Concept2 Forum

There is a body of belief that by reducing the 'drag' in training you create a situation where to maintain the same pace at the same rate you have to be quicker with your leg drive to both pick up the spinning fan (as it does not slow down as much) and to rev it back up again

My questions would be how low should you go?

How long would it take to habituate to this situation?

(You could also add that if your plan was to then up the drag for racing how does one go about managing that process in regard to time frame and increments)

The advantage of quicker legs I would think would be that at racing rates you are going to maintain drive length as you connect at the catch more quickly, and of course you should be more leg focused

I am aware that optimal racing drag is a a personal thing and depends on many factors not the least being technique and the balance between strength / speed / and fitness to maintain an 'optimal' rate / pace combo for the duration.

This discussion has been on the forums before but I dont think it ever hurts to reprise them to allow others to post there views and new members to become involved (or to get away from some of the crap that goes on )

George

I don,t know George.

Due to a weak back I use a low drag, 100/110 at the moment, last year I started even lower. I am not planning to go much higher than 115 for 2 k s.
I am not tall 186/6.1, relative strong but not able to fully use that. rowed 6.24 last year, think I will better that this season.

I don,t have the feeling I have to drive fast with this drag. I like the not so fast slowing down off the fan at this drag.
I have tried to up the drag sometimes but that doesn,t feel good at all anymore, it feels very hard and slow if I do that.
So to cut it short, I think If you have to up the drag, certainly for the longer distances the rowing becomes very slow and you should work on that.

Not really an answer but he, maybe someone is interested

Henry, you feel then that the higher the drag the 'stronger the back you need' ?

more random thoughts

I find it interesting watching the people at my gym who invariably have the drag 'maxed' and the rate in the 30's and the pace 2:00+. A drag that is higher than optimal for a person will I think promote a higher rate (as they seek to get back to the catch before the wheel slows to much) and a butt shoving technique as they dont have the core strength to lock the handle to the legs.

I think a danger is you are not careful when reducing the drag is 'speeding' up the catch by bringing the back and arms into play to soon.

George

GeorgeD wrote:
I think a danger is you are not careful when reducing the drag is 'speeding' up the catch by bringing the back and arms into play to soon.

Indeed. Some people (like me ..) have a tendency to bring the back and arms into play too soon. Rowing with a low drag reinforces this tendency and helps to realise you are doing something wrong. Rowing with a low drag factor (about 100) reminds me every stroke to be fast with the legs. In the "race season" (november-march for me) I use somewhat higher DF's (115-125).

Tom.

GeorgeD wrote:Henry, you feel then that the higher the drag the 'stronger the back you need' ?



George

I try to row very "smooth" accellerate during the hole drive. If I use a higher drag I have the feeling I can,t do this.

And for me about back and strenght, my muscles are stronger than my joints. So if I am not carefull I hurt myself.

GeorgeD wrote:
I think a danger is you are not careful when reducing the drag is 'speeding' up the catch by bringing the back and arms into play to soon.

George

That's an interesting observation (reinforced by Tom). One of the constructive criticisms that I get at the races is that I get my arms and back into it too soon. I've been using a low drag in the hope of improving my technique, but it may turn out that I'm actually doing the opposite! Darn!

I hope some coaches will weigh in with their thoughts on it.

Rick

Rick I played around for about 10k this morning having reduced the drag from 130 to 105. Observations were: (in no particular order)

Took me a little while to feel comfortable

Recovery seemed longer (guess that was due to the faster (even if only imagined) drive), more relaxed

You could develop a feel for 'the catch' as opposed to a 'clunk' at the catch as you connected - you could miss the catch

The stroke felt smoother in the transition from legs to arms as the load seemed less at this point

Good and bad strokes were more noticeable

I had more time to think about what my hands were doing

I could feel what my legs were doing

It all sounded nicer

George

Rick, Getting the sequence right is one of the toughest things to coach, adn it's absolutely true that lowering the DF can simply make things worse for the "early back and arms" folks, since they are trying even harder to catch a quicker flywheel.

In the end, we are looking to train some very specific habits that must occur are a specific pace. One thing that can be done to "tune this in" is set up the erg just as you would for a race, and pull some strokes until you get a very good example of a drive profile at your target race Avg Pace and Rate. Use a post-it note to mark the endpoint of that force curve. Now you have marked your drive time. Then leave the drag where it is, but row at a pace/rate combination that reflects what you would do for a 30-40 minute steady pace piece (not PB, just a workout, something like 2k +15). Note that the drive is longer (slower flywheel), adjust the Damper until the the drive time falls in line with the marked time. Now you will be practicing a similar habit during longer workouts and establishing a more solid habit.

Cheers!

Paul I know the software can show the shorter drive time on a lower drag - at what stage do you think it is actually - feelable

George

Thanks Paul,

Something new to try. I've always used the same drag for everything. In the past few years I've even stopped upping the drag for 500m and 1000m tests as I used to, and have done 500m's as low as 105 drag with no more chain flapping at the end then when I used higher drags. I felt that it indicated that I'd made progress. There is more progress yet to be made though.

