Ranger's training thread

[becz]

Lean over, legs straight, and pick up a 250 lbs. bag of sand, arms straight.

Then drop the bag of sand.

Then pick it up again, legs straight, arms straight.

Do that 3500 times.

How do your abs feel?

Are they really worn out from bending over to pick up the sand again, after you have dropped it?

Are they really relaxed when you pick up the sand, no problem at all?
ranger

I don't know what odd physiology you have, but my abs would be fine. My lower back however, which is doing most of the work, would be very tired.

[mikvan52]

Anyone can do recoveries.
ranger

" I can't understand it... I rush back up to the catch a fast as I can to take another stroke and the boat moves even slower... "

[ranger]

has my top-end UT1 become 1:40?

On the basis that you can't hold 01:40 for 2K, that’ll be a no.

My goal is 4 x 2K @ 1:38.

This seem very possible to me now.

34 spm isn't a high rate at all if you are rowing in close to a 3-to-1 ratio and doing your distance work at 30 spm.

The light resistance/drag is also much easier than high resistance/drag.

At 95 df., I think that I'll rate 34 spm for 5K.

ranger

[ranger]

Muppet. Reducing the drive time in relation to the recovery does have a positive effect on boat velocity, stroke rate constant -- but only to the extent that you can sustain the higher force-production required by the shorter drive.

Your 1:3 drive:recovery ratio at 1:40 pace 30 spm is utterly divorced from real-world rowing. You can't sustain it; you won't sustain it; you never will be able to sustain it.

Kleshnev in 1998 published an empirical investigation into rowing efficiency. Part of it looked at four coxless fours. The HW honors included a double Olympic Gold winning boat (gold in the most recent FISA Worlds as a coxed boat); and fourth in the most recent FISA worlds as a coxless boat. The LWs had a bronze at the most recent FISA Worlds and a fifth at a FISA World Cup race. Here's what they did:

Rate
MHW1 30.2 spm implying stroke duration 1.97 sec; observed ratio 47.8%; implicit d:r ratio 1:1.09
MHW2 31.1 spm implying stroke duration 1.93 sec; observed ratio 44.8%; implicit d:r ratio 1:1.23
MLW1 30.2 spm implying stroke duration 1.99 sec; observed ratio 48.4%; implicit d:r ratio 1:1.07
MLW2 29.3 spm implying stroke duration 2.05 sec; observed ratio 47.6%; implicit d:r ratio 1:1.10

These ratios can't directly be compared to erg ratios, or even to visual inspection, as Kleshnev's definition of "drive" is idiosyncratic. However elsewhere he's told Cam Rekkers (Rowperfect inventor) that his drive times are 'off' by maybe .15 seconds. If you adjust the above you get

MHW1 adjusted drive 0.79 secs adjusted d:r ratio 1:1.49
MHW2 adjusted drive 0.71 secs adjusted d:r ratio 1:1.70
MLW1 adjusted drive 0.81 secs adjusted d:r ratio 1:1.45
MLW2 adjusted drive 0.82 secs adjusted d:r ratio 1:1.48

That is to say: these world-class real-world rowers (including multiple Olympic champions) rowing along at 30 spm have ratios nowhere close to your claimed 1:3. Why? Because they're not stupid. They've figured out how to balance peak force requirements against ratio, and come down on the side of relatively less force/relatively longer drive.

Of course they could move their boats faster if they could figure out how to decrease their drive time at the same rating. They could go faster as well if they hooked up a 90 hp outboard. But they're pretty much at the physiological limit at racing speeds and ratios around 1:1.5 at around 30 spm.

I don't have any problem with peak force at all when I do 1:40 @ 30 spm. It's only about 110 kg.F. As I mentioned, I am stroking lightly. If I take a strong stroke, I do 13 SPI, not 11.7 SPI and I get 125 kg.F of peak force. There is no reason at all to reduce the peak force on my distance stroke.

This means that the high ratio is an outright gift.

Rest.

_Lots_ of it.

I now get higher peak force compared to what I used to do 10 years ago because I now use my legs, which also improves my effectiveness and efficiency, given that the legs are the quickest and strongest levers. The leg drive, I think, is also quite a bit more precise and complicated, both in its timing and sequencing and in its action at the footplate than other parts of the drive, and I am benefitting from my improved rowing skills. I can now handle this required precision and complication.

Ten years ago, when I didn't use my legs much, I got a peak force of 90 kg.F.

ranger

[snowleopard]

My goal is 4 x 2K @ 1:38.

This seem very possible to me now.

According to you it was a 'lock' in 2006 you moron. And yet, _five_ years on you can't do a single 2K in 1:38; you can't do 8 x 500/3:30 rest at 1:38. So let's not even go there, eh?

Why do yo lie so much? And why do you continually return to the forum to peddle utter shite?

[lancs]

My goal is 4 x 2K @ 1:38.

Entirely possible for you I think. Assuming you have r = about a week, oh and someone else to actually do the 2k for you.

Stating a goal as 4x2k @ 'x' pace leads to the not unreasonable assumption that you can do a single 2k @1:38. You cannot.

