Concept2 Forum

IDK if this is pathetic or what. I just started using this Concept2 on 10/12/24. Nine days. 69 yrs, 5’7 140lb
10/21/24
23 s/m
43 watt
229 total cal
448 cal/hr
149 drag
Lightweight

Keep at it.

Your drag is high at 149. Rowing wants power, so we choose a nice combination of force and speed in the pull, as to our shape, sex, size and age.

I'm 84y 82kg (180lb) and use drag factor 80 to 90, so that the pull is quick, even at my low force level.

PNK wrote: ↑

October 21st, 2024, 9:23 pm

10/21/24
23 s/m
43 watt
229 total cal
448 cal/hr
149 drag
Lightweight

PNK, welcome to the forum!

For the record, the most common / simplest way of describing a workout on the rowing machine is distance (meters) and average pace (time / 500m) over that distance. So, something like 2000 m, 2:38. That can actually be derived from the number you posted (e.g. 43 w = 3:21 pace) but distance and pace are the simplest.

Other information, like drag factor, are important, but mostly as "figure out what works for you and leave it there" thing. As James mentioned above, you probably want a lower DF, say around 100-120.

See the link before for some C2 online calculators:

https://www.concept2.com/training/watts-calculator

Finally, stick to it - I guarantee that you'll improve over time. Time and a reasonable effort is all it takes.

Good Luck

If we want to see speed, we can row, bike, run, walk, swim and even climb stairs.

C2 machines measure Work and derive Power.

The OP will no doubt be able to double his Power. Doubling his/her speed or halving pace will be more difficult: Power would need to be multiplied by eight.

jamesg wrote: ↑

October 24th, 2024, 1:08 am

C2 machines measure Work and derive Power.

Technically, this is a very flawed argument in many ways.

First: an Erg does not measure power. It measures flywheel speed, and the rest is derived/calculated from that. Admitted, linear velocity/pace has some additional assumptions in there, but these are extremely well accepted across the industry (even respected competitors use the same parameters).

Having built the open source alternative to the PM5, I can only confirm Ulm university and Dave Vernooy's findings: although power offers a more granular scale, with a measurement noise/inacuracy of 5% for a stroke for the average rower, that is unusable for a stroke-to-stroke reporting. ORM offers a much more accurate stroke detection then the PM5, but it still suffers from this as the underlying physics and math cause this. Pace is less granular, but also way less affected by this inaccuracy.

And as humans typically don't compare themselves to a light bulb or kettle, Watts are not intuitive. Pace, comparing yourself to walking or cycling, is

jamesg wrote: ↑

October 24th, 2024, 1:08 am

The OP will no doubt be able to double his Power. Doubling his/her speed or halving pace will be more difficult: Power would need to be multiplied by eight.

Who cares about doubling? 2:38 isn't a bad pace to start. I have some friends in our weekly saturday row in EXR who do 2:45, who are younger than OP. I was pace leader for the 2:30 pace group for over a year in those rows. Getting the hang of the rowing stroke and posture helps a lot in improving pace.

To clarify, the OP's pace was 3:21 (43 watts). 2:38 was just a number I pulled out of the air as an example.

From 43W he or she won't have much trouble doubling power. Could be a first target even at 69y.

Ombrax wrote: ↑

October 24th, 2024, 2:55 am

To clarify, the OP's pace was 3:21 (43 watts). 2:38 was just a number I pulled out of the air as an example.

Ah, thanks. I hate doing the math in Watts as it isn't intuitive. That is why we have computers these days to do that stuff for us.

3:21 is a bit slow, but as James suggests, reducing the drag might help a lot here to find a nice rhythm and build from there.

doing the math in Watts as it isn't intuitive

Learning to row implies a certain amount of effort, which is what gets the results. The sums are very simple:

The OP's height 5'7" (1.7m), age and weight 140lb (64kg) imply a stroke worth around 1m x 300Nm average (= 60% height x 50% weight). At rating 20 this is 1*300*20/60 = 100W. At 64kg, 1.5W/kg.

May take some time, as going somewhere usually does. It helps if we know where we're going.

jamesg wrote: ↑

October 25th, 2024, 12:26 am

doing the math in Watts as it isn't intuitive

Learning to row implies a certain amount of effort, which is what gets the results. The sums are very simple:

But riddled with assumptions that may not hold. Having a bad rowing posture, bad technique, bad back, some other injury, a different muscle/fat composition, muscle decay or a history of smoking kills all these sums.

May take some time, as going somewhere usually does. It helps if we know where we're going.

You don't have to do math based on bad assumptions to know direction: upwards and onwards. How far people can go is limited by their physical and mental state, making it a personal journey. No need to set artificial targets/limits based on bad assumptions.

Having a bad rowing posture, bad technique, bad back, some other injury, a different muscle/fat composition, muscle decay or a history of smoking kills all these sums.

Anyone who has such problems is free to learn to row and adjust the numbers; not the sums. I do it all the time since I can no longer maintain even 350N, let alone the 550N I could deliver 20 years ago.

upwards and onwards.

And where's that? Would you navigate without compass and sextant? If you need neither, why use a PM?

jamesg wrote: ↑

October 25th, 2024, 2:50 am

Would you navigate without compass and sextant? If you need neither, why use a PM?

Some romantics navigate by the stars, others a compass and yet more a GPS.

To each his own.