The longer drive really shows during my warmup. I start at about 2:26-2:27 pace at around 16spm. The PM3 shows a long, slightly up then down bulge. After a couple of minutes I alternate 30 seconds of going 5sec/500m faster with 30 seconds back at 2:26 at 16spm. So the progression is usually 2:21 @ 17spm, 2:16 @ 18spm, 2:11 @ 19spm, 2:06 @ 21spm, 2:01 @ 23spm, 1:56 @ 26spm, 1:51 @ 28spm, and possibly faster if doing a TR, AN or test piece. As the pace increases the profile progresses from a bulge to a hump. I never quite get to a gumdrop shape, or even a left leaning haystack, but over the past couple of years I have changed it from a left leaning arete mountaintop to a slightly rounded mountaintop.

Watching the Xeno DVD is helping some with the sequence. I try to follow him, and move the same bodyparts at the same time, but it is difficult to break old bad habits. It also helps to hear his words over and over again ("One rule of thumb is that the arms are straight if the legs are moving...") I hope to eventually get it right.

Rick

Hi Rick,

When I returned to the ergometer a couple of years ago, Paul was kind enough to take a look at a short video and told me I was also opening up too early. Thanks again, Paul.

As far as the left-leaning haystack or gumdrop shape, according to Kleshnev, if you erg with a more sequential (classical) stroke you get a force profile more triangular, and if you use a more integrated stroke you get more of a gumdrop.

Here is a reference:

http://www.biorow.com/RBN_en/2001RowBiomNews12.pdf

I suspect that if you are big and have a strong upper body then you are more likely to use the integrated stroke. I suspect that a lightweight rower is more likely to use the classical stroke and get the more triangular force curve. I could be totally wrong about this. This is just a conjecture based on my own limited observations.

Byron

Byron Drachman wrote:Hi Rick,

When I returned to the ergometer a couple of years ago, Paul was kind enough to take a look at a short video and told me I was also opening up too early. Thanks again, Paul.

As far as the left-leaning haystack or gumdrop shape, according to Kleshnev, if you erg with a more sequential (classical) stroke you get a force profile more triangular, and if you use a more integrated stroke you get more of a gumdrop.

Here is a reference:

http://www.biorow.com/RBN_en/2001RowBiomNews12.pdf

I suspect that if you are big and have a strong upper body then you are more likely to use the integrated stroke. I suspect that a lightweight rower is more likely to use the classical stroke and get the more triangular force curve. I could be totally wrong about this. This is just a conjecture based on my own limited observations.

Byron

Careful with that RBN, it is POWER being represented, not Force. I misinterpretted it the first time I saw it and thought RBN had things switched around. I've discussed this with the author and there should be a RBN comparing the Power Vs Force profiles in the near future.

The most recent RBN's discuss the force and power profiles for various styles and are quite interesting reading.

George,

We're dealing with such small slices of time that "feeling it" would be extrememly difficult (as 'he who shall not be named' has shown in various screeds regarding ratio). That said, we can still learn behaviors and execute them in those small slices of time, I've got video of 1/30th second showing the descreet motion of the release happening in a single frame, and have no doubt that the most competent have habits that are executed in even smaller fractions of time.

When my wife and I row side by side on slides, we adjust the DF so that our drive times will match, and we can get the avg drive times to be within 0.02 seconds. And if we left the DF's the same it does throw off the timing and ratio of the stroke, forcing her to release early due to the slower moving flywheel. Since you are really interested in a single performance and not matching precisely with another, the PM3's X-axis time scale should be fine, though ErgMonitor can still be trialed for free. (well, the cost of a few adapters).

Yankeerunner wrote:I hope some coaches will weigh in

That would be more relevant information to have, rather than all that nonsense about drive time.

Of course a 5 foot 1 inch 95 pound woman is not going to have the same drive time PER STROKE as a 6 foot 9 inch 280 pound male.

That anyone would try to make it the same is showing their ignorance.

John Rupp wrote:

Yankeerunner wrote:I hope some coaches will weigh in

That would be more relevant information to have, rather than all that nonsense about drive time.

Of course a 5 foot 1 inch 95 pound woman is not going to have the same drive time PER STROKE as a 6 foot 9 inch 280 pound male.

That anyone would try to make it the same is showing their ignorance.

Actually those model Rowers could indeed have exactly the same drive time per stroke, however they would likely not have the same stroke length (cm) or be producing the same power per drive/stroke. In fact, 6"3" and 5'3" rowers can and do row together quite well in boats, where both drive and recovery time match precisely. There is no reason they can not train on the erg in the same manner by utilizing the Drag as an adjustment.

Making your statement above is showcasing your own ignorance John.

Please stay out of conversations which you have no useful input or the knowlege to provide any, it just shows up as "You have chosen to ignore this user." for the majority of the readers anyway.

it is POWER being represented, not Force

Hi Paul,

I see what you mean. The vertical axis is has the label power, but the discussion says the more sequential stroke produces a more triangular force curve and the more simultaneous stroke produces a more rectangular force curve.

I don't remember where I saw it, but once I saw a discussion where the author showed the forces contributed by the legs, body swing, and arms independently and how they added to a more triangular force curve for the sequential stroke and more rectangular force curve for the more integrated stroke, which is consistent with the discussion in the source quoted.

Byron