I know you like the attention that these statements bring but seriously, can you not see what a total and utter imbecile you look?

Anyway, enough of reality; have you thought of your excuse yet for not doing your FM 'within a month'? As I mentioned yesterday, can you please make it one of your more exotic excuses?

[bellboy]

My goal is 4 x 2K @ 1:38.

This seem very possible to me now.

According to you it was a 'lock' in 2006 you moron. And yet, _five_ years on you can't do a single 2K in 1:38; you can't do 8 x 500/3:30 rest at 1:38. So let's not even go there, eh?

Why do yo lie so much? And why do you continually return to the forum to peddle utter shite?

Because he has his public to entertain thats why! If he didnt we would all drift away and he would have nothing to live for. He knows it. We know it. By interacting with him i believe we are stopping a potential "clock tower" moment.

[bellboy]

My goal is 4 x 2K @ 1:38.

Entirely possible for you I think. Assuming you have r = about a week, oh and someone else to actually do the 2k for you.

Stating a goal as 4x2k @ 'x' pace leads to the not unreasonable assumption that you can do a single 2k @1:38. You cannot.

I know you like the attention that these statements bring but seriously, can you not see what a total and utter imbecile you look?

Anyway, enough of reality; have you thought of your excuse yet for not doing your FM 'within a month'? As I mentioned yesterday, can you please make it one of your more exotic excuses?

Im going for a maternally enraged gorilla escaping from the zoo and holding him prisoner in his classroom!

[PaulH]

My excuse guess: By the end of the month his ratio will be so huge that the monitor will auto power down between strokes, so he can't log a time.

[lancs]

Im going for a maternally enraged gorilla escaping from the zoo and holding him prisoner in his classroom!

My excuse guess: By the end of the month his ratio will be so huge that the monitor will auto power down between strokes, so he can't log a time.

Two fine contributions to start the excuse list.

Here's my suggestion:

A Spring heat wave in Michigan means The Pathological One will devote all of his time getting even faster OTW than Mike VB. The erg will be for gym rats like me only.

Either that or he will just totally blank it completely. It will be like he never even said he would pull a FM @1:48 (or is it 1:44 these days?)

[aharmer]

I would tend to agree with the OTW excuse because there is no reportable data that can expose his fraud. However, I also believe that he has little interest in actual rowing. His interest lies in receiving attention. Flopping around in a boat and moving slowly around a lake with nobody watching doesn't garner a lot of attention, and when he does get around other rowers he f***s up so bad the attention isn't what he's looking for. So for that reason I don't think he'll go with the OTW excuse, but will simply deflect and ignore the FM requests and move on to something else. He's ignored it for 5 years now, no reason to believe he'll man up and admit he can't do it now. The old lunatic will be 70 years old saying he can pull 6:16, it's nothing more than a show.

[Steve G]

Muppet. Reducing the drive time in relation to the recovery does have a positive effect on boat velocity, stroke rate constant -- but only to the extent that you can sustain the higher force-production required by the shorter drive.

Your 1:3 drive:recovery ratio at 1:40 pace 30 spm is utterly divorced from real-world rowing. You can't sustain it; you won't sustain it; you never will be able to sustain it.

Kleshnev in 1998 published an empirical investigation into rowing efficiency. Part of it looked at four coxless fours. The HW honors included a double Olympic Gold winning boat (gold in the most recent FISA Worlds as a coxed boat); and fourth in the most recent FISA worlds as a coxless boat. The LWs had a bronze at the most recent FISA Worlds and a fifth at a FISA World Cup race. Here's what they did:

Rate
MHW1 30.2 spm implying stroke duration 1.97 sec; observed ratio 47.8%; implicit d:r ratio 1:1.09
MHW2 31.1 spm implying stroke duration 1.93 sec; observed ratio 44.8%; implicit d:r ratio 1:1.23
MLW1 30.2 spm implying stroke duration 1.99 sec; observed ratio 48.4%; implicit d:r ratio 1:1.07
MLW2 29.3 spm implying stroke duration 2.05 sec; observed ratio 47.6%; implicit d:r ratio 1:1.10

These ratios can't directly be compared to erg ratios, or even to visual inspection, as Kleshnev's definition of "drive" is idiosyncratic. However elsewhere he's told Cam Rekkers (Rowperfect inventor) that his drive times are 'off' by maybe .15 seconds. If you adjust the above you get

MHW1 adjusted drive 0.79 secs adjusted d:r ratio 1:1.49
MHW2 adjusted drive 0.71 secs adjusted d:r ratio 1:1.70
MLW1 adjusted drive 0.81 secs adjusted d:r ratio 1:1.45
MLW2 adjusted drive 0.82 secs adjusted d:r ratio 1:1.48

That is to say: these world-class real-world rowers (including multiple Olympic champions) rowing along at 30 spm have ratios nowhere close to your claimed 1:3. Why? Because they're not stupid. They've figured out how to balance peak force requirements against ratio, and come down on the side of relatively less force/relatively longer drive.

