Altitude And Air Resistance

[[old] Sirrowsalot]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 21 2005, 09:28 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 21 2005, 09:28 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Alot,<br /><br />Carryover of top speed means that closer to top speed can be maintained over distance, cycling or rowing on an erg, not that it's any easier to do this.<br /><br />This is relevant to altitude as this "closer to top speed" can be extended and maintained longer, due to the higher anaerobic capability at altitude.<br /><br />I have stated that this discussion is about rowing on an erg, not rowing in a boat where the medium is water, not air.<br /><br />One might be "traveling" slightly slower on an erg than running, but the fan is moving at a much greater velocity than a runner, thus the air resistance to the fan is much higher than the air resistance for a runner.  Also, this air resistance is different at altitude than at sea level. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />but I thought the erg compensated for this; am I wrong?

[[old] kjgress]

I think I will add my 2 cents worth by asking a question: John Rupp; Have you ever rowed at altitude? As the person who lives in Boulder said; come up here and try it! <br /><br />Here is what I have discovered: A DF of 120 in Denver is a damper setting of 7 (on my Model C with the flywheel freshly cleaned out) and was consistently a damper setting right on the line between 4 and 5 on all the ergs I rowed on in Boston.<br /><br />My husband is a swimmer who lives in Denver one week and in Long Island, NY the next. He never has time to get acclimated to Denver and his workouts here are awful, while in NY his aerobic capacity is great.<br /><br />When I row closer to sea level I can almost pick the distance I want to PB.<br /><br />The last 2K I rowed at sea level was 9 seconds faster than one I rowed 3 weeks earlier at altitude and I was able to row a 5K later the same day for a PB (so admittedly I should have raced much faster than I did). Next time I will "believe in the altitude adjustment."<br /><br />I really do believe that it is all about the oxygen (or last therof).

[[old] R S T]

Sorry for posting off topic......but.....<br /><br />Does anyone care to enlighten a particular person about libel laws....<br /><br />Mad as a hatter...... <br /><br />

[[old] Porkchop]

<!--QuoteBegin-kjgress+Feb 22 2005, 02:58 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(kjgress @ Feb 22 2005, 02:58 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here is what I have discovered:  A DF of 120 in Denver is a damper setting of 7 (on my Model C with the flywheel freshly cleaned out) and was consistently a damper setting right on the line between 4 and 5 on all the ergs I rowed on in Boston.<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Now here's an opportunity to look at observable physical data and, perhaps, draw some conclusions. <br /><br />Kjgress, what are the maximum and minimum drag factors you are able to achieve at your altitude? (~5000 feet?) If we could compare those figures with maximum and minimum drag factors achievable at sea level (I'm close, but not <u>at</u> sea level, so I'm not the best source for that information), we would at least know the extent to which air resistance to the movement of the fan can be reduced at one particular (livable, as opposed to 40,000 feet) altitude and have a basis for discussion of John Rupp's hypothesis.<br /><br />If I understand John Rupp's argument, the factor that he believes allows faster performance at altitude is lower air resistance, which presumably would be translated into a lower drag factor at the lowest damper setting on the erg at altitude.<br /><br />What confuses me about all this, is that from what I have read on this forum, very few rowers seem to row at damper setting 1 at any altitude. If using the lowest air resistance available provided a competitive advantage, couldn't we expect to see the most competitive rowers setting the damper to 1 as a matter of course? If they don't set the damper at 1 at sea level (or close to sea level), would they set the damper to 1 at altitude? If so, why? If not, why not?<br /><br />Porkchop

[[old] PaulH]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 21 2005, 09:28 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 21 2005, 09:28 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One might be "traveling" slightly slower on an erg than running, but the fan is moving at a much greater velocity than a runner, thus the air resistance to the fan is much higher than the air resistance for a runner.  Also, this air resistance is different at altitude than at sea level. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />There is no difference to the erg whether you're at altitude or not - all it does is change the amount of air providing resistance inside the cage, which can also be achieved by changing the damper setting. The only time this would make any difference at all is if, as an earlier poster suggests, you set the damper to 1 already, *and* think that even lower drag would let you go faster. So what you're saying is wrong, not as a matter of perspective, but as a matter of physics. And if that's the only advantage to rowing at altitude, then there is no advantage.<br /><br />Incidentally, Columbus wasn't widely attacked for believing the earth was round - it was a well established fact at the time, and had been since Aristotle's day. It is a good example of somebody asserting that a thing is true, instead of the thing actually being true, however.<br /><br />Cheers, Paul

[[old] kjgress]

Porkchop:<br /><br />Here is some info (I am sure not the most scientific)<br /><br />DF damper on 10: 168<br />DF damper on 5: 113<br />DF damper on 1: 78<br /><br />These are on my Model C at altitude 6144 feet (my husband has an altimeter on his watch).<br /><br />One of the problems comparing is that each machine is slightly different, both in terms of hardware and cleanliness (a small amount of lint on the flywheel can affect the drag considerably). I do take my machine with me when I travel but I didn't have the PM3 last time I was in New York.<br /><br />Now, I thought that the whole reason for DF was so that the machine could be set the same no matter what the altitude and you could switch from machine to machine more consistently. A DF of 120 is the same at 6000 ft or sea level. The damper setting will change but the resistance is still the same as long as the DF is the same.<br /><br />Here is an example of different splits pulled at different damper settings all at 27 spm: <br /><br />damper 10: 1:54<br />damper 5: 2:00<br />damper 1: 2:10.<br /><br />I am sure that others could explain this more scientifically but the reason people don't row at setting 1 is because there is too little resistance. You can pull the handle faster but you don't get as much power. You get the most power at the highest damper setting, but it becomes too difficult to pull over the long haul.

[[old] Galt]

The 2 major components of libel (written) or slander (spoken) is that the perp has to 1) say something about the injured party that the perp knows or has reason to believe is untrue, and 2) the act must cause the injured party harm professionally.<br /><br />I am an author and have had to look into this at times.<br /><br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Porkchop+Feb 22 2005, 05:40 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Porkchop @ Feb 22 2005, 05:40 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I understand John Rupp's argument, the factor that he believes allows faster performance at altitude is lower air resistance, which presumably would be translated into a lower drag factor at the lowest damper setting on the erg at altitude.[right] <br /> </td></tr></table>Right the difference in air resistance, however that is not necessary reflected by a simple adjustment of the drag factor.<br /><br />For example, you couldn't adjust for the altitude by simply "breathing less" or more or whatever.<br /><br />Thus a simple adjustment of drag factor is not compensation for the benefits of rowing at altitude on an erg. These benefits are there, as in cycling, regardless of a drag factor.<br />

[[old] PaulH]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 22 2005, 12:06 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 22 2005, 12:06 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus a simple adjustment of drag factor is not compensation for the benefits of rowing at altitude on an erg.  These benefits are there, as in cycling, regardless of a drag factor. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />But there is no difference except for an effective adjustment of drag factor. So what are these benefits?

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulH+Feb 22 2005, 05:58 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulH @ Feb 22 2005, 05:58 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Incidentally, Columbus wasn't widely attacked for believing the earth was round - it was a well established fact at the time, and had been since Aristotle's day.  It is a good example of somebody asserting that a thing is true, instead of the thing actually being true, however. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Exactly. Columbus wasn't attacked once the detractors came to accept the thing was actually true, they attacked -- although it was well known, as are the benefits of altitude, for example for cyclists -- because they felt Columbus was simply asserting it was true but was not.<br /><br />They were afraid of the earth being round.<br /><br />And for this fear, which we now think to be "groundless", they attacked Columbus.<br /><br />Interestingly, though Merckx set his cycling hour record in 1972, there are many who --still-- believe cycling at altitude is slower and much more difficult, as evidenced by some posting on this thread. This, even though it is well known that Merckx actually did accomplish this feat.<br /><br />By the way Merckx' hour time is --still-- the fastest time accomplished on a standard non aerodynamic racing bicycle.

[[old] John Rupp]

Kj,<br /><br />Resistance to air flow is not the same thing as altitude.<br /><br />Likewise your 6 second differential for a 2k is not bad.<br /><br />Notice, as was stated previously, this difference and the advantage depends on the fitness of the rower.<br /><br />Those with little fitness will have a major disadvantage at altitude.<br /><br />Athletes who are highly trained aerobically, as have been Merckx and Keino et all have a great o2 advantage as to their competitors and the speeds they are able to accomplish at altitude.<br /><br />First, you need to be highly fit aerobically. Then you can make the most of the altitude.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulH+Feb 22 2005, 09:12 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulH @ Feb 22 2005, 09:12 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But there is no difference except for an effective adjustment of drag factor.  So what are these benefits? <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Faster times at altitude.

