Is Height A Factor ?

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 26th, 2005, 5:57 pm

Paul, The C2 doesn't account for weight but, as you are well aware, the more advanced and much more expensive RowPerfect does. By not accounting for weight, C2 does NOT divide the watts by one's weight, which favors heavy and or overweight rowers who trade weight for pace, but who don't have the fitness to compare power output by weight, as do lightweights. However this is very easy to do. Just divide the watts output by the rowers weight. This gives you the performance level of that rower for that distance, and favors neither heavier rowers or lighter ones.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 26th, 2005, 6:02 pm

PaulH, You are out of line and if anyone is dishonest it is you. This is a direction quotation from your posting. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(PaulH @ Jan 25 2005, 06:28 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Two points: 1. Most less tall rowers take this advice? I know perhaps 50-60 'less tall' rowers directly, and none of them takes this advice. </td></tr></table> You stated above, that NONE OF THE ROWERS YOU KNOW take the advice to restrict their rating! The truth is that you make so many twisted and biased remarks that you end up tripping yourself and falling down in a hole. Well here's some advice for you, Paul. If you can't stand by the statements you make, then don't make them.

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » January 26th, 2005, 6:06 pm

John, You've never provided any evidence I'm aware of that there is such a thing as trading weight for pace. Intuitively it is an unlikely thing to be real. Traditionally things that are both unlikely and have no evidence are discounted. Hence your argument is invalid. On the up side, Ralph Earle has sent me details of a competition - in rowing no less - where the winner was decided by W/kg! Apparently some part of the 2002/2003 Italian Grand Prix 500m event was decided this way (we have no information on whether that was a one-off event). So. subject to official review. the final score seems to be: Competitions by W/kg: 1 Competitions by other methods: ooh, millions and millions and millions. I'd have to say it's an interesting event, but not proof of anything. For the record, I think the highest scoring person by a good margin (but not the fastest) was a lightweight, the next few (I didn't count, but more than half a dozen I'd guess) were heavyweights. So well done, challenge is met. Now please answer the 7 other points I raised that might in some way demonstrate that your theory is in any way correct. Cheers, Paul

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 26th, 2005, 6:22 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 26 2005, 01:57 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Paul, The C2 doesn't account for weight but, as you are well aware, the more advanced and much more expensive RowPerfect does. By not accounting for weight, C2 does NOT divide the watts by one's weight, which favors heavy and or overweight rowers who trade weight for pace, but who don't have the fitness to compare power output by weight, as do lightweights. However this is very easy to do. Just divide the watts output by the rowers weight. This gives you the performance level of that rower for that distance, and favors neither heavier rowers or lighter ones. </td></tr></table> The RowPerfect does not simply divide Watts/weight, and based on comparisons of the Rowperfect force curve and direct handle pressure measurement, all of the RowPerfects calculations must be under some suspicion as for accuracy. "Different" for sure, but "more advanced"? Not really. That said, the RP has been shown to reflect what an athlete might achieve in a boat if their technique in the boat were near ideal. (A very large "IF" and "Might") This is done by manipulation of the adjustment factor in the Watts to Pace conversion that is 2.8 for the C2, but is changed slightly for the different boat classes on the RP, along with a weight adjustment factor. And in fact this has also been done on the C2 web site for an 8+. Once again, you must give more detail on how to trade weight for pace, I'm sure it will be fascinating. Many people certainly lose weight and become faster on the Erg, but that's in opposition to your previously stated "fact" that "being heavier is an advantage all on its own".

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 26th, 2005, 7:35 pm

PaulH, I am not religious, however, there is a phrase that serves well in this instance that goes something like, "though shalt not cast pearls before swine". Well I don't mean to hurt your feelings or anything but most of your messages I don't bother to read, because after the first sentence or two it is evident that you have nothing of importance to say or to offer. Also you seem filled with vindictiveness. Which is very strange. Maybe put some signs around your house that say "8 meters per stroke!" so you can get used to this and not be so uptight? Really it's just a phrase isn't it. Like I have said before and said on the old forum too, if you want to row at 20 spm then have at it. That doesn't bother me, at all. You see I have a different outlook than you do. I have no intention to try and "force" anyone to do anything, as you seem intent on doing. Rather I like that people can be independent and make up their own minds about what works and what doesn't. As to your questions, they are very silly. You have asked me where is a competition for watts per kilogram. Well I am not a race director so why should I answer you? And I have no interest in you coming to a competition. Also I have never said, nor care, if there is any competition for this or not. If you care, then put one on. Your other questions I likewise find to be very silly and not worth my time. By the way do you ever row anything? I don't see your times in your profile. Notice that mine are there. Yours aren't. Does that mean you don't row? Or perhaps you will find these questions to be very silly and not worth your time. Cheers.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 26th, 2005, 7:41 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(PaulS @ Jan 26 2005, 02:22 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Many people certainly lose weight and become faster on the Erg </td></tr></table> PaulS, I'm glad to hear that and looking forward to rowing under 5:40 for the 2k one of these days, since I'm lighter than the ones who have done this. Thank you for your support. By the way if I ever get a computer in the garage I will like to try your ErgMonitor.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 26th, 2005, 8:14 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 26 2005, 03:41 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(PaulS @ Jan 26 2005, 02:22 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Many people certainly lose weight and become faster on the Erg </td></tr></table> PaulS, I'm glad to hear that and looking forward to rowing under 5:40 for the 2k one of these days, since I'm lighter than the ones who have done this. Thank you for your support. By the way if I ever get a computer in the garage I will like to try your ErgMonitor. </td></tr></table> Perhaps you misunderstood, you have previously claimed that "gaining weight is an advantage", many suggested you try rowing with a backpack, and someone even did try that and found that it did not help them at all. Notice that I did not say that people get faster because they lose weight, however you have claimed that "the fastest ergers are lightweights" (even though there is no evidence to support that). I'm also looking forward to your 5:40 2k, any idea on when it will happen? You may as well go for the 5:39.9 and be part of a handful of folks to do that. You would really enjoy ErgMonitor, there is nothing like reality to illustrate reality. On second thought, I'm not sure you could survive that confrontation, similar to the matter/antimatter problem.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 26th, 2005, 8:21 pm

PaulS, You have lost me. I thought you said many lose weight and get faster. Anyway if you think ergmonitor won't be useful then that's fine. Perhaps it's all for the best.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 26th, 2005, 8:38 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 26 2005, 04:21 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>PaulS, You have lost me. </td></tr></table> Nothing new there. ErgMonitor is extremely useful for those that deal in the real world, rather than the imaginary Bizzarro World where there is nothing faster than a slow lightweight and nothing slower than a fast heavyweight. Real World = "Land of S10PS" (Not slow SR, not Fast SR, but "just right") Cheerio!

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 26th, 2005, 8:53 pm

Well if it works in the real world that will be fine with me. I think we -- might -- agree that using the same meters per stroke for most or all distances is sufficient. Where we disagree is that there is one specific MPS for everyone.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 26th, 2005, 10:01 pm

I looked at the E/M web site a bit ago and it looks like the display shows Torque having a direct relationship with Watts. Is that right? Does "handle speed" also have a direct relationship with watts? And "stroke length"? That's probably not the case but it would be interesting to know if it is.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 26th, 2005, 10:03 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 26 2005, 04:53 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Well if it works in the real world that will be fine with me. I think we -- might -- agree that using the same meters per stroke for most or all distances is sufficient. Where we disagree is that there is one specific MPS for everyone. </td></tr></table> Hey, now we're getting somewhere, and I can even narrow it down further, I don't see the Erg as anything other than a tool to improve what happens in boats and in boats everyone in a given boat is going to travel the same number of meters per stroke, which means they must be in the same ratio (to truly be together), and that ratio is determined by certain physical variables as well as biological ones. That said, while some may prefer a weak stroke done very frequently, that is not what is going to work in a boat because it creates some very large inefficiencies in speed fluctuation. Thus the 6:04 @ SR=42 is only going to be a benefit in a boat if everyone in that boat is going to do a 42, i.e. The Danish 4-. I suspect the margin in power production that Eskild maintains over his teammates is used to help him maintain good control throughout the entire race as he will tire less than the rest, a very good reason to have him in the stroke seat. There is some room for modification when rowing a boat alone, but the vast majority of boat moving is done as a team. There are only 4 events that are done alone, 1x, W1x, L1x, LW1x, and in the Olympics only two 1x, W1x. Anyone can trade some rate for pace when they have no more strength, but if you want a true improvement in overall fitness, the strength is going to have to improve along with everything else. I don't suppose you would say that a person who lifted 100lbs 100 times in 200 seconds, was stronger than a person who lifted 200lbs 50 times in 100 seconds. Or that the later was incapable of doing the 100x100 set. Though the former could easily be incapable of doing the 200x50 set. One of these guys has a lot more power, can you tell which one? Finally, S10PS is a training tool, not necessarily a racing tool, though the fastest in the world tend to be there, due to two facts, they are generally Water rowers and that is the ratio for which they are trained, and that ratio is very likely close to the optimization of our biological machine. So while you may not be a water rower, most around here are the same species.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 26th, 2005, 10:17 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jan 26 2005, 06:01 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I looked at the E/M web site a bit ago and it looks like the display shows Torque having a direct relationship with Watts. Is that right? Does "handle speed" also have a direct relationship with watts? And "stroke length"? That's probably not the case but it would be interesting to know if it is. </td></tr></table> No, Torque has a direct relationship with Handle force. Watts are being continuously absorbed by the flywheel, so they are correlated. Handle speed has only a direct relationship with RPM, watts will have an exponential relationship with handle speed and RPM. Stroke length as displayed is only "useful stroke length" which is the distance through which the handle travels with positive force being exerted on it, rather than the linear distance the handle travels before changing direction, though getting those distances to coincide would be a good thing. The power of the drive can be expressed in terms of Average Handle force, and that is something of great concern. Once again, we can put a few more or few less drives into each minute, but if any of them are lacking in average force they are not helping the team. Another improtant factor is the "time to rise", i.e. as long as everyone reaches peak pressure in the same instant from the catch, the effect is synergistic, if they are off slightly the "laggers" never really get any force on the handle as the boat was moved out from under them. They are the ones at the end of a race that talk about "wishing they had pulled harder".

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 26th, 2005, 10:24 pm

PaulS, Thanks for clearing that up. As regards Torque, this jpg shows torque and watts having a direct relationship, i.e. 19:1000 and 9.5:500 etc. <a href='http://www.ps-sport.net/images/forceplot.jpg' target='_blank'>http://www.ps-sport.net/images/forceplot.jpg</a> Is this not the case then?

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 26th, 2005, 10:26 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Thus the 6:04 @ SR=42 is only going to be a benefit in a boat if everyone in that boat is going to do a 42, i.e. The Danish 4-. I suspect the margin in power production that Eskild maintains over his teammates is used to help him maintain good control throughout the entire race as he will tire less than the rest, a very good reason to have him in the stroke seat. </td></tr></table> So would you say, then, that 8 mps is good for teams like Ebbesen's, having a lighter and faster stroke, but that 10 mps is better for teams that have a lower rate but drive harder.

Concept2 Forum

Is Height A Factor ?

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General

General