Slides versus Static Erging

[Cyclingman1]

Tom, very interesting input. I wondered if you might post being one of the best 60+ slides ergers.

I may have to lower the DF some. I have been using 135-150 DF for a while now. If I'm going to use slides, I need quickness that is not too taxing. That seems to be your formula.

You have quite a background. It will be a challenge for me to get anywhere close to your times. I did improve my 500m time today at 55 SPM on slides. That is going to take some getting used to.

[steveroedde]

I have an opinion that is non-scientific, but I have 40+ years OTW sweep/sculling, and have been comfortable with "gamut" ergs of the 70s, the stationary C2, and over the past 5 years, I have been a dedicated "slider" with the model D. Upon putting the erg on slides, I immediately experienced a significant jump in performance. For 2,000 and shorter, 1 second improvement per 500 with 3-4 higher SPM. For longer pieces the improvement was harder to pin down. There was a very positive "confidence" factor that helped me in training and racing. There is a level coordination needed to get going, and I agree that getting comfortable with slides is more natural for OTW rowers.

In my opinion, the key is being able to drive the rate up efficiently and comfortably. I now row 2K at 35-36, DF 120 (I used to do 130+), and longer pieces 32-34, DF 120. I don't like to pull hard, thus I naturally like the higher SPM and lower DF. The 2K is the only distance I regularly do on the stationary erg, and I find that the 3-4 second advantage on slides has continued (I take my erg off the slides 2 weeks before the CRASH-Bs).

There is another benefit to slides, in my opinion. It is easier on the back. I find that there is a split second delay, or "hitch" at the catch with a stationary erg. This is not the case with slides.

Here is an additional piece of non-scientific, but unassailable evidence: I discussed this very issue with Dick Dreissigacker at the CRASH B a few years ago. He agreed that for shorter pieces (2,000 and shorter), there was an advantage if you could use the higher rating. But he thought the advantage disappeared for longer pieces, presumably because you don't use a high rating, or a high rating is not as much of an advantage.

Tom Cattell
Falmouth, Maine

Tom, Very useful input. I too "like" to rate high both OTW and on the erg. I once mentioned muscle fibre-type in another post and immediately got jumped on. I'll do it again.

I speculate here. If the handle forces are lower, and muscle fibre recruitment is dependant on force (which I believe it is), then the higher ratings and lower forces would allow those rowers with more FT fibres to be able to "spare them" and avoid/delay the resultant lactate bath. In my case, I know (from biopsies) that have ~70% Fast twitch Fibres in my quads. This should make me a fantastic sprinter (which I am) ...but a shitty rower (at distances over 100m). I "feel" like I can row faster on slides, but I went back and looked over the past 5 years....essentially no real difference in times from 500m to FM. I think I have done probably 50:50 OTW/slides vs static.

Would you care to speculate what % of your lifetime training, summer and winter has been on slides/dynamic/OTW (which I think you would agree are most similar) vs static? The reason I ask is the issue of sport specificity. We are good at ...what we do the most of.

I remember you from my first race on the erg in Boston...as a HWT. You and others (by nothing other than size) convinced me that I did not "belong" with the real men:-)
Cheers, Steve

[jamesg]

Does "fast" mean they act sooner, or that they can produce equally high force at higher speeds of contraction?

[jamesg]

I have an opinion that is non-scientific

The data you describe is all scientific and has solid reasons, mostly linked to Newtonian dynamics. Our acceleration at the catch can be higher than on static, with a number of consequences.

We can take the catch much quicker and don't lose so much length ("hitch").
High drag is not needed to compensate the slack catch on static.
At low ratings there are smaller inertial losses because body speeds are lower, so less to recover.

The effects are even more marked afloat. We can see how careful scullers are at the catch, where the hatchets are very fast acting too:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... rchase+ut2

[steveroedde]

Does "fast" mean they act sooner, or that they can produce equally high force at higher speeds of contraction?

James, I am not an exercise physiologist, but my understanding is:
That am not certain about the "reaction time" (aka "acting sooner") although given that the FT motor neuron has a thicker myelin sheath (insulation), the nerve impulse itself should be faster. As you say, the speed of contraction is faster (and the metabolic pathways required to do this are different). Anaerobic vs aerobic. This is why slow-twitchers make better rowers/endurance runners/endurance cyclists and so on....but useless weight-lifters/sprinters/shot-putters. Some have spent much time trying to convert to 2A or intermediate fibre-type. In my case I think this conversion allows me do do both...badly:-)
Because there are more muscle fibres per motor unit, and larger/thicker fibres, the force generated by each FT motor unit is greater as well. So, greater force, greater speed of contraction, more lactate. So no, not equal force.
Again, I believe (but am not certain) that the stimulus to recruit the FT fibres is the force required to do the job. If this is so, then the lower forces would recruit fewer FT fibres...as long as the increased rating (speed of contraction) did not provide a competitive signal.

