Altitude And Air Resistance

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » February 22nd, 2005, 2:22 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 22 2005, 12:20 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><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'>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. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Name one.<br /><br />Oh, and while we're at it, name one person who attacked Columbus because he claimed the earth was round. It's a myth based on Washington Irving's fictional account of Columbus's voyages.

[old] Sirrowsalot · Post by **[old] Sirrowsalot** » February 22nd, 2005, 3:10 pm

It seems like John is just arguing of the sake of arguing at this point; his spurious points have been rebutted one by one and he has been left looking rather silly. His final claim, though, that rowers are "afraid" to row hard at altiitude, I find especially asinine. Suppose a rower, who had trained at sea level, decided to pull a piece at altitude. If he thought that the lack of oxygen would be a factor, he might go out conservatively and pull a slower time, even if oxgyen was not actually a factor. However, he would immediately compensate for this on the next piece--realizing that he wasn't as tired as he normally was or that the piece didn't seem as difficult as usual, he wouldn't simply row harder the next time. Where does the fear come in? Why would he be afraid to exert himself on the second piece, after realizing that he was too conservative on the first?

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 22nd, 2005, 3:12 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Porkchop @ Feb 22 2005, 09:27 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>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 /> </td></tr></table><br />No because that affect the amount of air and oxygen to the lungs. I think everyone will agree the o2 availability at altitude is less, this being almost negated as a factor in athletes with well trained endurance capacities.<br /><br />The benefits on the erg are from the reduced air pressure and air density to the fan.<br /><br />This is regardless of any drag factor. Use any drag factor that you want.<br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 22nd, 2005, 3:16 pm

Alot,<br /><br />Notice that I am also not "afraid" to use my own nickname, and don't change it to something else.<br /><br />Also I am not "afraid" to state my points, in contrast to those who are "afraid" to row at altitude or to row a 10k or to develop their endurance.<br /><br />People have different motivations, and not everyone has the same understanding.

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » February 22nd, 2005, 3:17 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 22 2005, 02:12 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The benefits on the erg are from the reduced air pressure and air density to the fan.<br /><br />This is regardless of any drag factor. Use any drag factor that you want. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />But there is no difference between this and just lowering DF! Drag is lowered either by making it easier for air to leave the cage, or by having less air in there to start with. As far as the monitor is concerned there is no difference. Let me clarify, in case I've confused you - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!<br /><br />Cheers, Paul

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 22nd, 2005, 3:23 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(dennish @ Feb 22 2005, 10:19 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>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. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />This affirms earlier statements that endurance fitness is important and that any benefits of rowing on an erg at altitude are dependent on this fitness.<br /><br />Of course those with a less than optimal endurance and oxygen carrying capacity will perform less comparatively well at altitude, because this becomes a more important primary limitation to their efforts.<br /><br />For example, Rod Freed has a slower 2k time than Dennis, yet his 10k time is 2 minutes faster!<br /><br />Major difference.<br /><br />Yes fitness is a factor in getting faster times at altitude.<br /><br />Expecting otherwise is just foolish.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 22nd, 2005, 3:27 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulH @ Feb 22 2005, 11:17 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>But there is no difference between this and just lowering DF! Drag is lowered either by making it easier for air to leave the cage, or by having less air in there to start with. As far as the monitor is concerned there is no difference. Let me clarify, in case I've confused you - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Since you're not confused, just go to altitude then and -- breathe more.<br /><br />Based on your clarifications, and based only on o2 consumption, you won't have any problem rowing just as fast as you do at sea level.<br /><br />Try that out, and then come back and let me know how you did.

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » February 22nd, 2005, 3:32 pm

Actually it's not foolish John.<br /><br />If you and I went to Denver and climbed some stairs I would get tired before you. That's because you're fitter than me, so you'll be using less of your maximum effort to climb the stairs. While our maximum efforts may both have been decreased by the lower O2 levels, you'll still be further away from yours than I am from mine. This is actually the same as if we did the same test at sea level - I'd still get tired before you, because you'd still be further from your maximum for a given effort.<br /><br />But if we're racing we're both operating at our max. If that max has been reduced by the same proportion then you'll still do better than me, but not any more better than you would at sea level. If, on the other hand, the decreased O2 modified performance in some other way (i.e. not by taking X% off, but by removing 100W from each max effort) then you would do more better.<br /><br />So you see, it's not foolish to think that fitness wouldn't alter relative performance at altitude. It might not be right, and I suspect it isn't. But it's not foolish.<br /><br />Cheers, Paul

[old] Sirrowsalot · Post by **[old] Sirrowsalot** » February 22nd, 2005, 3:33 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 22 2005, 02:16 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Alot,<br /><br />Notice that I am also not "afraid" to use my own nickname, and don't change it to something else.<br /><br />Also I am not "afraid" to state my points, in contrast to those who are "afraid" to row at altitude or to row a 10k or to develop their endurance.<br /><br />People have different motivations, and not everyone has the same understanding. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />That didn't answer my question at all. Please go back and address my question if you can. No, you don't use a pseudonym, but you have in the past, and I might suggest that you use one in the future, since you've throroughly embarrassed yourself, by making claims, having those claims thoroughly refuted, and then refusing to address those refutations. Just breathe more? Come on!

