach this piece to my shoes, giving me portability or to my personal erg permanently. This is the idea that has been rolling around my head for a few weeks now, and I am interested in any thoughts anyone has on it.


On a personal side, I have been out of circulation for some time, as this dang tenure track thing has kept me off of my erg and put 50lbs around my middle over the last 3 years. I am slowly starting to do steady state work and hope to get back to a respectable 2k time -- not that mine was ever stellar to anyone but me and only on the days I had a PB.


Cheers,
Will Schweinle

[PaulS]

Welcome back Will, all the best on getting back in the saddle, so to speak.

I like the idea about some sort of accessory wedge, though ultimately it might be better to simply construck a full plate (as was suggested to John) that would be like the Old Model B footplate and could either replace the top of the current stretcher or sit on top of it and be held to it by the existing foot strap. I had a Tunturi Machine that had terrible footplate covers (some sort of soft rubber material) and that is exactly what I did for that machine. The upside being that when I went to sell it, All I had to do was unbolt the new plates and put the factory ones back in plance and it was back to "mint" condition.

At 6'7" you should probably take an example from Rob Waddell, no need to overcompress to get length, you have plenty built into your body.