10mps: Race Pace, Stroking Power, And Ratio

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 26th, 2005, 11:23 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(george nz @ Dec 25 2005, 09:48 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 26 2005, 02:58 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>George,<br /><br />Have you tried doing a 1:25 for the 500 meters at 18 spm and with breaks? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />No , but unlike Rich my 500 would be at 105 drag (not 200+) and rating less than 40spm avg (not 55+)<br /><br />George<br /><br />hmmmmm with breaks, now theres an idea <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Nice! That would certainly be impossible for me.<br /><br />How was your technique when you rowed this 500? Did you do this row on a machine with a PM3 (i.e., where you could look at the force curve)?<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 26th, 2005, 11:30 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Pulling as hard as I could, I was hitting 1:40 @ 22 spm, with my force curve still in nice shape. </td></tr></table><br /><br />1:40 @ 22 spm is about 16 SPI, I think.<br /><br />122 df.<br /><br />ranger

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 26th, 2005, 12:12 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 26 2005, 07:13 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>IMHO, the problem with rowing at 10 MPS and climbing the rate ladder, as PaulS recommends, is that the SPI is very mild at 27-28 spm (10 SPI, etc.). The major issue ( for me) is what happens to my relaxation, timing, sequencing, length, leverage, endurance, muscular durability, aerobic cajpaciaty, etc., when I row 20K at 15 SPI, not 10 SPI.<br /><br />Rowing long distances with a high stroking power enforces good habits. If you have a PM3, you can also row looking at the force contour of your stroke, as a double check.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />It's not a "rate" ladder that's being climbed, it is the "Pace Ladder", with S10PS.<br /><br />As you say, the SPI difference is subtle, and that is the differences that can be made after a certain level of base work has been established. In fact, this is exactly why SPI is not a "pure" type of unit.<br /><br />For example:<br />1:30 @ 24 = SPI of 20<br />1:20 @ 34 = SPI of 20<br /><br />Energy input during the Drive is completely different.<br />1:30 = 480watts (1200 Joules / 2.5 sec)<br />1:20 = 684watts (1207 Joules / 1.76 sec)<br /><br />Pretty close it would appear, until we look at the probable drive times.<br />Stroke times are 0.75 sec different (30% off), and this is majority taken from the recovery, but let's take 0.2 for the change in drive time. (where ALL energy input must take place)<br />0.7 sec drive at the 1:30 would not be out of line so 0.5 at 1:20.<br /><br />Now we get:<br />1200joules/0.7sec = <b>1715 Drive input joules (1:30 @ SPI 20)</b><br />1207joules/0.5sec = <b>2414 Drive input joules (1:20 @ SPI 20)</b><br /><br />Not exactly what anyone would call "equal stroking power", at least if they were being objective.<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for providing me with an opportunity to do a bit more in-depth look at SPI.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 26th, 2005, 12:27 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 26 2005, 07:13 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If you row at lower stroking powers, you don't practice what you need to practice; therefore you never make contact with the task. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Exactly. And 30 spm gives you higher stroking power than 18 spm.<br /><br />38 spm gives you higher stroking power than 30 spm for a 2k, and so on.<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Rowing long distances with a high stroking power enforces good habits.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Rod Freed has a stroking power of 1:45 for a half marathon.<br /><br />He has rowed the 5k with a stroking power of 1:40.7, demonstrating high stroking power and good habits.<br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 26th, 2005, 12:32 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 26 2005, 08:12 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Now we get:<br />1200joules/0.7sec = <b>1715 Drive input joules (1:30 @ SPI 20)</b><br />1207joules/0.5sec = <b>2414 Drive input joules (1:20 @ SPI 20)</b>[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Joules divided by time = <b>Watts</b><br /><br />Watts = Power = The <b>Pace</b> displayed on the monitor.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 26th, 2005, 1:04 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Not exactly what anyone would call "equal stroking power", at least if they were being objective.<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for providing me with an opportunity to do a bit more in-depth look at SPI </td></tr></table><br /><br />Paul--<br /><br />Could you do the same calculations for me with some relevant numbers (e.g., 12.5 SPI) rather than 20 SPI. No one rows at 20 SPI. It sounds as though you are also just making up the drive lengths. Do you really know these? 20 spm and 30 spm would still be fine for the rate comparison.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />P.S. At 20 spm I am training 2.2 SPI (14.7 SPI) above what I row at 30-34 spm (12.5 SPI). Could you also calculate for me how these compare in terms of "equal stroking power"?<br /><br /><br /><br />