[old] PaulH · Post by **[old] PaulH** » February 22nd, 2005, 3:35 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 22 2005, 02:27 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulH @ Feb 22 2005, 11:17 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>But there is no difference between this and just lowering DF! Drag is lowered either by making it easier for air to leave the cage, or by having less air in there to start with. As far as the monitor is concerned there is no difference. Let me clarify, in case I've confused you - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE! <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Since you're not confused, just go to altitude then and -- breathe more.<br /><br />Based on your clarifications, and based only on o2 consumption, you won't have any problem rowing just as fast as you do at sea level.<br /><br />Try that out, and then come back and let me know how you did. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />How on earth did you conclude that? I'm saying that the only significant factor at altitude IS the available oxygen, which will slow people down. You're trying to claim that the machine gets some benefit from being at altitude, not me. I'm positive I would slow down, as would absolutely everyone else, you're the one denying it without giving any reason to believe you.

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » February 22nd, 2005, 3:42 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 22 2005, 02:12 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Porkchop @ Feb 22 2005, 09:27 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>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 /> </td></tr></table><br />No because that affect the amount of air and oxygen to the lungs. I think everyone will agree the o2 availability at altitude is less, this being almost negated as a factor in athletes with well trained endurance capacities.<br /><br />The benefits on the erg are from the reduced air pressure and air density to the fan.<br /><br />This is regardless of any drag factor. Use any drag factor that you want. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Then how would one design an experiment (specific to the erg) to test your hypothesis? <br /><br />I hope I understand -- I think your argument is that the improvement in performance by elite runners and cyclists at altitude should also manifest itself in improved perfomance by elite rowers on the erg. If that is true, it should be demonstrable on some scientific basis. It seems that there are two variables to account for: 1) air resistance and 2) oxygen availability. In order to test the effect of air pressure, which you have stated to be the relevant variable, I would think that it would be necessary to keep the other variable constant. Am I missing something here?<br /><br />Porkchop<br />

[old] rjw · Post by **[old] rjw** » February 22nd, 2005, 5:09 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Feb 22 2005, 05:13 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>By the way Merckx' hour time is --still-- the fastest time accomplished on a standard non aerodynamic racing bicycle. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Actually it is Boardman (October 2000) who rode 11 metres further than Merckx at sea level. This was done on a conventional bicycle (steel frame, drop handle bars, spoked wheels). And very close to sea level (Manchester)<br /><br />Boardman also holds the other one-hour record (56km+). That was also done at Manchester. <br /><br />Raoul

[old] c2jonw · Post by **[old] c2jonw** » February 22nd, 2005, 5:51 pm

Many of you have perhaps already seen this: <a href='http://www.concept2.com/update/S2002/drag.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.com/update/S2002/drag.htm</a><br /> JonW

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » February 22nd, 2005, 6:01 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulH @ Feb 22 2005, 11:32 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If that max has been reduced by the same proportion then you'll still do better than me, but not any more better than you would at sea level. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />PaulH,<br /><br />I understand what you're saying, but really fitness does make a big difference.<br /><br />For example, as already cited, fit acclimatized world class runners, although competing on poor tracks and not optimal conditions, often run within 20 to 30 seconds of their sea level 10k times at altitude.<br /><br />Now if you take a 10k runner who is not fit, then an average person who is least fit, the percentage from sea level times will become greater and greater.<br /><br />Increased fitness has the benefit of neutralizing most of the decreased availability of oxygen, while extending the distance of the more advantageous component.<br /><br />This is even more the case with machine aided advocations, such as with cycling and rowing on an erg.<br />

[old] kjgress · Post by **[old] kjgress** » February 22nd, 2005, 6:20 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2jonw @ Feb 22 2005, 04:51 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Many of you have perhaps already seen this: <a href='http://www.concept2.com/update/S2002/drag.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.com/update/S2002/drag.htm</a><br /> JonW <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />This is indeed what I did find when listing the drag factors for my machine in Denver: The drag factors are significantly less than factory specs.<br /><br />In addition, Porkchop has a valid point: The 2 variables are air resistance and O2 level. the DF on the machine maintains the air resistance as the constant; A DF of 120 (where I usually row) being the same in Boston or Denver means the air resistance on the flywheel has been calibrated to be the same in Boston as it is in Denver; I can pull the same. Now the only variable is the O2 level. I am sure that no one will dispute that a reduction in O2 level will reduce performance. In fit individuals that reduction may be lessened, but it is still there. There is less oxygen at altitude and so the performance is lessened. In the case of the cyclists it is more difficult to measure. We could design an experiment to increase the drag on the bike to approximate what it would be at sea level. Do that and I am sure that you would find that the times for the cyclists would also be worse at altitude.<br /><br />Perhaps here is the crux of the matter: I train at altitude. I pull a certain time for a given distance. I go to sea level to row. My time for that given distance is faster than it was at altitude. But is it faster than it would have been if I always trained at sea level? I think it is. The toughest aspect of the whole thing is to accurately gauge how much the actual advantage is. I am very used to pulling a given split time over a certain distance. It is tough mentally to all of a sudden be pulling a split 4 seconds faster for the same given distance and having the faith that I won't keel over at the end.

Concept2 Forum

Altitude And Air Resistance

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions