Have you optimised your DragFactor?

[Gammmmo]

Like alot of people (I suspect) I have over the last year or so erged with the same DF. This has been at ~120-122 as seems popular BUT I've never actually tested where my HR tends to be for a given pace and DF. Have you done this experiment and if so what did you find? Did the DragFactor correlate with your preferred distances and/or your bodyweight? (I'm thinking obviously a high DF is likely to suit someone 120kg who likes doing 500m PBs for instance!) I'm also thinking that HR being affected by lots of things I will need to obviously keep lots of things like temperature and hydration constant during any such tests.

[JMac]

Being extremely heavy (and having little knowledge of drag factors etc), I started off with everything at higher drag factors (>140).

I've generally settled with around 130 for anything 5K or over.

Sprints are my strength and I'm still trying to find an optimum drag factor for maximising 100m and 500m performance. Weirdly my 2K PB was done at 180DF compared to 164DF for my 500m PB

[Anth_F]

It's actually opposite!

Example: a Marathon runner (slow twitch) would use higher DF. Whereas someone who is Big sprinter fast twitch and explosive would use lower DF to catch the flywheel.

[MPx]

I use a relatively high DF of 145 for most distances and even higher for the 100 to 500 stuff. I've "optimised" in that I've read over many years how around 120 is "right"...together with a stroke rate in the low 20s - whereas I prefer high 20s, typically 27. When I started in 1997 before I knew anything - let alone about DF, I simply set the fan lever on 10 and did everything at max (whatever DF that was - and given it was my own new machine it was probably 200+). After about a decade (!) I became more open to conventional wisdom and started to reduce the DF bit by bit. It may be that I tried to do it too quickly, but after a few weeks I was down to 140 or less and really struggled to perform at all let alone anywhere near my best. I found that really demotivating. By 2011/12 I was back up to 150 or more and managed a full set of PBs (except the 5k). I was off the erg from 2012 to 2016 but have been coming back since late last year using 145. I know its "too high", but it seems to suit me which no doubt results from my own unique adaptions to various elements of poor technique. In most sports I've relied on a bit more strength and a bit less fluid technique than I'd prefer. Having got to where I am, its a bit like my golf swing....I'm not prepared to take the backward step to start again and do it properly which I accept might ultimately enable me to get better. I'm not at all competitive so my motivation is about being "good enough" in my own estimation. At the peak of my modest Squash career I was described as a "useful player" by my club which I think exactly describes the level I aspire to. I will never be a single figure golfer....and I will never be a sub 6:40 erger, but I used to keep my handicap in the mid-teens and I do expect to be a Sub-7 erger (though that latter target remains somewhat elusive in this comeback period!) - and that's as far as my ambitions stretch, so all good!

[Gammmmo]

It's actually opposite!

Example: a Marathon runner (slow twitch) would use higher DF. Whereas someone who is Big sprinter fast twitch and explosive would use lower DF to catch the flywheel.

Really? I would've thought the stronger you are and the more pre-disposed you are towards being more of a strength athlete the more a high amount of resistance would suit? If you are right, it would go someway I guess as to explaining why I rate quite low (my DF is not overly low)...other than my cr4p technique of course.

Would you say someone might do better for a shorter distance with a higher DF?

[Anth_F]

It's actually opposite!

Example: a Marathon runner (slow twitch) would use higher DF. Whereas someone who is Big sprinter fast twitch and explosive would use lower DF to catch the flywheel.

Really? I would've thought the stronger you are and the more pre-disposed you are towards being more of a strength athlete the more a high amount of resistance would suit? If you are right, it would go someway I guess as to explaining why I rate quite low (my DF is not overly low)...other than my cr4p technique of course.

I know, i used to think the opposite too, that was until i found out how it really works from watching this vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4COPlfJfnuA&t=251s

[Gammmmo]

It's actually opposite!

Example: a Marathon runner (slow twitch) would use higher DF. Whereas someone who is Big sprinter fast twitch and explosive would use lower DF to catch the flywheel.

Really? I would've thought the stronger you are and the more pre-disposed you are towards being more of a strength athlete the more a high amount of resistance would suit? If you are right, it would go someway I guess as to explaining why I rate quite low (my DF is not overly low)...other than my cr4p technique of course.

I know, i used to think the opposite too, that was until i found out how it really works from watching this vid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4COPlfJfnuA&t=251s

OK thanks - I just watched that video. (I like that Dark Horse stuff - hadn't seen THAT vid though.) I will experiment with increasing the DF up a bit then. I suppose I can either do this OR continue in earnest with increasing my spm (Henry keeps telling me to do this as I rate low). Did you change your DF after viewing the vid? Did you get better "scores" as a result?

[Anth_F]

OK thanks - I just watched that video. (I like that Dark Horse stuff - hadn't seen THAT vid though.) I will experiment with edging the DF up a bit then. I suppose I can either do this OR continue in earnest with increasing my spm (Henry keeps telling me to do this as I rate low). Did you change yours after viewing the vid? Did you get better "scores" as a result?

I did, and i found that for me personally, working from a 3 damper setting = 101 df i was lot less efficient and produced less work than i did working from a damper setting of 5 = 120 df. I also felt much more connected and could engage better... And as he explains in the video, i felt less fatigued.

Yeah, experiment a bit and see.

