Ranger's training thread

[Rockin Roland]

I am certainly better equipped to race now that I have my Fluid.

ranger

Performance on the water depends on 90% the rower and 10% the boat.

If you want to improve your performance on the water and equipment is so important to you, why are you still using a static C2 erg?

[ranger]

Performance on the water depends on 90% the rower and 10% the boat.

Yes, equipment and rigging are the two least important elements of boat speed.

Physical capacity, training, and technique are all more important by far.

Nonetheless, if you are racing, 10% is quite a bit, no?

It is just about what Gord Henry claims as the difference between the Fluid and the Peinert: 5 seconds per 500m.

This is just about the difference that I am getting in my paces and rates between my two boats.

My Peinert is also damaged (from various collisions with things over the years).

I suspect that this also slows it down.

It takes on water during a session!

I suspect that some of the difference between the two boats also has to do with rigging.

The rigging of the Fluid is adjustable and was professionally done by Gord himself.

The rigging of the Peinert just bolts on and that's that.

The Fluid is also tailored to weight in various ways. It weighs only half as much as the Peinert and comes in three hull sizes (I have a mid-weight hull). The Peinert only comes with one hull.

ranger

[ranger]

Performance on the water depends on 90% the rower and 10% the boat.

I have a hierarchy of goals.

My first goal is a lwt 6:16 at 60 on the "static erg."

My next goal is to win the Head of the Charles.

Sure.

After I reach my goal on the "static erg," I might get some slides and do all of my winter erging there.

Like Mike VB, once I reach my goal on the "static erg," I might give up erging altogether whenever I can get out OTW.

After I retire, I might also search out a warmer climate to live in during the winters so that I can row OTW year round.

My wife is also for this.

She hates the cold, gray winters in Ann Arbor.

Situated between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, Ann Arbor gets only a couple of sunny days a month during the winter.

Just clouds--and more clouds.

Winters are one thing.

Winters without any sun are something else entirely.

_Dreary_ stuff.

ranger

[ranger]

1999 R. Spousta 19:33.81
2000 R. Spousta 19:33.81

Yes.

I now see that these OTW times can indeed differ wildly with conditions.

Look at Spousta's times in 1999 and 2000.

No comparison.

ranger

[ranger]

1999 R. Spousta 19:33.81
2000 R. Spousta 19:33.81

Yes.

I now see that these OTW times can indeed differ wildly with conditions.

Look at Spousta's times in 1999 and 2000.

No comparison.

ranger

15 years before, Spousta did this:

1984 R. Spousta 18:16.9*
1986 R. Spousta 18:47.2
1987 R. Spousta 19:10.7

Ten years later (this last year), Spousta did 20:40.

So.

We get this:

1984 R. Spousta 18:16.9*
1986 R. Spousta 18:47.2
1987 R. Spousta 19:10.7
1999 R. Spousta 19:33.81
2000 R. Spousta 19:33.81
2009 R. Spousta 20:40

So, Spouta's decline with age has been pretty regularly about 2 seconds per year over 2K, a half a second per 500m.

Over 25 years, he has declined 16 seconds per 500m, from 1:54 pace to 2:10.

ranger

[ranger]

Dietz did 17:54 in 1971; 20:17 in 2009.

His decline over 38 years is somewhat better than Spousta's--but not much.

Just a little under a half a second per 500m per year.

Over 38 years, Dietz has declined 15 seconds per 500m, from 1:51 pace to 2:06.

ranger

[ranger]

I have two goals, (1) on the "static: erg and (2) OTW.

Here is their relation, as it bears on what I choose to do in training.

At the same rate, just stroking naturally, rowing as well as I can, I don't find any difference in effort between rowing on the "static" erg and rowing OTW.

So, if I know the relation between the paces at the same rate in the two, I can compare them, as I do them both from day to day.

In my new Fluid, I have an 18 second per 500m difference between the two, given my (pathetic) level of skill OTW (those who know how to row well OTW can get down to a 12 second per 500m difference).

1:43 @ 29 spm (10 MPS, 11 SPI) on the erg is the equivalent of 2:01 @ 29 spm OTW.

If you row well on the erg and work at it maximally, it also appears to be a good generalization that you can pull 10MPS at your 2K SPI under your anaerobic threshold, that is, if you push it, for as long as a HM.

So!

If I want to row the Head of the Charles with a HR just under my anaerobic threshold, I want to do a lot of 10MPS rowing at my 2K SPI on the erg.

My 2K SPI at low drag is around 11 SPI (well, perhaps a little more, but let's say 11 SPI to be conservative).

So, the goal in my OTW rowing, if I want to have to bear productively on my OTW goal as well as my erging goal should be to row a lot of 1:43 @ 29 spm (11 SPI, 10 MPS).

If I do it for a HM, I reach both my goals--and more.

So that's what I am doing on the erg--and will continue to do all next year, at least as a target, after I warm up and get into a session.

Then, eventually, I will want to do the same OTW, 2:01 @ 29 spm.

2:01 @ 29 spm is plenty fast to win the Veterans race at the Head of the Charles.

The problem with this plan of using the erg to help OTW rowing for most inexperienced OTW rowers like me is that to this point no 60s lightweight has done better than 1:53 on the erg for a HM, 10 seconds per 500m slower than my target of 1:43.

For instance, when he is 60, 1:53 is just about what Mike VB will do for a HM on the erg.

Given this, if Mike wants to pull 2:01 for a HM OTW, he has to do it by improving his OTW technique.

Working on his erging won't help.

Why?

His OTW goals are much more ambitious than his erging goals.

To do 2:01 @ 29 spm OTW for a HM, he will have to cut the difference between his OTW and erg times to 8 seconds per 500m.

For me, this isn't the case, 18 seconds per 500m will do just fine.

Both of my goals--on the erg and OTW--are ambitious.

ranger

[ranger]

On the erg, nice training for a HM, 1:43 @ 29 spm (10MPS, 11 SPI) would be 4 x 5K, 1:43 @ 29 spm.

I'll see if I can work up to that this summer.

1:43/17:10 is my 5K pb.

The 60s lwt WR for 5K is 17:25.

1:43 is right around Mike VB's 2K race pace.

ranger

[ranger]

Nice 13K OTW after erging.

20K OTW tormorrow--and each day for the rest of the summer and fall.

I am still astounded at the difference between the Peinert and the Fluid.

About five seconds per 500m.

In the Fluid, I am hitting all of my paces OTW--right at 18 seconds per 500m off of my erg times.

In the Peinert, I was 23 seconds per 500m off of my erg times.

Did some nice 1:51 @ 38 spm this morning, pretty smooth and controlled.

If I train for it, I don't see why I can't do that for 1K (in good conditions).

That's comparable to 1:33 @ 38 spm (11.3 SPI) for four minutes on the erg, which I think I will be do pretty easily, too, when I get around to it during sharpening.

1:33.5 is my pb for 1K.

ranger

[Nosmo]

It takes on water during a session!

The Fluid is also tailored to weight in various ways. It weighs only half as much as the Peinert and comes in three hull sizes (I have a mid-weight hull). The Peinert only comes with one hull.

ranger

The Fluid comes in four hulls and the racing Pinerts in two (the x25 and the 26)
The Pinert 26 weighs 33 pounds so 33/2=27. Perhaps you should write that one up.
Perhaps you referring to your Pinert after it fills up with water. Is that from splashing?

Once again you demonstrated how truly unique your knowledge is.

[ranger]

The Fluid is an infinitely better boat than the Peinert.

No contest.

ranger

[ranger]

So.

To develop my sprinting OTW and on the erg, I need to do a lot of 38 spm--250s, 500s, 750s, etc.

Given my stroking power on the erg and skill OTW, on the erg, this is 1:33 @ 38 spm (11.3 SPI; OTW, this is 1:51 @ 38 spm.

Given good conditions, I don't see why I can't do 1K @ 38 spm OTW.

In the Fluid, that would be 1:51.

140 strokes.

ranger

[pmacaula]

Dietz did 17:54 in 1971; 20:17 in 2009...a little under a half a second per 500m per year...
Over 38 years, Dietz has declined 15 seconds per 500m, from 1:51 pace to 2:06.

...Spouta's decline with age has been pretty regularly about 2 seconds per year over 2K, a half a second per 500m...Over 25 years, he has declined 16 seconds per 500m, from 1:54 pace to 2:10.

Rich - Very happy you have chosen to take a look at the data. Comparing with your earlier comments, a few of the top guys are not declining 1s/500m/year, but closer to 0.5s/500m/year. Still, they are by all reasonable measures, exceptional individuals & may not be representative of the broader masters sculling community.
Anyone who has been sculling and winning at HOCR over a 25 year span has clearly been in superlative condition pretty much his entire adult life.
These are the guys you have to beat to become HOCR.

While it is pointless to argue about whether you are an even more exceptional physical specimen than either Spousta or Dietz, I would suggest that your best opportunity to win against this kind of competition is when you are among the youngest in the age bracket.
In that context, it might be worthwhile to get HOCR-specific experience this fall, while you are still in the 50's age group, putting you in a much stronger position to take advantage of your relative youthfulness in 2011 in the 60's category.
Registration for the 1x and 2x divisions opened this past week & the results of the draw are announced the first week of August.
If HOCR is more than you want to take on this year, another head regatta closer to Michigan & with some good 50+ scullers is the Head of the Trent in Peterborough, Ontario. There were two former Olympians, McGowan & Monckton (who has also won in the 1x at HOCR) in the 50+ 1x category last year. I think the regatta is the first Saturday of October this year.
I will definitely be at Trent (have a guaranteed entry) & hope to be at HOCR (will see how the draw turns out). Hope to see you at one or both this year.

Cheers. Patrick.

[Nosmo]

Patrick, you are trying to make a logical argument with someone who thinks 1 is 2, 3 is four and 33 is twice 27.
He ignores facts and logic or just twists them around whenever convenient .

Some master scullers may have a slower decline in speed because of experience. Declining on the erg is one thing--it is almost all physiological, but there are many ways to get faster when sculling. Master rowers often get faster because of minor improvements in technique. At a certain point one can't go faster so one must put more emphasis on technique. This is one reason why at somewhat less competitive regattas the older people are faster. Also the experience really pays off in strategy and steering. Knowing the course is a huge advantage. Taking turns slightly better and being able to row more stokes without having to turn and look can add up to a significant amount of time.

The has been some improvement in boat design. I have no idea how measurable it is, but boats have certainly advanced from 1984 to 2010. It would be interesting to see the same data for these same rowers on a straight non-technical course. It might be a bit greater.

And Ranger congratulations again on the new Fluid. I'm glad you really like. It is a really nice boat.

[ranger]

And Ranger congratulations again on the new Fluid. I'm glad you really like. It is a really nice boat.

Thanks.

Yes, I love it.

If I can do 38 spm for 1K, I'll do 1:51 pace for 1K OTW at 60.

Nice!

Last year, the 60s Masters Nationals race was won in 4:03/2:01.

ranger