2k testing - rate/fan setting

[iain]

I am no expert, but from discussions of sprinting, consensus is that legs are slower than body/arms. So maybe the greater leg drive is slowing you down. Following PaulS, if you rate too low, try reducing the drag to speed the stroke.

Just thoughts.

- Iain

[hjs]

I am no expert, but from discussions of sprinting, consensus is that legs are slower than body/arms. So maybe the greater leg drive is slowing you down. Following PaulS, if you rate too low, try reducing the drag to speed the stroke.

Just thoughts.

- Iain

low drag does not help in speeding up the spm, I use low drag and always have trouble rating up in a 2k.
It's often the opposite, low drag goed with low spm and high drag with high spm.

[iain]

low drag does not help in speeding up the spm, I use low drag and always have trouble rating up in a 2k.
It's often the opposite, low drag goed with low spm and high drag with high spm.

I agree that for a given rower, the above makes sense (minimising the difference in the acceleration of the flywheel required - although many people up the drag for an optimum 30'R20). However, at lower drag you have to pull the handle faster to achieve the same pace and therefore for the same stroke profile the drive will be quicker. Drag doesn't effect the recovery, so the stoke should be quicker at teh same effort level - i.e. higher natural rating. That said, there is a much greater differential from CV fitness and technique.

- Iain

[hjs]

low drag does not help in speeding up the spm, I use low drag and always have trouble rating up in a 2k.
It's often the opposite, low drag goed with low spm and high drag with high spm.

I agree that for a given rower, the above makes sense (minimising the difference in the acceleration of the flywheel required - although many people up the drag for an optimum 30'R20). However, at lower drag you have to pull the handle faster to achieve the same pace and therefore for the same stroke profile the drive will be quicker. Drag doesn't effect the recovery, so the stoke should be quicker at teh same effort level - i.e. higher natural rating. That said, there is a much greater differential from CV fitness and technique.

- Iain

Not the darg itself but the drive at lower drag does influence rge recovery, the drive at lower drag is faster so the momentum of the movement is bigger and it's cost's energy to reverse this. That is point one.
Point two is that at lower drag the fan slows down slower, so there is less need to use high drag, if you have the fan running it keeps running better at low drag. It is also hard to excelerate the fan it is already spinning fast, if you lower the spm you get around this.

The lower the drag, the shorter the drive time and the more peakpower you need at the same speed.
So indeed you are right, low drag is more power based and high drag less, you have more time to apply the power. So you need less peakpower

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

A lower fan setting would make the rate higher because it would take me less power to pull the handle. However, at a lower setting I wouldn't be able to apply as much power to the chain because it'd be 'looser'. Raising the rate doesn't help me because since I'm longer it takes so much more energy to go through the recovery and get in position for the next stroke.

Today for the workout we did (6 x 500 m, 2:00 rest) I set the erg at a drag of 122 and pulled at a 29/30. Felt pretty good. Might try to raise the drag for the 2k test Monday so that I can keep a lower rate (so my legs don't fatigue as much) and just yank on it a bit harder overall.

I'll see how that goes.

[sayn3ver]

I find this whole topic to be very interesting and one of those things I never really thought about.

I rowed for 4 years in college. My PB was a poor 6:36. I am 6'1 @ 175lbs.
I always trained and tested on a "5" fan setting. It never occurred to me that the setting could influence my time. I once jumped on and started a workout once when the setting was dropped to a "2" and disliked how i had to rate higher and or drive faster to achieve the same splits (my knees disliked the extra acceleration/deceleration)

I never really rated much higher than a 28 spm on most of my tests, where the last 500 might see 32/34 spm near the end. I always struggled at the high rate training near the end of the season, both in the boat and on the erg where the intervals were shorter but we would start practicing on surpassing our normal boat ratings in order to achieve our final competitive rating for our peak race.

I don't consider myself a sprinter and always felt and faired better over longer distances at lower ratings.

I know higher ratings can be trained for, just like in cycling where higher cadences can be taught (i actually prefer a higher than "normal" cadence when riding because it is easier on my knee) but are reasonable 2k scores only achievable at high rates?

[NavigationHazard]

Depends on what you mean by "reasonable" and on what you consider a "high rate."

Here's Graham Benton's stroke graph from the 2005 BIRC:



That's a 5:46.9 2k, the bulk of it rowed at 1:26-28 pace and 29 strokes/minute. Personally, I'd call that a scalding 2k at a ridiculously low rating (Graham is a notorious low-rater)....

[Rockin Roland]

In my neck of the woods the standard drag setting for 2K testing for heavyweight men has always been 130.
However, last year 2K testing on grounded ergs was banned. It must now all be done on slides and at around 110 drag(depending on your weight category).

That's no easy feat for the inefficient big guys that like to throw their weight around on the erg. The new erg testing rules are all for good reason though. Slowly the rest of the world is starting to follow suit.

[ranger]

I think that the key to rating high in a 2K is to do your distance rowing at a high rating, e.g., at 10 MPS.

If you do 60min training rows at 28 spm, you probably won't be inclined to race 2K at 28 spm.

If you do 60min training rows at 20-22 spm, or even 24 spm, not to mention 18 spm, you will.

Perhaps I am wrong in this, but for me, keeping the rate up in distance rowing is a matter of (1) keeping my heels down at the catch and therefore shortening my drive just a bit and (2) accelerating the handle noticeably with my back and arms through the middle of the drive and then right into the finish.