[Gammmmo]

OK thanks - I just watched that video. (I like that Dark Horse stuff - hadn't seen THAT vid though.) I will experiment with edging the DF up a bit then. I suppose I can either do this OR continue in earnest with increasing my spm (Henry keeps telling me to do this as I rate low). Did you change yours after viewing the vid? Did you get better "scores" as a result?

I did, and i found that for me personally, working from a 3 damper setting = 101 df i was lot less efficient and produced less work than i did working from a damper setting of 5 = 120 df. I also felt much more connected and could engage better... And as he explains in the video, i felt less fatigued.

Yeah, experiment a bit and see.

Did you try going higher than 120? Also, Remi's comment below yours adds credence to what you said re: that video. Clearly, Remi is more of a "strength athlete" (hope he doesn't mind me labelling him that!) than I am and does indeed use a lower DF than me. Also seems to be the case that people do change it according to distance though...lower distance = higher DF. Given I am a flyweight compared to many on here I'm tempted to increase my DF.

[Anth_F]

OK thanks - I just watched that video. (I like that Dark Horse stuff - hadn't seen THAT vid though.) I will experiment with edging the DF up a bit then. I suppose I can either do this OR continue in earnest with increasing my spm (Henry keeps telling me to do this as I rate low). Did you change yours after viewing the vid? Did you get better "scores" as a result?

I did, and i found that for me personally, working from a 3 damper setting = 101 df i was lot less efficient and produced less work than i did working from a damper setting of 5 = 120 df. I also felt much more connected and could engage better... And as he explains in the video, i felt less fatigued.

Yeah, experiment a bit and see.

Did you try going higher than 120? Also, Remi's comment below yours adds credence to what you said re: that video. Clearly, Remi is more of a "strength athlete" (hope he doesn't mind me labelling him that!) than I am and does indeed use a lower DF than me. Also seems to be the case that people do change it according to distance though...lower distance = higher DF. Given I am a flyweight compared to many on here I'm tempted to increase my DF.

I increased to 128df, and lost my sweet spot. I found it harder work... so 118-120df is my optimal setting on longer SS sessions, think r19-r20. Though with that in mind, i do hike up the drag to around 127'ish on short interval training and find it works well. But of course i'm rating higher too so. I do think you could very likely find a better suited df for yourself by experimenting with higher settings, Paul.

[Carl Watts]

Pretty hard to get it perfect there are too many variables that are not consistent from one day to the next from temperature to humidity to your ability to put in the same effort from one day to the next when your trying out "Testing". Anyone training hard knows it gets harder and harder from Monday to Friday until you rest. Performance from one day to the next can be all over the place and back to back rows are no good either.

Basically the 110 to 130 range is good for distance once your at your peak, especially at low rating work or the flywheel slows too much. Sprints are quite different and I think choosing the right drag here becomes more critical as you have a trade off at the very start. 130 proves pretty hopeless when all I can get the pace to is about 1:36 but move it to 170 and 1:20 pace becomes possible so clearly optimizing it for a 500m sprint becomes a big deal.

Some people here disagree but I see drag factor as like gears on a bike, get it too low and its like trying to go down hill at pace in the wrong gear, you simply cannot spin the crank fast enough to get drive. The drag factor and the rating and pace are all connected if you want to optimise it against your heart rate.

Probably bigger things to worry about in the scheme of things bearing in mind the drag is a continuous adjustment and on the Model B it had two settings. It would make little difference to most people if they had it at 130 or 136 and when you only check it now and again and don't clean the fan for 12 months it drifts down on you without you even noticing it and your performance doesn't change to the point you start to question whats gone wrong.

Bigger gains to be had from keeping your erg in "Race" condition mechanically.

[gouldilocks]

Strangely I have also found that I have used a lower DF for my shorter distance PB's than for the longer distance PB's.
For my 100m,500m and 2k I used 140-160 DF, and for all the other PBs up to the marathon I used between 215-230 DF.
I think it is just personal preference, but I find that I do not have the raw power to blast out 1:15's on 200+ DF, but prefer the long slow stroke with the higher DF over the longer distances.

Paul G

[Anth_F]

Sprints are quite different and I think choosing the right drag here becomes more critical as you have a trade off at the very start. 130 proves pretty hopeless when all I can get the pace to is about 1:36 but move it to 170 and 1:20 pace becomes possible so clearly optimizing it for a 500m sprint becomes a big deal.

Now thats very interesting! I've never went above df130 for fast stuff and i struggle to see much better than 1:33 @ df128'... even scratching my head wondering how the hell do folk see these 1:20's etc (i know i'm lightweight but even so). Maybe your explanation has a lot to do with that.

Next interval session i'm going to up the df to 160'ish and see what comes of that.

[kerosene]

I think the darkhorse video is a bit misleading. Sure you need snappiness and technique to get the watts up at lower DF. Still strong explosive sprinters will not be able to put their max power out at lower df.

[Cyclist2]

I agree with Carl. It's a matter of finding the right DF for your rating and strength. I use about 125-130 for almost everything because at low ratings I can get a strength workout without the real heavy pull and I can get higher ratings without losing power or having sloppy strokes. I only change the DF for specific workouts, i.e. when I'm working on super high rating drills to improve my technique (low DF), or want a "weight" workout for my arms at low ratings (high DF).

I've mentioned the bicycle gearing analogy many times, and I still think it is a good one - find the gear that matches the incline or workout. There is no "optimal" DF.