Of course they could move their boats faster if they could figure out how to decrease their drive time at the same rating. They could go faster as well if they hooked up a 90 hp outboard. But they're pretty much at the physiological limit at racing speeds and ratios around 1:1.5 at around 30 spm.

I don't have any problem with peak force at all when I do 1:40 @ 30 spm. It's only about 110 kg.F. As I mentioned, I am stroking lightly. If I take a strong stroke, I do 13 SPI, not 11.7 SPI and I get 125 kg.F of peak force. There is no reason at all to reduce the peak force on my distance stroke.

This means that the high ratio is an outright gift.

Rest.

_Lots_ of it.

I now get higher peak force compared to what I used to do 10 years ago because I now use my legs, which also improves my effectiveness and efficiency, given that the legs are the quickest and strongest levers. The leg drive, I think, is also quite a bit more precise and complicated, both in its timing and sequencing and in its action at the footplate than other parts of the drive, and I am benefitting from my improved rowing skills. I can now handle this required precision and complication.

Ten years ago, when I didn't use my legs much, I got a peak force of 90 kg.F.

ranger

Rich
Just curious, did monitors measure peak force ten years back, perhaps they did just asking ?

[ranger]

did monitors measure peak force ten years back

We don't have to go 10 years back.

In order to race, back in 2005, I pretty much switched back to hauling anchor on my toes at high drag.

PaulS caught my stroke on erg monitor at WIRC 2006.

BTW, everyone seems to think that my 3-to-1 ratio at 30 spm and 11.7 SPI at 95 df. is unusual.

How can it be?

I presume that _any_ lightweight who pulls 1:40 @ 30 spm at 95 df. (Ebbesen, Stephansen, etc.) will have exactly the same ratio at 30 spm.

I assume this is exactly what someone like Eskild did/does when he rows/rowed 18K for 60min.

These folks _race_ at up over 40 spm, which would be a 2-to-1 ratio, for them as well as me.

As I mentioned, who knows, but at 95 df., I might also race at 40 spm in a 2-to-1 ratio.

Racing at a 2-to-1 ratio is pretty normal, especially for an old guy.

No reason to row in a 2-to-1 ratio at 30 spm, though.

At 95 df., when I am rating 30 spm pulling 11.7 SPI, I am in a 3-to-1 ratio.

60s lwts don't maintain such high ratios when they row because, like Nav, they raise the drag and lower the stroking power.

When they race, they pull 1:45 @ 33 spm at 120 df. and 9 SPI.

When they row 60min, they do it 1:52 @ 26 spm at 120 df. and 9 SPI.

Sure, if you don't pull as hard against higher resistance, you lower your ratio.

They don't row 1:40 @ 30 spm at 95 df. and 11.7 SPI, much less 1:30 @ 40 spm at 95 df. and 12 SPI.

ranger

[whp4]

I would tend to agree with the OTW excuse because there is no reportable data that can expose his fraud. However, I also believe that he has little interest in actual rowing. His interest lies in receiving attention. Flopping around in a boat and moving slowly around a lake with nobody watching doesn't garner a lot of attention, and when he does get around other rowers he f***s up so bad the attention isn't what he's looking for.

I daresay he got some attention in his last (sorry, only) OTW race, especially right before the sickening crunch

[Steve G]

did monitors measure peak force ten years back

We don't have to go 10 years back.

In order to race, back in 2005, I pretty much switched back to hauling anchor on my toes at high drag.

PaulS caught my stroke on erg monitor at WIRC 2006.

BTW, everyone seems to think that my 3-to-1 ratio at 30 spm and 11.7 SPI at 95 df. is unusual.

How can it be?

I presume that _any_ lightweight who pulls 1:40 @ 30 spm at 95 df. (Ebbesen, Stephansen, etc.) will have exactly the same ratio at 30 spm.

I assume this is exactly what someone like Eskild did/does when he rows/rowed 18K for 60min.

These folks _race_ at up over 40 spm, which would be a 2-to-1 ratio, for them as well as me.

As I mentioned, who knows, but at 95 df., I might also race at 40 spm in a 2-to-1 ratio.

Given the ratios that you cite OTW, that would be pretty normal.

No reason to row in a 2-to-1 ratio at 30 spm, though.

At 95 df., when I am rating 30 spm, I am in a 3-to-1 ratio.

60s lwts don't maintain such high ratios when they row because, like Nav, they raise the drag and lower the stroking power.

When they race, they pull 1:45 @ 33 spm at 120 df. and 9 SPI.

When they row 60min, they do it 1:52 @ 26 spm at 120 df. and 9 SPI.

Sure, if you don't pull as hard against higher resistance, you lower your ratio.

They don't row 1:40 @ 30 spm at 95 df. and 11.7 SPI, much less 1:30 @ 40 spm at 95 df. and 12 SPI.

ranger

You appear to have missed the question quoted below, hot did you know your peak force 10 years back without the equipment, it's not something you can guess

Ten years ago, when I didn't use my legs much, I got a peak force of 90 kg.F.