Optimal drag factor

[Bill]

Hey Cyclingman,

I can see what you mean - What follows is related but not exactly what you asked ........

I do most training at a low DF 110 to teach my legs how to a fast push but for a serious 2k I put it on 130 because I can get a better "more solid" leg push with more oomph in it .......... ie the opposite of "chasing the wheel" on a very low DF. I think other people do this as well. I've never done a different DF for each distance though.

I suppose I could/should do some training at DF 130, before the 2k test, just to get used to it again prior to the formal test.



Bill

[Cyclingman1]

What I am finding is that the energy to keep the pace per 500m constant at higher drag factors is significant. What feels good starting out does not feel so good a few minutes later. I had been rowing at around 170 DF with mixed results. If I'm feeling really strong, 170 is OK, but some days it is a chore to pull.

Lately, I've been using 135. I seem to be more constant day in and day out and over a distance, say, 5000m. I may experiment with reducing DF even further. Also, I think it puts less stress on my back.

[Carl Watts]

What I am finding is that the energy to keep the pace per 500m constant at higher drag factors is significant. What feels good starting out does not feel so good a few minutes later. I had been rowing at around 170 DF with mixed results. If I'm feeling really strong, 170 is OK, but some days it is a chore to pull.

Lately, I've been using 135. I seem to be more constant day in and day out and over a distance, say, 5000m. I may experiment with reducing DF even further. Also, I think it puts less stress on my back.

Your right, your body will find it harder with a higher DF unless you also raise the rating. The flywheel slows more and is also harder to accelerate. 170 is about where I used to row and now have it down to 135 as well. Basically you have to experiment a little to find the optimum setting for you. The advantage you have is that if you are already at your optimum fitness level then you should be able to zero in on the setting faster. Obviously if your way out of shape and your fitness improves rapidly it's just another variable in the equation.

Get your signature set-up, we would be interested in your progress.

http://www.freespiritsrowing.com/fs/fs_ctc_sig.php

[Cyclingman1]

Your right, your body will find it harder with a higher DF unless you also raise the rating. The flywheel slows more and is also harder to accelerate.

Terminology? I think "rating" means StrokesPerMinute (SPM). I have found at higher DF that SPM has to come down because of the difficulty of re-accelerating the flywheel. On short distances 500m or less, higher DF seems to produce faster times because one has enough energy to pull hard enough, often enough. Anything longer it is just a matter of how long one can hang on. That is why I've lowered my DF setting.

I thinker older rowers (60+) would have to turn down the DF just because of diminished strength and fast-twitch fibers. I've noticed in the online rankings that only a couple of 60+ rowers submit 500m times below 1:35 min. While times in the lower 1:20's for those in their 40s is not too uncommon. I see around a 20% dropoff on 500m for older rowers. For longer differences the differences are not so great - closer to 10% dropoff.

To me the biggest reason that older rowers cannot row in the lower sixes, is the loss of high end speed. It is pretty impossible to row a 6:20 2000m when one can barely do a 1:35 500m.

[Cyclingman1]

Related to my original question is what are the pros and cons of using different Drag Factors for different distances or for that matter for different speeds.

Let's say my goal is to maximize my 2K time. I could select a higher DF when doing anything of 500m or less and a lower DF when doing 5K and above. But does that really buy me anything in regards to my goal. It would seem to me that I need to get used to pulling the best 500m that I can using my DF for 2K, which let's say is 135. A person needs 500m speed and 5K endurance for 2K, but one cannot change the damper during a time trial.

Does anyone have any experience or thoughts on changing the DF or settling on one and keeping it constant for all training?

[jvincent]

Consider this newbie experience.

I have gradually increased my drag factor from when I first started. Initially I was at 100 and now I am in the 115 range. I use a single drag for all types of rows.

What I have found is that even relatively small changes in drag factor change the way the erg "feels" and this can impact how you row. Specifically, you end up changing your stroke rate.

My assumption is that this is because at the higher drag rating you feel more initial resistance on the start of the stroke because the flywheel has slowed down more. This requires more instantaneous power to get the flywheel back up to speed assuming you keep the same stroke rate.

Maybe another way to think/look at it is that your power curve for a given stroke rate will have a different shape. It's possible to have different shapes give an equivalent pace.

