Sub 10-mintues for 3,000 meters.

Topics relating to online racing and training with 3rd party software.
Post Reply

Are you capable, either now or later (through training), or rowing sub 10-minutes for 3,000 meters.

Poll ended at September 10th, 2008, 1:35 pm

Yes.
3
27%
No
8
73%
 
Total votes: 11

Thomas
1k Poster
Posts: 125
Joined: March 21st, 2006, 10:56 pm

Sub 10-mintues for 3,000 meters.

Post by Thomas » August 11th, 2008, 1:35 pm

Are you capable or rowing sub 10-mintues for 3,000 meters?

I think of sub 3-minutes for 1,000 meters, which is maybe not possible even if I trained, and sub-6-minutes for 2,000 meters, which is absolutely impossible for me. Some other possible, but not attempted goals for me would be sub 17-minutes for 5,000 meters and 8500 meters for 30-minutes. I think if any of these pieces (1k, 3k, 5k, 30-minutes)were races, I would not feel bad if I did not medal and rowed one of these indicated goals times.

Thomas
1k Poster
Posts: 125
Joined: March 21st, 2006, 10:56 pm

Post by Thomas » August 11th, 2008, 8:01 pm

If you vote "no," what would you consider a challenging time?

User avatar
Citroen
SpamTeam
Posts: 8059
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 3:28 pm
Location: A small cave in deepest darkest Basingstoke, UK

Post by Citroen » August 12th, 2008, 3:34 am

3K in ten mins is a 1:40 split.
2K in sub 7 mins is a 1:45 split.

Do the maths.

User avatar
johnlvs2run
Half Marathon Poster
Posts: 4012
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 1:13 pm
Location: California Central Coast
Contact:

Post by johnlvs2run » August 12th, 2008, 12:21 pm

This depends on the weight, height, age and gender of the rower.

And how many watts per kilogram are being produced.
bikeerg 75 5'8" 155# - 18.5 - 51.9 - 568 - 1:52.7 - 8:03.8 - 20:13.1 - 14620 - 40:58.7 - 28855 - 1:23:48.0
rowerg 56-58 5'8.5" 143# - 1:39.6 - 3:35.6 - 7:24.0 - 18:57.4 - 22:49.9 - 7793 - 38:44.7 - 1:22:48.9 - 2:58:46.2

Thomas
1k Poster
Posts: 125
Joined: March 21st, 2006, 10:56 pm

Post by Thomas » August 12th, 2008, 12:22 pm

Citroen,

Is that your goal . . . sub 7-minutes for 2k?

User avatar
Citroen
SpamTeam
Posts: 8059
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 3:28 pm
Location: A small cave in deepest darkest Basingstoke, UK

Post by Citroen » August 12th, 2008, 12:34 pm

Thomas wrote:Citroen,

Is that your goal . . . sub 7-minutes for 2k?
At my age, my height and my level of fitness it was amazing that I ever did a 6:59.0.

I've not had a good year. I fell off my bike last August and the bruise turned into an abcess. Then just as I was getting over that I fell off again and broke my radius (left wrist).

So this season has been completely ruined. I'm only getting back to any level of fitness now and the cycling season is nearly done.
Dougie Lawson
61yrs, 172cm, Almost LWt (in my dreams).
Twitter: @DougieLawson

tomhz
2k Poster
Posts: 249
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 5:05 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by tomhz » August 12th, 2008, 1:31 pm

A 3K in 10:00 equates to about 6:30 for 2K.

Tom

User avatar
Citroen
SpamTeam
Posts: 8059
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 3:28 pm
Location: A small cave in deepest darkest Basingstoke, UK

Post by Citroen » August 12th, 2008, 2:00 pm

tomhz wrote:A 3K in 10:00 equates to about 6:30 for 2K.

Tom
Are you sure? How did you come up with that?

Nosmo
10k Poster
Posts: 1595
Joined: November 21st, 2006, 3:39 pm

Post by Nosmo » August 12th, 2008, 2:02 pm

Do we really need another distance?
Almost everyone will be 1.7 to 3 seconds per 500 slower then their 2K time and 2 to 4 seconds faster pace then their 5K time. You can look at the rankings in various categories and have a very good idea of what percentage of people in each group can do 3K in 10 minutes, but why do you care about this distance?

Thomas
1k Poster
Posts: 125
Joined: March 21st, 2006, 10:56 pm

Post by Thomas » August 13th, 2008, 7:43 pm

Nosmo wrote:Do we really need another distance?
Almost everyone will be 1.7 to 3 seconds per 500 slower then their 2K time and 2 to 4 seconds faster pace then their 5K time. You can look at the rankings in various categories and have a very good idea of what percentage of people in each group can do 3K in 10 minutes, but why do you care about this distance?
I am not asking to create a new distance for the ranking.

We raced this distance on the internet about four years ago. It was kind of cool because we all raced, for the most part, to be under 10-minutes. If you did not win, in which I believe I did win by rowing sub 9:50, it was a good accomplish to be under 10 minutes. Similar, but much harder, to row a mile under 5-minutes is very respected regardless of what place a person finished.

So, I am just trying to get an idea of what people are capable or possibly capable of rowing for a particular distance that has plus side if you don't medal.

tomhz
2k Poster
Posts: 249
Joined: March 16th, 2006, 5:05 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by tomhz » August 14th, 2008, 1:42 pm

Citroen wrote:
tomhz wrote:A 3K in 10:00 equates to about 6:30 for 2K.

Tom
Are you sure? How did you come up with that?
It can't be much off: a 6:30 2K is pace 1:37.5, a 10:00 3K is 1:40.0 pace. This is "double the D add 4.2 sec" and that is about the value for most people.

Tom

am620
Paddler
Posts: 3
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 9:37 am

Post by am620 » August 22nd, 2008, 4:38 am

I havent tried a full on 3k but think i could probably do it. I went through 3k in about 10.06 on the way to my current 5k pb of 16.50. I think you would need to be comfortably sub 6.30 for a sub 10.

Post Reply