Is Height A Factor ?

read only section for reference and search purposes.
Locked
[old] PaulS
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] PaulS » January 29th, 2005, 7:53 pm

<!--QuoteBegin-Bill+Jan 28 2005, 08:58 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bill @ Jan 28 2005, 08:58 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hey PaulS,<br /><br />I need some help with the rhetorical question you asked about power please - excuse the mixed units - they dont really affect the logic.<br /><br />assume lift the weight 1metre<br /><br />200times x 50lbs x 1metre = 10,000lbmetres<br /><br />100times x 100lbs x 1metre = 10,000lbmetres<br /><br />so if both athletes do this lifting in the same time (assume 10 minutes for simplicity) havent they got the same power rating ? <br /><br />ie 10,000lbmetres/10minutes = 1000lbmetres/minute for each athlete<br /><br />isnt this a bit like two ergers doing a pace of 2:00 using 25spm and 20spm ? one athlete certainly has to put more effort into a single stroke but both are doing work at the same rate - (power) measured in watts on the erg ?<br /><br />Maybe I need to revise my physics a bit more to better understand what you meant with the question.<br /><br />I will apply to the International Standards Committee to have the unit of a lbmetre/minute designated as a new unit called the billshovel. <br /><br />Bill <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Same amount of work and <b><i>average</i></b> power.<br />The two Ergers you mention are not doing work at the same rate, though we would have to say that they were at the same DF and had the same stroke length to firm that up.<br /><br />The one at the lower rate is producing a much higher amplitude force profile for a shorter time, and havine a lot higher ratio of Drive:Recovery than the Erger at the higher rate (trading rate for pace, or in this case Rate for peak force required since the pace is the same).<br /><br />The final point being, if I've got 7 guys that are pulling a 2:00 @ 20 and 1 that needs to rate 25 to pull a 2:00, it doesn't matter if all of them could last the same time/distance at that pace, the high rater is going to be a drag on the boat due to lack of power. i.e. it doesn't matter how many times you can lift 50lbs, if you can't lift 100lbs the big bags of manure just aren't going to get loaded. <br /><br />Does that help?

[old] Bill
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] Bill » January 30th, 2005, 10:11 pm

Hey PaulS,<br /><br />Thanks for the reply.<br /><br />Yep thats fine.<br /><br />Bill (Off to practice with the 100lb manure bags)

[old] Chrissy
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] Chrissy » February 17th, 2005, 4:34 pm

hmm just wondering what does Steve Tucker pull i heard he was only 5 ft 7 and a ickle bit. He is an excellent lightweight and rates so high. One of ma favourite rowers, aswell as pettinari, luini, quist and kay

[old] Xeno
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] Xeno » February 17th, 2005, 8:01 pm

Matthias Siekowsky and Rob Waddell are no shorties....and they are the fastest ever on the Concept 2... I rest my case.

[old] John Rupp

General

Post by [old] John Rupp » February 17th, 2005, 8:14 pm

If they weighed 160 pounds then that case would be worth something.<br /><br />But they don't -- they are much heavier than that.<br /><br />Their weight makes the pace, not their height, for if they weighed 160 pounds they would not have the excess weight to trade for pace, and would not row nearly as fast as the current world records for lightweights.<br /><br />I rest my case.

[old] PaulH

General

Post by [old] PaulH » February 17th, 2005, 8:31 pm

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 17 2005, 07:14 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 17 2005, 07:14 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If they weighed 160 pounds then that case would be worth something.<br /><br />But they don't -- they are much heavier than that.<br /><br />Their weight makes the pace, not their height, for if they weighed 160 pounds they would not have the excess weight to trade for pace, and would not row nearly as fast as the current world records for lightweights.<br /><br />I rest my case. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />So it's just a coincidence that they're so tall? You're saying that they'd be just as fast if they were 5 feet tall and the same weight, even though nobody who is that weight but 5 feet tall is as fast? And it's a coincidence that all of the fastest rowers in the world, I would guess at least the top 5000, are taller than average?