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 26th, 2005, 1:56 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 26 2005, 09:04 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Not exactly what anyone would call "equal stroking power", at least if they were being objective.<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for providing me with an opportunity to do a bit more in-depth look at SPI </td></tr></table><br /><br />Paul--<br /><br />Could you do the same calculations for me with some relevant numbers (e.g., 12.5 SPI) rather than 20 SPI. No one rows at 20 SPI. It sounds as though you are also just making up the drive lengths. Do you really know these? 20 spm and 30 spm would still be fine for the rate comparison.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />P.S. At 20 spm I am training 2.2 SPI (14.7 SPI) above what I row at 30-34 spm (12.5 SPI). Could you also calculate for me how these compare in terms of "equal stroking power"? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I could, but since you think that somehow just scaling things down makes for a completely different result, I'm not sure why I should. I'll be happy to check your work. I'm guessing a bit on Drive lengths, but I'd bet that I'm quite close. And you seem pretty declarative about "no one rowing at SPI 20", even though such a declaration is a red herring. <br /><br />I'm not in the habit of "making things up", perhaps you need to get a trial of ErgMonitor which is a pretty good indication of how objective I like to keep things.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 26th, 2005, 2:42 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I could, but since you think that somehow just scaling things down makes for a completely different result, I'm not sure why I should. </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, I would assume the result is still the same. But degrees of difference can be very important where real performance is the issue. <br /><br />I suppose I am wondering why you used the extreme numbers in the first place.<br /><br />I would also be interested whether rowing at X+2 SPI at 18-22 spm is just about the same stroking power as rowing at X SPI at 30-34 spm when the SPI is in the normal range of 10-15 SPI rather than at the absurd limit of 20 SPI.<br /><br />ranger

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 26th, 2005, 2:56 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 26 2005, 09:56 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm not in the habit of "making things up", perhaps you need to get a trial of ErgMonitor which is a pretty good indication of how objective I like to keep things.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />EM doesn't include a good portion of the drive, thus the distances it measures are short, as are the averages and neither are accurate.<br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 26th, 2005, 2:58 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 26 2005, 10:42 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I would also be interested whether rowing at X+2 SPI at 18-22 spm is just about the same stroking power as rowing at X SPI at 30-34 spm [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Check the Pace or Watts output on your monitor.<br /><br />That will show you the stroking power.<br />

[old] Mike Niezgoda · Post by **[old] Mike Niezgoda** » December 26th, 2005, 3:42 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 26 2005, 06:56 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>EM doesn't include a good portion of the drive, thus the distances it measures are short, as are the averages and neither are accurate. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />These are interesting claims, John.<br /><br /><b>What portion of the drive is missing in ErgMonitor?</b> I know that the drive starts when the flywheel stops slowing down (end of the recovery) and the drive ends when the flywheel starts to slow down (after the finish). Where would you start and end the drive?<br /><br /><b>What distances are short in ErgMonitor?</b> Distance in ErgMonitor is based off of the number of sensor readings and the drag factor and not the length of the drive. The length of the drive has nothing to do with the distance calculation.<br /><br /><b>What averages are short in ErgMonitor?</b> <br /><br /><b>How do you define accurate?</b> We admit that the drag factor calculation in ErgMonitor is not exactly the same as Concept II's, but I find that ErgMonitor distances are consistently within 5 meters to a PM2 over 10,000 meters.<br /><br />

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 26th, 2005, 4:42 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 26 2005, 10:56 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 26 2005, 09:56 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm not in the habit of "making things up", perhaps you need to get a trial of ErgMonitor which is a pretty good indication of how objective I like to keep things.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />EM doesn't include a good portion of the drive, thus the distances it measures are short, as are the averages and neither are accurate. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Every time I think it would be impossible for you to come up with something even more inane, uninformed, and indicative of your ignorance, you continue to "up your game". <br /><br />I'm impressed, in a sick sort of way.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 26th, 2005, 5:13 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 26 2005, 10:42 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I could, but since you think that somehow just scaling things down makes for a completely different result, I'm not sure why I should. </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, I would assume the result is still the same. But degrees of difference can be very important where real performance is the issue. <br /><br />I suppose I am wondering why you used the extreme numbers in the first place.<br /><br />I would also be interested whether rowing at X+2 SPI at 18-22 spm is just about the same stroking power as rowing at X SPI at 30-34 spm when the SPI is in the normal range of 10-15 SPI rather than at the absurd limit of 20 SPI.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />1:50 @ 18 = SPI 14.609 (263 watts, 877joules/stroke, 3.333 sec stroke, .8 sec drive)<br />1:35 @ 32 = SPI 12.757 (408 watts, 765joules/stroke, 1.875 sec stroke, -1.458 sec/stroke, .6 sec drive)<br /><br />1:50 @ 18 = 877/0.8 = 1096 Drive Joules<br />1:35 @ 32 = 765/0.6 = 1275 Drive Joules<br /><br />The 1:35 still requires a 16% increase in Drive energy production. Not to mention, the mechanics of taking a complete stroke at a 32 can not be described as "subtley different" than doing a 1:50 at SR=18 where you have scads of time to accomplish the recovery so are hardley learning what to do, much less how to do it.<br /><br />Now if you trained S10PS the change required to increase rate are quite subtle, while at the same time the power being developed is also adequate, if not more than adequate.<br /><br />One day when I'm feeling like it, I'll do some of these pace/rate combinations and check the figures.<br /><br />There is a way to confound these results, and that would be to change the DF, i.e. increase the DF to keep the drive time long, shorten the recovery to increase the SR adn you have a whole new ballgame. A pretty good one, IMO. Lower Peak force + Longer Drive * higher rate = Considerably faster pace that is quite likely sustainable. <br /><br />I use the more extreme numbers so that the illustration is easy to understand, otherwise, you would be tempted to talk the issue to death instead of just understanding that what you have been told is true. Of course I don't see them as that "extreme". For instance, I'd have to venture into the range of SPI = 50+ if I wanted to be extremely absurd.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 26th, 2005, 5:24 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Niezgoda @ Dec 26 2005, 11:42 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What portion of the drive is missing in ErgMonitor?[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 16 2005, 04:51 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Once you are done moving the Handle with enough force to either accelerate or maintain the current velocity of the flywheel the PM [and ErgMonitor] considers the drive over and updates the display.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Ergmonitor only measures the portion of the drive where the handle speed is increasing or staying the same.<br /><br />EM does not measure the portion of the drive where the handle speed is slowing down.<br /><br />If the highest speed of the handle is midpoint through the drive, then EM will stop any measurement of drive length past the midpoint of the drive.<br /><br />Thus it is not possible for ErgMonitor to give an accurate measure of the length of the drive.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 26th, 2005, 5:31 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(DougB @ Dec 17 2005, 07:17 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>why wouldn't pulling with less force, such as towards the end of the drive with back and arms, be considered part of the drive? </td></tr></table><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 17 2005, 07:47 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>When the flywheel has been determined to be "coasting" (Torque reaches zero) is when the Drive ends. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Thus if a rower reaches maximum handle speed at the midpoint of the drive and "coasts down" through the rest of the drive, ErgMonitor will not include such "coasting" through the rest of the drive as being part of the length of the drive.<br /><br />Because of this, ErgMonitor does NOT show accurate drive length, and the average drive length is likewise not accurate.<br /><br />Both are short of the actual drive length as performed by the rower.<br />

Concept2 Forum

10mps: Race Pace, Stroking Power, And Ratio

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training