As to (1), when I keep my heels down, I move from a 2-to-1 to a 3-to-1 ratio. For me, this shorter drive and longer recovery encourages a higher rate. My legs are quicker if I don't roll up onto my toes at the catch.

As to (2), in the dynamics of the rowing stroke, recovery naturally matches drive, so being quick with my back and arms on the drive encourages being quick with my back and arms on the recovery, too.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

The Rowing Australia specs evidently aren't just for 2k testing. They're for a battery of erg tests on the Danish model, the object of which is the construction of power/time curves for rowers.

Here's an excerpt from the protocol statement:

The battery of ergometer measurements will be completed by all aspiring Juniors, Under23 and Senior A athletes throughout the domestic and international season. The test battery (all out efforts at distances of 100m, 500m, 2000m and 6000m and a 30 min submaximal piece at stroke rate 20) would be completed within a one week period and would be undertaken in the same manner that the current 2000m and 6000m ergometer tests are i.e. at the rowing sheds while supervised by the coach or nominated individual. The data from these ergometer tests provides highly useful information on the power / time continuum of each individual rower which can be used to infer changes in anaerobic capacity and maximal aerobic power as well as show direct changes in 100m, 500m, 2000m and 6000m ergometer performance. Importantly, the group data can be used by each coach to objectively assess the effectiveness of their training cycles since the last series of tests.

For the 2009-2012 Olympic cycle the standard ergometer protocols will change to reflect new information that has been presented by Ivan Hooper and others on the use of sliders and lower drag factors. The main aims of introducing sliders and lower drag factors are to;

1. more accurately reflect the stroke rate, drive: recovery ratio and ‘feel’ of on-water rowing
2. minimise the risk of injury that may result from considerable time being spent on the ergometer with significant lower back load.

Roland or ausrwr might know whether the slider/115df for MHWs requirements apply to the "other" Australia national-team erg test, a standard 7 x 4' protocol.

[sayn3ver]

interesting. I have never had the opportunity to use the erg slides either.

Alittle off topic but...
Are they worth the investment for someone who rows as a hobby? I don't have any dreams of serious competition but if i join a club i wouldn't mind rowing again in some club events, both fall and spring.

Do they affect power production? the application of power? or both? Do they create the same sensation as rowing on a lower fan setting?

It is nice to see teams and testing regulations beginning to acknowledge the finer details of erg testing and the results they produce.

[Bob S.]

interesting. I have never had the opportunity to use the erg slides either.

Alittle off topic but...
Are they worth the investment for someone who rows as a hobby? I don't have any dreams of serious competition but if i join a club i wouldn't mind rowing again in some club events, both fall and spring.

Do they affect power production? the application of power? or both? Do they create the same sensation as rowing on a lower fan setting?

It is nice to see teams and testing regulations beginning to acknowledge the finer details of erg testing and the results they produce.

Other than the price, the main disadvantage is that they take up a lot of space. If the space is needed when you are not using the equipment, it is a nuisance to set it up again after you have put it away to use that space for other things. I have had a pair for several years and, except for the first few days when I didn't even use them often enough to get the hang of them, they have just been gathering dust. I liked them for rates over 24 spm, but had a lot of trouble using them at rates 18 spm and under. Tighter bungees might have solved the low rate problem, but I didn't want to fiddle with it. My wife complained about tripping over them because they stick out so far around the perimeter of the erg, so, in the interest of domestic tranquillity, I stored them away in an out-of-the-way spot and they have been there ever since.

I think that it would be a very good idea for me to use them if it were more practical. I really believe what I hear about them being better for the lower back, but it would be too much bother to try to use them again. At this point I am waiting to see if the new prototype with the moveable stretcher will ever make it to the market. I tried the demo at Boston and thought it was great. It certainly would solve the footprint problem in that it takes up less space than previous erg models - not to mention the extra space needed for slides.

Bob S.

[NavigationHazard]

There's been endless debate over slides on this Forum, much of it from people reluctant to admit that anecdote ≠ data.

There's a fascinating C2 coaches newsletter from 2008 that goes a good way towards answering the question. It's a PDF file at http://www.concept2.com/us/support/manu ... _Jan08.pdf

The short story is that they hooked up a Dyno meter in parallel with an erg so they could measure average force on a drive at various paces/rates, and then compared a fixed erg to one on slides. They found insignificant differences. As they note, it seems to be somewhat easier to rate higher on slides than on a grounded erg. Other things equal, this has the effect of reducing the average amount of force necessary to achieve a given pace. There also seem to be intrinsic differences in force-curve shape between ergs on slides and fixed ergs, though my personal take on studies to date is that the results come from very small samples and have an awful lot to do with unfamiliarity.

[gnu]

did a 2k the otherday and made the ultimate mistake...i didnt check my drag and ASSUMED it was good to go. little did i know i was at a 96 drag factor a 38 stroke rate and a crummy 1:41 split. 160lb lwt. wtf was i thinking?

[Carl Watts]

Now running a 155 DF here down from months of rowing with a 167 DF.

Feels pretty good to me but so far all my rowing is distance work 8-10K.

May get down to a 140 DF eventually which is about where it should be for me, so I have been told.

Have been very focussed on getting the SPM's down which is working well but way more distance training required to get the heartrate down as well so I can rate up for a decent 2K time.