Drive length, leg length, height, & performance

[Cyclingman1]

All of these have been touched upon somewhat, but not so much the connection between them all. Please bring your expertise and experience to this topic.

I assume that drive length is crucial to performance?

I've often seen where height is considered to be an advantage to rowing performance. Perhaps it is a bit more complicated. One can also look at leg, arm, and torso length. Of course flexibility is a factor. I'm of the opinion that leg length has mixed benefits. It would seem that long legs coupled with a shorter torso and avg arm length would make getting the handle close to the chain housing hard to do, thus imacting drive length. A longer torso would make it more feasible to get the handle more forward. Of course, longer legs increases the amount of seat travel and drive length.

Olympic rowers tend to be taller, but what does that say about their body proportions?

ErgData shows drive length. But how does one evaluate that? Is that really just a readout of one's body type?

[JaapvanE]

I assume that drive length is crucial to performance?

Drive length is beneficial up to a certain point. Drive length is the amount of travel of the handle during the drive, and taller people indeed can make it longer easier. BUT, lengthening the drive length shouldn't be a goal in itself: you have to maintain powerful and it has to be sustainable. Most extreme version is where people make the drive length longer by over-extending at the finish, making them lay flat on their back on the rail, and putting their arms in the air. It will lengthen your drive for sure, but after 10 strokes your core muscles will just give out and your recovery in the stroke will be dead slow.

I use it as an indicator. For me, I'm 183cm tall, and a normal stroke has a drive length of around 148cm, a strong one of 151cm to 154cm. But I have to be able to put power in as well, so knowing your average drive force is key here as well. If that weakens, lengthening the drive might be useless.

[Dangerscouse]

I do wonder about drive length. If you can couple it with an equally fast stroke rate, then it should be better (I say should as I'm well aware I might be missing something), but the longer drive length could all too easily be just that little bit slower, so any progress is negated by a quicker return to the catch.

I think the height issue is a bit more focused on the longer the limbs, the more musculature is engaged, along with (probably) a bigger heart, bigger lung capacity and more mitochondria etc. As we all know, this isn't an infallible assumption as there are inevitably many variables but that's my understanding of it. Also as JaapvanE says, the core can easily become compromised with an exaggerated lean.

Personally I never look at what my stroke length is, as it's never been something that I've ever tried to focus on. Having looked at the kiwi pair in the past, you'll see a notable difference in their strokes. IIRC Eric Murray's is shorter and looks more clipped, but it goes without saying it's clearly not a problem.

[MPx]

Personally I never look at what my stroke length is, ...

Same for me. I know its an input to the work calculation, but logic suggests to me that it is what it is and not something readily changed. That logic only works if you accept the classic form as the "best" way to erg. If so then shins vertical, body at 11 o'clock, arms straight dictates the catch position - reaching any further forward is poor form. The finish has legs straight, the body at 1 o'clock, elbows bent, and handle pulled into the sternum. That start to finish length is entirely dictated by physiology and is how we each measure up, no wiggle room.

Of course I realise that many exceptional ergers have an exaggerated lean back, pull the handle up to their chin, and some go forward of vertical shins and pick the handle off the chain guide. That deffo gives a longer stroke length ... but not classic form and therefore my "belief" is its not as powerful or efficient. But you can't argue with eg Mo Sbihi who pulls up to his neck (when not in a boat) - he's pretty quick on the erg!

[JaapvanE]

I do wonder about drive length. If you can couple it with an equally fast stroke rate, then it should be better (I say should as I'm well aware I might be missing something), but the longer drive length could all too easily be just that little bit slower, so any progress is negated by a quicker return to the catch.

In essence, when you look at the force curve, its horizontal axis is drive length (i.e. handle travel) and its vertical axis is Newtons (i.e. force on the handle), making the area underneath the curve the work per stroke. If you divide the work per stroke by the total stroke duration, you get the power (please realise that C2 does NOT apply this formula, but uses a much simplified version).

So making the drive length longer can make the volume under the force curve bigger, and thus can increase power. Even when the drive and recovery become longer in time, the added volume under the curve can be worth it. But there is an optimum for each individual: at a certain point adding drive length doesn't outweigh the extra time needed in drive and recovery, and thus the wattage drops.

I structurally record both force curves and drive length per stroke (OpenRowingMonitor can record them, RowsAndAll can analyse them). What I saw over the years is that with specific technique improvements my drive length increased: I learned to better connect to the machine at the catch and use my core and hip swing better. This added a lot of volume to my force curve as it made my drive length longer but also added a broader peak in the middle of my curve. So my average handle force increased over time (without increasing peak force).

Looking at a single rowing piece, I typically see that drive length remains stable, even if I get fatigued. My distance per stroke drops from 12.2 meters to 11.3 meters, and that is because the average force per stroke starts to slide. I typically compensate with slightly increasing the strokerate. So I need to work on maintaining that average force for longer, which makes a piece easier for me.

[Cyclingman1]

In looking at some work by Dr. Hagerman, noted rowing guru, his idea of the ideal rowing body type consists of longer arms and above normal "sitting height." Leg length is not specifically mentioned. I think this makes sense to me. This would address issues of knees restricting forward movement. Of course flexibility comes into play.

Re: 148 drive length at a height of 183 cm. That is 80% of height. Most don't get beyond 70% of height. For those who struggle to get beyond 60% of height, it would seem that increased SPM would be the only way to overcome that.

I suspect that those who stand by low SPM for training tend to have longer drive lengths.

[Dangerscouse]

In looking at some work by Dr. Hagerman, noted rowing guru, his idea of the ideal rowing body type consists of longer arms and above normal "sitting height." Leg length is not specifically mentioned. I think this makes sense to me. This would address issues of knees restricting forward movement. Of course flexibility comes into play.

Re: 148 drive length at a height of 183 cm. That is 80% of height. Most don't get beyond 70% of height. For those who struggle to get beyond 60% of height, it would seem that increased SPM would be the only way to overcome that.

I suspect that those who stand by low SPM for training tend to have longer drive lengths.

FWIW, I've just looked at this morning's session. R20 & 1.44 drive length and (I assume) that it was 12.4 metres per stroke (it said DPS). It was done strapless, so that might have reduced the drive length down a little bit.

In addition to longer drive lengths, I wonder if the low SPM ergers also have a notably stronger stroke?

[milansanremo]

In looking at some work by Dr. Hagerman, noted rowing guru, his idea of the ideal rowing body type consists of longer arms and above normal "sitting height." Leg length is not specifically mentioned. I think this makes sense to me. This would address issues of knees restricting forward movement. Of course flexibility comes into play.

Re: 148 drive length at a height of 183 cm. That is 80% of height. Most don't get beyond 70% of height. For those who struggle to get beyond 60% of height, it would seem that increased SPM would be the only way to overcome that.

I suspect that those who stand by low SPM for training tend to have longer drive lengths.

Your comment is exactly what I like about this forum.
I'm 177.8cm and I consistently see around 1.24 or70%.
If I pretend to be "Houdini" I can see 1.35 but it feels like I'm wearing a straightjacket.
Talk about "nailing" it...lol

[JaapvanE]

Re: 148 drive length at a height of 183 cm. That is 80% of height. Most don't get beyond 70% of height. For those who struggle to get beyond 60% of height, it would seem that increased SPM would be the only way to overcome that.

When you hit your maximum drive length one can increase stroke rate and/or handle force. The latter can even be achieved by changing the shape of the curve: one can create more volume under the shape by making the base have more volume, or by increase the peak force.

I suspect that those who stand by low SPM for training tend to have longer drive lengths.

Not necessarily. According to Cam Buchan, Phil Clap had a drive length of 162 cm (he is over 2 meters) on his last world record. Obviously at starts with 3/4 strokes, this is the case. But a good powerful stroke should remain at higher rates. At least that is what I see when comparing drive length for myself for 18SPM and 24SPM pieces (haven't done really fast pieces lately).

FWIW, I've just looked at this morning's session. R20 & 1.44 drive length and (I assume) that it was 12.4 metres per stroke (it said DPS). It was done strapless, so that might have reduced the drive length down a little bit.

As a strapless rower myself as well, I feared the same. I saw a recent YouTube video from Luke Walton (Former Olympian, now Rowing Academy) and he made the opposite point. His point is that strapped rowing allows you to indeed add length to the drive, but as you need straps to stay in position it is actually a weak position wasting a lot of power. Hitting that perfect balance at the finish is what you want apperantly.

In addition to longer drive lengths, I wonder if the low SPM ergers also have a notably stronger stroke?

Power/pace has to come from somewhere. And if it isn't strokerate, then it must be the work per stroke. When I look at recreational rowers, you have some who like a slow heavy stroke, and some others rather like a fast light one. It seems that heavyweights like the former more, as moving up and down the slide too often also has its unaccounted cost, and they often have the muscle to sustain it.

But let's not forget the enormous power elite athletes produce at high 30's to low 40's SPM. Cube law has its extremes, and the power to get to a sub 6 2K is absolutely insane.

[Sakly]

Interesting discussion. Never really looked into these metrics, but the thread catched me and I was curious about it now.
Did a HM low intensity steady session today at ~2:06, r17, drag 104 and afterwards I did some strokes at same pace and rate with ergdata screen showing average force, max force, stroke length.
Strapped in (I regularly strap in, never unstrapped) I got a stroke length of typically 1.51m, some were 1.54. Average force typically around 450, max around 600. I'm 177cm, so obviously more on the short side of rowing population.
I know I lean back a little further than others, but don't rely on straps so much. So I did the same without straps. Forces and pace were more or less the same, length was typically 1.48m. When I tried to get the same lean back I naturally tend to use, I felt being off-balance due to missing support from the straps.
More lean back needs probably a stronger core to get back into catch position, but that was never an issue and the complete movement range feels absolutely natural to me.

[Cyclingman1]

If an explanation is needed how a 40+M, Ht 69" does 6:37 2K, there it is in black and white. Obviously fitness is a huge factor but a ratio of 85% of drive length to height has to be at the top of the list. Obviously, you are able to push the handle up to the chain housing. Drive length is seldom mentioned in these forums, but it should be. Imagine a rower with a drive length of 151cm vs 110cm. It's like getting at least a 50m headstart in a 400m race.

[nick rockliff]

I don't think drive length on it's own tells you anything. I'm 193cm and did a 45min r20 session yesterday with exactly 900 strokes at a 2:04 pace.

My drive length was mainly 1.27 with some 1.24 and 1.30.

I never see anything over 1.41.

[Cyclingman1]

I certainly would not want to contend that drive length is the main determinant of rowing performance. But I do think it can be a factor, given most everything else being equal. I'm recovering from TKR and hip bursitis, but my drive length is very short even when healthy.

[Tsnor]

Too many bad things can yield improvements in drive length, so drive length is a risky thing to optimize.

Targeting longer drive is especially bad for beginning rowers who do not have hip flexibility and heavy rowers who are working around their belly - anything they do that yields longer drive is bad for them. They are better off rowing short with good technique (e.g. the Dark Horse "heel down" guidance).

Monitoring drive length change can help you see that your stroke form has changed, for example when you get tired. This lets you correct. Any change (longer drive, shorter drive) means you should think technique for a min or two before drifting back into your book/music/movie/etc.

Example: My ankles have gotten flexible, I now accidently get shins past vertical. When I notice it and shorten my stroke back up I get improved splits and higher spm at the same perceived effort level.

Ending the stroke with higher hands does give me more power at same effort and a longer drive. I don't do it because I don't want the muscle memory. OTW it wouldn't work, it would just drive the oar blade deep in the water at the point you want to remove the blade from the water. If I was only going to erg then high hands at the finish would be the form I'd use. Same thing with elbow position, mine are slightly wider from body then I'm told is optimal for erg power.

Additional lean back doesn't give me any power. But it does improve core strength. So seems a reasonable thing to do erging when you don't care about the split. People tend to row too upright, especially those with upper body strength. Exaggerated layback is a warmup drill used OTW to get a bit more swing so later rowing can target a 22% (11 o'clock) layback position. Exaggerated layback seems like a reasonable drill for erging also.

Mixing drills into erg workouts is underrated. Starting with a pic drill or reverse pic is a good idea, but I don't do it either unless it's a coached workout. Same for pause drills.

[Sakly]

Probably my drive length/height ratio is greater than from others, but this is related to many aspects pointed out by Tsnor. Drive length alone will not help for high output/performance, as long as you cannot apply force in each of the positions you go through.
My flexibility is very high, with shins vertical and feet staying flat on the plates, I can reach forward to chain housing with a flat back and very stable position. Applying high forces from this starting position is easy for me. I often trained deadlifts with very small plates to get higher ROM, same principle. Yesterday I tried how low I can get the splits on r24 (preparation for a challenge), probably with a bit more lean back, but mainly the same stroke. I could push the pace down to 1:31 on some strokes, averaging 1:35 for a minute. So strength and stable positioning for force application is definitely a huge factor, too.

The greater lean back is something I did from the start, as it feels absolutely natural to me and makes my stroke fluent and feeling great. It's not like I'm lying flat, pulling the handle over my head it's only the 3 to 5cm difference in drive length measured today, comparing strapped to unstrapped. Handle finishes right below my chest HR sensor and touches only gently.