[[old] Porkchop]

<!--QuoteBegin-kjgress+Feb 22 2005, 11:35 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(kjgress @ Feb 22 2005, 11:35 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Porkchop:<br /><br />Here is some info (I am sure not the most scientific)<br /><br />DF damper on 10: 168<br />DF damper on 5:    113<br />DF damper on 1:    78<br /><br />These are on my Model C at altitude 6144 feet (my husband has an altimeter on his watch).<br /><br />One of the problems comparing is that each machine is slightly different, both in terms of hardware and cleanliness (a small amount of lint on the flywheel can affect the drag considerably).  I do take my machine with me when I travel but I didn't have the PM3 last time I was in New York.<br /><br />Now, I thought that the whole reason for DF was so that the machine could be set the same no matter what the altitude and you could switch from machine to machine more consistently.  A DF of 120 is the same at 6000 ft or sea level.  The damper setting will change but the resistance is still the same as long as the DF is the same.<br /><br />Here is an example of different splits pulled at different damper settings all at 27 spm: <br /><br />damper 10:  1:54<br />damper 5:    2:00<br />damper 1:    2:10.<br /><br />I am sure that others could explain this more scientifically but the reason people don't row at setting 1 is because there is too little resistance. You can pull the handle faster but you don't get as much power.  You get the most power at the highest damper setting, but it becomes too difficult to pull over the long haul. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Thanks. In the absence of any volunteers setting up a Model C erg on the beach somewhere, I will check the DF on my Model D this evening. My home is in a hilly area near sea level, so I don't really know the exact elevation, but I would guess that it is about 300 feet above the nearby tidal Potomac. Recognizing that we are talking about 2 different machines, indeed, 2 different models and an approximation of my altitude, we can get at least a rough idea of the difference in drag factor a 6000+ feet and the drag factor near sea level.<br /><br />Would anyone else like to chime in with DF data from other altitudes?<br /><br />Porkchop

[[old] Porkchop]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Feb 22 2005, 12:06 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 22 2005, 12:06 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Porkchop+Feb 22 2005, 05:40 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Porkchop @ Feb 22 2005, 05:40 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I understand John Rupp's argument, the factor that he believes allows faster performance at altitude is lower air resistance, which presumably would be translated into a lower drag factor at the lowest damper setting on the erg at altitude.[right] <br /> </td></tr></table>Right the difference in air resistance, however that is not necessary reflected by a simple adjustment of the drag factor.<br /><br />For example, you couldn't adjust for the altitude by simply "breathing less" or more or whatever.<br /><br />Thus a simple adjustment of drag factor is not compensation for the benefits of rowing at altitude on an erg. These benefits are there, as in cycling, regardless of a drag factor. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I'm a bit confused by that. If the difference in air resistance is not reflected in the drag factor, where is it reflected?<br /><br />From my running days some years ago, I recall a device (I forget what it was called) that mimicked the effects of training at altitude by recycing some of the runner's exhaled breath as the runner trained while breathing through a mouthpiece. Do you think that one could design an experiment with such a device that would adjust for altitude and thereby isolate the drag factor as a variable? Would the results of such a test then either prove or disprove your hypothesis?<br /><br />Porkchop

[[old] dennish]

Alas and alack I to am getting sucked into the altitude debate. I have no understanding or concept of most of the technical arguements being made, but can offer up some numbers to further muddy the waters.I work out at 7800ft. two ergs side by side, DF 105, on one damper setting is 3.5 and the other is 4.0. Like Karen I had significant improvement from Denver to Boston. At the Mile high sprints in Jan I was 6:54+ at Boston, 6:43+. Over the years (8) I have averaged a 9-10 second improvement from the Mile High Sprints to Boston. Worst improvement was 6 seconds and best was 13. Rudy Rybeck, a young man that also qualified for Boston from the Mile High Sprints improved by 10 seconds as well, he lives and trains in Boulder with the CU team. Not a whit of science in this statement, just experience, "erg scores do not get better at alititude."