[tcattell]

First of all Steve and Jim, thanks for your kind words. Although my erg raw erg scores may be slightly ahead of yours, the adjustment by age (Jim) and weight (Steve), puts me well behind each of you. Just check the nonathlon standings. For those of you unfamiliar, it is a database that does a good job of comparing results between light/heavy, age and gender. It will be a challenge for anyone to catch Jim and Steve, including me.

As to my lifetime training, since converting to slides, I must be 95% slides/OTW. Before that it was probably 65% OTW, 35% static. During the indoor season (six months here) I only use the erg twice a week. Otherwise I get bored. And I usually have two neighbors next to me (try not to erg alone). So I credit much of my success to my competitive erg workouts in a group setting.

I also think that one's mental attitude is important. If you like the feel of slides, you will probably do better on them, and vice versa. One last thought. Although it is easier to master the minimum technique to be erg proficient than it is to be OTW proficient, perhaps the need to master the higher stroke rate on slides may give an advantage to OTW athletes. In other words, does a higher stroke rate penalize inefficient rowing?

Tom Cattell
Maine

[RBFC]

An exchange yesterday with Concept2 stated that they have no intention of separating world records (except for the 2000m, which must be on a static erg) according to the use of slides or no slides. Why they consider it an important factor for the "premier" event, but not any of the others, is perplexing.

Lee

[Bob S.]

An exchange yesterday with Concept2 stated that they have no intention of separating world records (except for the 2000m, which must be on a static erg) according to the use of slides or no slides. Why they consider it an important factor for the "premier" event, but not any of the others, is perplexing.

Lee

It is not all that different from the rule that the 2k has to be done at a sanctioned, public event and the rest of them just require electronic verification. The 2k is the only one that really counts. There is no solid proof required for the others. The 2k is taken seriously; the others are just for fun.

[Carl Watts]

They still don't feel like "fun" to me, I would argue the longer the row the harder it is.

Sub 7 minutes of pain is one thing but 30 minutes of pain is something else and a FM is simply excruciating and your lucky to be able to walk after the finish.

[Bob S.]

They still don't feel like "fun" to me, I would argue the longer the row the harder it is.

Sub 7 minutes of pain is one thing but 30 minutes of pain is something else and a FM is simply excruciating and your lucky to be able to walk after the finish.

Wrong term, I guess. I didn't mean that it was fun to do the rowing, but I regard to the ranking of the non-2k pieces as just a game. With insufficient verification of all the items other than time, distance, date, time of day, and model, those records cannot really be taken seriously. Come to think of it, even the date and time of day are arbitrary, since the setting of the monitor is easy to change. Perhaps the system could be changed, if C2 took up some of your own suggestions, but I am afraid that there will always be some gaps. As it is, only the 2k records are reliable.

Even a race result can be bogus. I got burned by that. I thought that I had bagged WRs for the 0.5k and 1k last year, only to find out that a guy listed as several years older than me showed up in the rankings with times faster than mine - times that were not really credible. However, they had the designation "race." It took some digging on my part, but I found out that he was actually over 60 years younger than me. He had raced in the handicapped program and there are no age categories in that. Somehow he had been arbitrarily entered as well over 90. It was a clerical error, but it ended up solidly listed that way in the rankings. It was not only done at a sanctioned race, but at one of the satellite regattas. When I contacted the regatta officials, they obligingly sent an e-mail to C2 and it was eventually straightened out. But for several weeks, I was in limbo, not knowing whether or not I could get credit for them. In retrospect, to be consistent, I should not have taken it all that seriously.

[bisqeet]

They still don't feel like "fun" to me, I would argue the longer the row the harder it is.

Sub 7 minutes of pain is one thing but 30 minutes of pain is something else and a FM is simply excruciating and your lucky to be able to walk after the finish.

at present i would definetly prefer a HM over a 2k.

bt i'm guessing the shorter the distance, the more effective slides are over static..? at least make advantage of the faster rates and the power "save".
Wonder if anyone has thought about maglev on the slide or even just coating them in PTFE, super slippy substances, etc.... remove the friction completely

[Bob S.]

Wonder if anyone has thought about maglev on the slide or even just coating them in PTFE, super slippy substances, etc.... remove the friction completely

The term "slides" is a misnomer. The erg sits on wheeled carriages, so it is rolling friction, not a sliding friction.

[Cyclingman1]

After a couple of weeks of "slides" experience.

10/17: Static Erg: 4K: 14:34.4 @ 1:49.3, DF 150, SPM 29.7, W/s: 9.0. Started fast and slowed.

01/24: Slides Erg: 4K: 14:34.4 @1:49.3, DF 120, SPM 36.7, W/s: 7.3. Started slow.

Both done in a somewhat tired state. Virtually no difference in results but gotten to quite differently. Can't really say one way was easier. No scientific claims being made - just one experience.