2k Times

[old] Sentinal93 · Post by **[old] Sentinal93** » November 16th, 2004, 1:44 pm

I've recently made pr's for just about all distances, and am curious as to everyones times. My main issue is the fact that my 6k is 20:32 my 10k is 35:42, but my 2k is only 6:34. Is my 2k simply that out of place or am I not pulling hard enough or perhaps am I not strong enough? My split is 1:38.5 for 2k but 1:42.7 for 6k, is this normal split differences for these different distances? What is everyone's 2k, 5k or 6k and 10k times? Eric Di Bari University at Albany Crew

[old] arakawa · Post by **[old] arakawa** » November 16th, 2004, 1:58 pm

One thing I like to do is to compare my time to specific percentiles in the C2 rankings page. For example, you'd compare your 500m time against the 90th percentile 500m time, your 1000m time against the 90th percentile 1000m time, etc. That way, you're looking at more of an average pace vs. distance profile instead of a single person's pace vs. profile (which may favor certain distances). As I'm in the top third in my age and weight category for 500m and 1000m, but the bottom half for 10k and up, I would conclude that I have less long-distance endurance than the average rower (otherwise, I'd be in the top third across the board). Of course, I need to keep in mind that these statistics are gathered from a self-selected pool: for the longer distances, I'm comparing myself against only those rowers who choose to row and rank these longer distances. Maybe I wouldn't be in the bottom half at 10k and up if everyone who rowed and ranked a piece at 1000m and below also rowed and ranked a piece at 10k and up.

[old] tomhz · Post by **[old] tomhz** » November 16th, 2004, 3:57 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Sentinal93 @ Nov 16 2004, 05:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I've recently made pr's for just about all distances, and am curious as to everyones times. My main issue is the fact that my 6k is 20:32 my 10k is 35:42, but my 2k is only 6:34. Is my 2k simply that out of place or am I not pulling hard enough or perhaps am I not strong enough? My split is 1:38.5 for 2k but 1:42.7 for 6k, is this normal split differences for these different distances? What is everyone's 2k, 5k or 6k and 10k times? Eric Di Bari University at Albany Crew </td></tr></table> Your 4sec difference between 2K and 6k pace is indeed rather small. For me it is 5 sec. Still smaller than avarage. I think for most people it is 5-8 sec. I think a smaller than average difference between 2K and 6K is common for LW's and 40+ ergers. Look at the Nonathlon scores for comparison. Tom

[old] Godfried · Post by **[old] Godfried** » November 16th, 2004, 6:07 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (tomhz @ Nov 16 2004, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Look at the Nonathlon scores for comparison. </td></tr></table> Nonathlon is a good start, but is also gathered from a self-selected pool, there are easy and difficult distances in it. Look at times other people have recorded - e.g. see my 'taff paces' link below.

[old] gorow9 · Post by **[old] gorow9** » November 16th, 2004, 8:12 pm

I'm wondering what a good 2k score is, I just did my first 2k... well timed 2k in about a year or two... this week and my time was exactly 8min. How bad is that? I'm 15yrs and have been rowing 4 a while but just started ergging for this winter season because I figured now is the time for all or nothing. Also wouldn't a lower difference mean good endurance, the 2k score seemed pretty good... not that I'd know, but I do know I definatly couldn't pull that for my life. Anyway I'd take that as a sign of endurance. ~Sara~ "Life's short... row hard." "Shut up and row." "Row till you die... then give me a power ten."

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » November 16th, 2004, 9:23 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (gorow9 @ Nov 17 2004, 01:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> ... this week and my time was exactly 8min. How bad is that? ~Sara~ "Life's short... row hard." "Shut up and row." "Row till you die... then give me a power ten."  </td></tr></table> It is just fine ... its where your at now not where your going. Dont spend to much time comparing yourself to others, just keep looking at yourself in the mirror and you will find your toughest competitor - George

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » November 16th, 2004, 9:31 pm

I have a spread sheet set up that I use to record my PB's and measure them against my 2k pace and power. Anyone who wants a copy just drop me a PM with your e-mail. - George

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » November 17th, 2004, 8:20 am

Eric, If your long-distance times are better than your short-distance ones, probably you should work muscular power: endurance doesn't seem to be the "problem". Do short, hard pieces, etc. AM

[old] Canoeist · Post by **[old] Canoeist** » November 17th, 2004, 9:12 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Sentinal93 @ Nov 16 2004, 05:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> 6k is 20:32 my 10k is 35:42, but my 2k is only 6:34. Is my 2k simply that out of place Eric Di Bari University at Albany Crew  </td></tr></table> Eric, to give you some comparison numbers, my best when in peak form are approximately: 2K 6:25 5K 17:00 6K 20:30 10K 35:00 I consider myself more of a distance rower than a power rower. I don't think this is the case for you since your 10K has a lot of room to come down. You might need the right time and place to knock off some time on your 2K. A big race could do it for you. Cheers, Paul Flack (48 years young, 210 pounds)

[old] Cran · Post by **[old] Cran** » November 17th, 2004, 12:25 pm

Those times aren't far off mine...

[old] bw1099 · Post by **[old] bw1099** » November 21st, 2004, 10:12 pm

On another discussion in the Training Forum, someone asked about how erging times changed with distance, and presented an equation that you could use to predict what your time would be for differences for running. The equation was: T2 = T1 x (D2/D1)^1.0707: So a 20:00 5K time predicts ((20:00*((10000/(5000))^1.0707) = 42:01 10K What it really means is that you will go somewhat slower when you go longer distances, but the amount that you slow down is very predictable based on the distance. I took numbers from the Concept2 Logbook to see if I could come up with an equation for erging times. I went to the "Rankings" section connected with the "Personal Training Log" and took the 50th percentile time for different distances 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 6000 and 10000m. Then I plotted them to see what exponent I would get. Mens Heavyweight - all ages --> 1.0708 Mens Heavyweight - 40-49 --> 1.0729 Mens Heavyweight - 30-39 --> 1.0718 Mens Lightweight - all ages --> 1.0514 All rowers - all ages --> 1.0585 All Women - all ages --> 1.0427 (R-squared values for the regression were 0.9997 to 0.9998 if you care about those things) For running, the exponent was 1.0707. Not much different from the 1.0708 that I got for HW Men, all ages. This approach seems justified because I have noticed that as my personal best for different distances gets better, I end up at about the same percentile for each distance. I assume that everyone else does too. bw

[old] kate · Post by **[old] kate** » November 22nd, 2004, 11:47 pm

Sara, At 15, a 2k of 8mins is very good. Congratulations. In addition to the concept 2 rankings, you can also look at the usrowing junior 2k times: <a href='http://www.usrowing.com/itemdisplay.asp?id=1471' target='_blank'>http://www.usrowing.com/itemdisplay.asp ... You'll see that your score would put you respectably on the list of these people who are training hard enough to think of submitting scores to the national site. Remember that this lists includes lots of scores from juniors up to 18 year olds (maybe even 19, I can't remember) and you'll get A LOT stronger in the next 3 years, just by getting older. Kate