More 2k Trials

[[old] PeterD]

Hello all,<br />I did a 2K this morning and was mildly pleased that I was able to finish under 6:40.<br />I started out pretty conservativly. An attempt earlier in the week kind of blew up due to high asperations in the beginning.<br /><br />finish 6:39.4<br /> 1:42.........31spm<br /> 1:41.........31<br /> 1:39.9......31<br /> 1:36.5......33<br /><br />I am not sure, but this might have been the way I was going to get the best score at this time. I did not have a good idea of where I was due to a couple of set backs in training the past six weeks.<br /><br />Good luck to all,<br /><br />PeterD (54yr heavy)

[[old] dennish]

Scheduled attempt for tomorrow got derailed by cycling clinic and job. Had to get up early to get this in this morning. In the garage, about 43 degrees when I started. Altitude is just a touch over 7700ft. in the mountains west of Denver. <br />2.0 to 1.5 ~ 1:43.0<br />1.5 to 1.0 ~ 1:43.6<br />1.0 to .5 ~ 1:42.8<br />.5 to fin ~ 1:41.9<br /><br />total time 6:51.2 and a continuing exertion hack. Ah yes, we love the erg.

[[old] rspenger]

<!--QuoteBegin-dennish+Oct 28 2005, 04:48 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(dennish @ Oct 28 2005, 04:48 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Scheduled attempt for tomorrow got derailed by cycling clinic and job. Had to get up early to get this in this morning. In the garage, about 43 degrees when I started. Altitude is just a touch over 7700ft. in the mountains west of Denver. <br />2.0 to 1.5 ~ 1:43.0<br />1.5 to 1.0 ~ 1:43.6<br />1.0 to .5  ~ 1:42.8<br />.5 to fin    ~ 1:41.9<br /><br />total time 6:51.2 and a continuing exertion hack. Ah yes, we love the erg. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Dennis,<br /><br />Have you seen the following, taken from an article entitled "The Physics of Ergometers?"<br /><br />Quote: This means that, for a given lung-volume and breathing rate, the amount of Oxygen taken into the bloodstream would also decrease by 1% for every 70m. If oxygen uptake through the lungs is the limiting factor in aerobic power output, then you would expect your erg power scores to fall off at the same rate (or split times to increase by 1% for every 210 m due to the cube relationship between power and speed, Eq. 4.5). E.g., in Denver (altitude 1500m), the air pressure is only 80% of the sea level value, so anyone moving up from sea level and trying a long-distance erg would probably find their power reduced by 20% (or times increased by approximately 7%). End of quote.<br /><br />Of course, you are at a considerably higher altitude than Denver, so it would be more than 20% difference. At 4000 ft, I am at only 3/4 of the Denver altitude, but I find that I can improve in the 2k by over 30 seconds by going to sea level. Incidentally, the previous paragraph in that article points out that the response of the monitors of the Concept2 ergometers compensates for the changes in resistance of the ergometers due to differences in air densities, contrary to some statements that have been made in this forum.<br /><br />regards,<br /><br />Bob S.

[[old] NavigationHazard]

I've been asked by the public if we could try to post our age/gender categories along with our test times.<br /><br />Seems like a good idea to me....

[[old] NavigationHazard]

6:19.7 (MHW, 50-54) this morning, in front of about 20 people at the Passaic River Rowing Association boathouse in Kearny NJ.<br /><br />Splits per the monitor were:<br /><br />1:34.1/ r33<br />1:36.0/ r31<br />1:36.3/ r32<br />1:33.4/ r33<br /><br />I was worried about trying to go too fast and blowing up, so I aimed my pacing to go safely under 6:20. I'm now 100% sure I could have gone 6:16 today had I planned for it....<br /><br />Many many thanks to the PRRA members who coxed me, especially Gail Lahm -- you were brilliant.

[[old] bcb]

2K.....6:09.7....30 spm...(MH 40-49)

[[old] joanvb]

Hello all,<br /><br />I did my 2K on 10/16. I improved my previous best by 2.5 seconds.<br /><br />Log card: 7:22.6.....2000.....1:50.6......29<br /><br />250 splits on card:<br /><br />250 1:51.4 30<br />500 1:51.8 28<br />750 1:51.6 27<br />1000 1:51.6 28<br />1250 1:51.6 28<br />1500 1:51.2 28<br />1750 1:49.4 30<br />2000 1:46.6 33<br /><br /><br />Joan Van Blom<br />53 yr. Ltwt.

[[old] kjgress]

Great row Joan!

[[old] joanvb]

Thanks, Karen.<br />I'm impressed with your row....I've hauled my erg up to Mammoth for training on vacations, and I don't like to think about what a 2K for time would feel like there. <br />Joan

[[old] jim mcgoldrick]

Did my 2000m test Saturday. Managed a 6:23.3, @ 33spm. Splits were:<br /><br />1:35.4 @ 32<br />1:35.8 @ 31<br />1:35.9 @ 33<br />1:36.2 @ 37<br /><br />Clearly I struggled the last 600. Was optimistic that I would be good for 6:22, but a lack of speed work just killed me. (Pretty sure I saw some 1:40's in the last 100m-owww!)<br /><br />Jim McGoldrick

[[old] rower419]

Was far from happy with my 2k results, had to squeeze it in before my on the water practice and was still a little worn out from 2 head races on saturday. <br /><br />F LWT 17<br /><br />2000m - 7:50.8 - 1:57

[[old] dadams]

Haven't squeezed mine in yet. Been in Asia on business. Will try one by Friday (4 Nov). Not looking good for me this year however. May need to go back to Asia again later in November.<br /><br />Dwayne (Hvy 40-49)

[[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-->I've been asked by the public if we could try to post our age/gender categories along with our test times. </td></tr></table><br /><br />NH--<br /><br />As C2 has made clear from other years, the selection process for the USIRT is not a public matter. It is based on no objective criteria, including the quality of the trials performed, or even doing a trial at all. Decisions about team membership are entirely up to C2; they can select the team they want, for whatever reasons they might choose. This decision is made in private, according to no set procedure, and the reasons for the decision in any particular year or in any particular case in any particular year are not made available for public viewing and comment. Those who row less accomplished trials, or even those who row no trials at all, can be selected over those who row more accomplished trials, or even trials of the highest quality (e.g., under world record time). Given this, there is no reason to make the results of the trials public. The request, even if it is coming from the public, is inconsistent with the selectiion procedure.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] kjgress]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Nov 3 2005, 08:54 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Nov 3 2005, 08:54 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--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-->I've been asked by the public if we could try to post our age/gender categories along with our test times. </td></tr></table><br /><br />NH--<br /><br />As C2 has made clear from other years, the selection process for the USIRT is not a public matter. It is based on no objective criteria, including the quality of the trials performed, or even doing a trial at all. Decisions about team membership are entirely up to C2; they can select the team they want, for whatever reasons they might choose. This decision is made in private, according to no set procedure, and the reasons for the decision in any particular year or in any particular case in any particular year are not made available for public viewing and comment. Those who row less accomplished trials, or even those who row no trials at all, can be selected over those who row more accomplished trials, or even trials of the highest quality (e.g., under world record time). Given this, there is no reason to make the results of the trials public. The request, even if it is coming from the public, is inconsistent with the selectiion procedure.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I don't think that is what Navigation Hazard meant. He only meant that people were interested in knowing the age and gender of the person posting the test time. <br />

[[old] NavigationHazard]

Yes, the idea is to save people browsing the thread the trouble of looking through our introductions to figure out the information.