[old] John Rupp

General

Post by [old] John Rupp » February 17th, 2005, 8:47 pm

You're saying that they'd be just as fast if they were 6'9 and 95 pounds, even though nobody who is 95 pounds is as fast?<br /><br />So it's just a coincidence they're not 95 pounds?<br /><br />And it's just a coincidence that all of the fastest rowers in the world, at least men, who weigh more than 150 or 200 or 250 pounds, I would guess at least the top 5000, weigh more than 95 pounds?<br /><br />Well you might be right, but so far no one who is 6'9 and 95 pounds has rowed as fast as they have.

[old] John Rupp

General

Post by [old] John Rupp » February 17th, 2005, 8:49 pm

World Record holder Elia Liani is 6' tall.<br /><br />There are many rowers taller than him, but none of his weight who are faster.<br /><br />In fact, no one is faster, unless they weigh much more than he does.

[old] PaulH

General

Post by [old] PaulH » February 18th, 2005, 9:56 am

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 17 2005, 07:47 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 17 2005, 07:47 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're saying that they'd be just as fast if they were 6'9 and 95 pounds, even though nobody who is 95 pounds is as fast?<br /><br />So it's just a coincidence they're not 95 pounds?<br /><br />And it's just a coincidence that all of the fastest rowers in the world, at least men, who weigh more than 150 or 200 or 250 pounds, I would guess at least the top 5000, weigh more than 95 pounds?<br /><br />Well you might be right, but so far no one who is 6'9 and 95 pounds has rowed as fast as they have. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I'm not saying that - I think there is a range of height that is optimal, and the further from that you get the slower you are likely to be. If you artificial constrain what that height can be by imposing a weight limit (given that as people get taller they tend to get heavier) then you'll still have an optimum lightweight height range, it will just necessarily be shorter.<br /><br />If height wasn't a factor then it wouldn't matter what height people were, and there would be more shorter-than-average rowers in the elite ranks. Is that really so hard to understand?

[old] Kudos
Posts: 0
Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm

General

Post by [old] Kudos » February 18th, 2005, 11:37 am

Give up Paul, john lives in never never land where only scientific possibility matters not real life results. Anybody with common sense knows that you are right, and 90% of the people on here agree with you, don't worry about someone you can't change.<br />Tucker pulls around a 6:15 I think? Very fast for someone his height and weight which is on the smaller side of lightweight elites (5'8 155pds), but not in the same league as a Luini/Pettinari/Ebbeson erg wise who all have PB's 10 secs faster. Tucker is a beast on the water and has beaten a number of the elite heavy weight scullers in this country. He's definitly got more than enough power packed into his small frame. A lightweight version of Jason Read if it suits you, but since Tucker was around first, you technically have to say that JR is a heavyweight version of Tucker

[old] PaulH

General

Post by [old] PaulH » February 18th, 2005, 2:39 pm

You're right, you're right, it's just so easy to slip back into it!<br /><br />

[old] John Rupp

General

Post by [old] John Rupp » February 18th, 2005, 2:41 pm

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulH+Feb 18 2005, 05:56 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulH @ Feb 18 2005, 05:56 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that - I think there is a range of height that is optimal, and the further from that you get the slower you are likely to be. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Well then you're in agreement with me, since that's a roundabout way of saying that there's an optimum weight for each height, as was stated earlier in this thread.<br /><br />Of course the taller a person is, the more -- optimal -- muscle mass s/he will have.<br /><br />If you have a rower of 240 pounds who is 5' 3", then that rower is NOT going to be very fit and will not approach the times of a rower who is 6'9 and 240 pounds.<br /><br />Likewise if you have a rower who is 6' 9" and 152 pounds, that rower is not going to approach the times of Elia Luini who is 6'0 and 152 pounds.<br /><br />There is an optimal weight for rowing for each height, as was pointed out earlier in this thread. <br /><br />Likewise there is also a very easy way to measure performance for this optimal weight for each height, which is the watts output per kilogram of weight.

Locked