I just adjusted my drag up to 115 from 110 last week and my first couple of rows at the new setting felt different and it was harder for me to hit my typical distance for 30 minutes. Now that I am accustomed to it I can hit my target distance with what seems to be typical effort. This means I am either stronger or more efficient. Not sure which.

If I were to try and row a 500m at a 135 or so drag factor I have no idea how I would fare.

[NavigationHazard]

From the C2 UK site:

Tony Watts: "When ever I set the Damper to give a Drag Factor much over 150 I struggle badly, get instant Lactic build up and my training times drop off sharply. Should I train above this on some sessions and try to adapt to it or just train at whatever Drag Factor gives the best times?"

Terry O'Neill :As far as the drag factor is concerned, what you have to realise is that rowing is a question of power. Speed is a component of power, so if you can pull a full length stroke in 0.7 seconds at a drag factor of 150, this represents a certain power output. If you increase the drag factor and maintain the speed then you are generating more power, but if you increase the drag and it takes you 0.9 seconds to pull a stroke, then you could be developing less power. Every person has what is known as muscle threshold. This is the speed at which the muscle can contract. To achieve your best performance you would need to row at your muscle threshold and the only way to find this is by trial and error with the damper setting. [NOTE: To display the Drag Factor, to display the drag factor press READY and REST together and then row a few strokes. For more information about how the damper setting works, checkout the Indoor Rower FAQ on http://www.concept2.co.uk/rower]

As to the benefits of training at different damper level settings, there is a rationale here. By increasing the drag factor you could improve your basic strength, which you could then convert to more power. A relatively small improvement in strength could produce a significant improvement in power, but don't forget that speed also has to fit into the equation. Therefore, you could incorporate into your programme sessions where you increase the drag above your optimum for strength gains, then drop it below optimum for speed gains, then place at the optimum for specific power training. You could try this twice a week with short interval training, moving the damper between intervals. Try 9 x 1 minute pieces at (level 10, level 1, level 5) x 3 and see how it goes.

i would add that a certain amount of high-drag training is the erging equivalent of rowing OTW with a bungee cord wrapped around your hull to provide extra resistance. Training this way won't help you if you react to the increased drag by slowing your drive speed, as Terry O'Neill suggests can happen. Neither will it help you much if you keep the same drive speed but shift your force curve peak towards the finish. But if you can learn manage to maintain drive speed and a front-loaded force-curve profile at high drag during the occasional bit of training, you'll probably be that much quicker at the catch and stronger through the drive when you drop the drag back to normal.

[jamesg]

Does anyone have any experience or thoughts on changing the DF or settling on one and keeping it constant for all training?

From an engineer's point of view, the way to get max power into the handle without killing ourselves is to match the impedance of the machine to our own. As neither changes with rating (but may with stroke length*), rating cannot be a criterion to set the damping.

The key to rowing is to pull a full length stroke so that we maximise handle travel and minimise handle force, for any given power output. This implies a fast pull, which in turn requires low drag. But the drag cannot be so low that we can't catch up with the flywheel, otherwise we fall into a low impedance trap; not as potentially injurious as high impedance, but we (or I at least) feel a bit silly, though it won't do me any harm. You only have to try it to see, starting from zero damper; but the stroke must be a full length one, it's only this that shifts boats fast and renders the erg of any use at all if we want to get fit and elastic.

* I've had to reduce my stroke length by 30-40cm for hip surgery reasons. I get more sustainable power out at higher drag (120 rather than 100 used before) because it shortens my Newtonian slack at the catch (that I need to reach flywheel speed), i.e. influences the stroke length, qed.

As to your 2k target, the best way is to calculate what has to be done in terms of boat speed or power output, and then do it. The specific point about erging, which is perhaps unique to rowing and to the erg, is that we can train for rating 30 for 7 minutes in a 2k, by pulling the same stroke at rating 20 for an hour. The identity of the stroke is it's work content, which is Watts/Rating. The enormous advantage of the erg is that it lets us see this immediately. You can see a practical application of this idea in the L4 tables of the Wolverine plan, perhaps the most effective training plan there is, in which the L4 is fundamental.