Distance Per Stroke

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Eskild Ebbesen and Elia Luini probably use LESS energy and pull LESS hard at 6:02/6:03 pace compared to 99.99% of competitive rowers. </td></tr></table><br /><br />True. But even as lightweights, they still pull hard--very hard--as you reported, about 11.5 SPI.<br /><br />No one is denying that, once you can pull hard with high efficiency, given your size, gender and age, the challenge is to raise the rate (as high as you can). Once they can pull hard, the great champion rowers can raise the rate pretty darn high.<br /><br />You can't do much at all if you can't pull hard, though.<br /><br />8 SPI at 41 spm is not 6:03 but about 6:52. Ebbesen and Luini would be nowhere if they only pulled 8 SPI.<br /><br />John, you keep talking the talk but not walking the walk. If, given some neglected, weak stroking power, as yours is, it is easy to devise a training program to raise the rate to 41 spm (from say 32 spm), while keeping the power low, then let's see it. It would be great to see you row 6:52.<br /><br />As generations of coaches and trainers have advised, I suspect that you could get faster more quickly and moreeasily by increasing your SPI first and then working on rate later. 10 SPI at 32 spm is also 6:52.<br /><br />To each his own.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Apr 20 2005, 10:22 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Apr 20 2005, 10:22 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No one is denying that, once you can pull hard with high efficiency, given your size, gender and age, the challenge is to raise the rate (as high as you can). Once they can pull hard, the great champion rowers can raise the rate pretty darn high.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />To the contrary, it's the other way around. <br /><br />#1- You can't pull hard at low rates, and at the same time have high efficiency.<br /><br />The champion Italians and Danes raise the rating, and then as a result of rating they go faster!<br /><br />#2- You are a great example of the opposite that they do. You lowered the rate to pull harder, and now for 2 years you've not been able to complete any of the 2k's you were aiming for.<br /><br />#3- I have, as you are well aware, previously put in considerable time training at low rates. Surprise!!!! All my times got slower. The I went back to higher ratings and again reached my previous (faster) times. However the highest rating I have used have been around 8 meters per stroke (except the 500). Thus I have not gotten anywhere near 40 spm for a 2k. It would be interesting to see what my time would be at 40 spm. I'm sure it would be faster, so will just need to try this some day and find out.<br /><br />#4- You make a mistake by saying Ebbesen and Luini pull hard, when in reality they drive VERY LIGHTLY considering the pace they are going. In fact they drive more LIGHTLY than most all other rowers going the same pace that they do.<br /><br />#5- Elia Luini generates about 470 watts for his 2k.<br />

[[old] jamesg]

The Interactive, for a 2k test time of 6:32, suggests these Wattages, ratings and work/stroke levels:<br /><br />UT2 22s/min 243W 11,05 Wmin/stroke<br />UT1 24...... 286... 11,92 <br />AT.. 28...... 330... 11,79 <br />Test 34...... 372... 10,94 <br /><br />To be noted that the Test level is the last test, while the training levels, which should bring us to a faster test, are harder. The peak work/stroke level seems to be at 24-28 rating, UT1-AT, which with UT2 is almost all training: faster and there is some drop off. How much depends on our technique as well as CV and it's no joke for anyone to pull just as hard and long at 34 as at 24. Nice work if you can do it, you'll get a WR or a very heavy medal.<br /><br />For a 90s 2k test pace, all the Work/stroke levels are higher than 14 Watt minutes.<br />At mine, luckily, it's lower, around 9 W-min.<br /><br />Both the Wolverine L4 and the Gold Standard ARA method show a similar structure - hard and constant work/stroke levels, so that between bands, W varies only with rating. Very simple. The idea seems to be that doing this we can train CV and strength at the same time, as well as technique.<br /><br />These ideas are used during CV training, which can be even 2-3 years before a World or Olympic race. Then in the last 2-3 months it seems they use the lighter faster pulls, to take a rest and sharpen up. During training, even the best in the world go slow, there's no prize for doing a PB a year before the big day.<br /><br />The alternative is presumably to pull in all training bands at the same or similar rating as we would use in a race. I'm not keen on this idea, and have never tried it. Does anyone know if it works for CV and also for strength, at least on the erg? If it doesn't, how do we increase strength? When we then come to a race, there would be no room to up the rating, and the only option woukd be to pull harder. And how do we do that if we've not trained for it?<br /><br />I've never seen this idea used on water; it would oblige us to pull slowly and then rush forwards. Every crew I've ever seen does exactly the opposite. Let the boat run is the name of the game.<br /> <br />On the erg anything goes it seems, you can't fall in and coach can't throw you out.<br /><br />Maths.<br />There seem to be some misconceptions. If we pull 200W for one minute, the work done in that one minute is 200 Watt minutes. If the rating was 20, we did 200/20 = 10 Watt minutes of work per stroke. We can divide by rating, because rating has dimension 1/T, not T. Far from being meaningless, this tells us what we did in those strokes. If we know our length, we can even calculate the average force applied to the handle.<br />Of course we can select the level that suits us, and once we've found it, higher or lower will not be better or worse, just less efficient.<br /><br />Engineering<br />We must not confuse Power and Work. There's the same difference as between Velocity and Distance.<br />Watt minutes is just a convenient unit; in Ws units, the number would be equally good but 60 times bigger, in Wh or kWh too small.<br />SPI is a fancy name for Work done.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Apr 20 2005, 12:19 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Apr 20 2005, 12:19 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />To the contrary, it's the other way around. <br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />It ALWAYS is John.... it always is......

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->#1- You can't pull hard at low rates, and at the same time have high efficiency. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Depends what you mean by efficiency, I guess. I am in your age and weight division, and I can pull your 10K time (1:56 pace) pretty easily at 20 spm and a UT2 heart rate (155 bpm). <br />Is that what you mean by efficiency?<br /><br />That's what _I_ mean by efficiency. And as I understand it, that's what the C2 interactive plan means by efficiency: UT2<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are a great example of the opposite that they do. You lowered the rate to pull harder, and now for 2 years you've not been able to complete any of the 2k's you were aiming for. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Not at all true. I started rowing strapless at low rates after my 2003 CRASH-B world record row. The result of this training was two more world record rows the next fall, the first a second faster than my CRASH-B row, the second row, two seconds faster. <br /><br />Verdict is still out on what will happen next time I race.<br /><br />I am pretty happy wih the results so far. Over this period, those parallel to me in age and ability (e.g., Mike Caviston, Dennis Hastings, etc.) have slowed down about 10 seconds for the 2K. I think I still have a good chance of going substantially faster. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However the highest rating I have used have been around 8 meters per stroke (except the 500) </td></tr></table><br /><br />John--<br /><br />Meters/stroke is not a rating.<br /><br />What do you rate now (in spm) when you row a 2K? <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You make a mistake by saying Ebbesen and Luini pull hard, when in reality they drive VERY LIGHTLY considering the pace they are going </td></tr></table><br /><br />As I see these things, potential for pulling (and pushing) hard (SPI) has more to do with size (height, weight, etc.) than pace. Both Ebbesen and Luini are my size (or smaller). Therefore, I think they are indeed pulling hard when they race at 11.5 SPI. The hardest I have pulled a 2K has been 10.5 SPI. <br /><br />Perhaps Luini and Ebbesen shouldn't pull as hard. If they pulled more lightly, they could go faster! <br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger