Discussion On Adjustments ...

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 27th, 2005, 2:49 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 27 2005, 10:30 AM)</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</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>being faster generally means that you get to finish in less time. </td></tr></table><br /><br />On the erg, you don't go anywhere. You just generate watts. Therefore, there _is_ no starting line and finishing line. There is just a comparison of the average watts generated at the end of the race. Distance and pace, as they are now reported, are entirely a product of the calibration of the monitor. They have nothing to do with what the erg does. Distance and pace have to do with what _boats_ do. <br /><br />Boats are propelled by rowers. Rowers have weights. A boat propelled by one rower has the weight of that rower added to the boat. When boats are propelled by rowers, the weight of the boat plus the weight of the rower(s) in the boat (etc.) also has to be propelled. All else equal, boats propelled by rowers generating X wattage and weighing Y move more quickly than boats propelled by rowers generating X wattage and weight Y + Z, where Z is a positive number. Etc.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />So you would be in the terribly illinformed group of people that believe that having a lighter boat would allow you to go faster (all else being equal). When in fact, in a scientific test, not only was the fastest time of the day done in the heaviest equipement, but also by the lightest rower (he was admittedly in the best racing shape of all the rowers however). However the base reason is obvious, a heavier boat has a lower fluctuation in hull speed so is more efficient. i.e. in spite of 100+ pounds being shed, the M8+ is still very close to the same speed as it was 20 years ago. There was a slight blip up in speed just prior to that with the introduction of stronger/lighter oars with greater surface area on the blades.<br /><br />The Heavier athlete still must move their weight back and forth on the Erg, and that is similar to, but perhaps not as severe, as sinking a boat further. Frankly, making the weight classes on the Erg far more relevant than they are in boats.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 27th, 2005, 3:17 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 27 2005, 06:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If you have a 250 pound old man and a young 105 pound athletic woman both get on a scale, it is easy to see the difference. <br /><br />One is heavy and out of shape, the other is light and fit.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 27 2005, 10:32 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>even in the "adjusted world", the Hwt wins the 2k by 6 seconds, so the Hwt is obviously in far better shape since weight has been accounted for.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />In PaulS' world, fat, heavy and out of shape is somehow "better and faster". <br /><br />Keep dreaming, Paul! <br />

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » December 27th, 2005, 3:18 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 27 2005, 07:28 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(John Rupp @ Dec 27 2005, 06:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If you have a 250 pound old man and a young 105 pound athletic woman both get on a scale, it is easy to see the difference. <br /><br />One is heavy and out of shape, the other is light and fit.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 27 2005, 10:20 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The 250 pond man can be very fit [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, he is heavy and out of shape -- so he can't be fit. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Why is he out of shape? I think he is very fit and the tiny woman is out of shape.

[old] adkmurray · Post by **[old] adkmurray** » December 27th, 2005, 3:21 pm

Very interesting topic. I'll add to the fire by saying that weight should really not make a difference unless one is not in good physical condition. Anyone who watches professional football can see that a 5' 10" 210# running back is in pretty good shape although 30# overweight. He would outrow another of the same stature not in good physical condition. The conditioned lightweight would also outrow him and so it goes, if you can follow that. I am more inclined to favor the rower who is tall with longer legs and arms. Seems to me he can get a lot more out of a stroke then a shorter person, both being in the same physical condition. All other variables being equal I think height, arm and leg length should play a bigger role than just weight (not including altitude). Shoot!<br />Cheers,<br />Jim

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 27th, 2005, 3:47 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 27 2005, 11:17 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />In PaulS' world, fat, heavy and out of shape is somehow "better and faster". <br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hey there, if it isn't the little "clucker".<br /><br />I do not classify people as "better" based on Erg Scores.<br /><br />If a fat, heavy, out of shape person is faster than you on the Erg, all they are is faster. They might also be "better", but that is independent of the Erg Score. i.e. If they are "better" than you , they would still be "better" than you even if slower on the Erg.<br /><br />Are you ashamed to be slower on the Erg than people whom you claim are "fat, heavy, and out of shape"? That is sad.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 27th, 2005, 4:11 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> The heavier rower exerts more power (hence a larger erg score) but also displaces more water in a boat (hence creating more drag), so how much more power would they have to generate to overcome the extra drag?<br /><br />This is, of course, what many coaches want to know: all other aspects (such as technique) being equal, how do you compare two rowers of different weights and different erg scores in terms of deciding who would move a boat fastest?<br /><br />If VE is the erg speed, then (from Eq. 4.1)) PE = c3VE3 is the power generated by the rower. Modifying Eq.(5.2) slightly to take account of a certain amount of deadweight D (boat, oars, cox) shared amongst each rower, the boat speed VB is given when the Resistive power R VB matches the generated power:<br /><br />(8.1) c3VE3 = c8(W+D)qVB3<br />where q is (2/3) for a single scull, but probably more like (1/2) for crew boats - it depends on how you assume the additional wetted surface area varies with increased mass (see Section 7). The most convenient way to use this relationship (Ve versus Vb, taking into account W) is to standardise the erg scores using some weight-dependent adjustment factor F:<br />(8.2) Speed: VB = VEF<br />(8.3) Distance: DB = DEF<br />(8.4) Time: TB = TE /F <br />(8.5) where F = ((W0+D) / (W+D))q/3<br />DE,TE are the distance or time obtained on the erg, <br />DB,TB are the predicted distance or time obtained in a boat. <br />W0 is some arbitrary `standard' weight for a rower.<br />Putting in some numbers: taking D=15 kg (share of deadweight), q=(1/2), and choosing W0=75 kg, the Adjustment Factor becomes:<br /><br />(8.6) F = (90 / (W+15))0.167<br />where W is the rower's mass in kg. Again, one could argue that a (2/9) power (=0.222) is more appropriate than (1/6) (=0.167).<br />So if a 85 kg oarsman pulls a 5 km erg in 19 minutes (=1140s), and a 70 kg oarsman takes 19.5 minutes (=1170s), their equivalent `boat speeds', normalised for a 75 kg oarsman, would be:<br /><br />(8.7) (85kg): TB = 1140 / ( (90/100)0.167 ) = 1160s = 19m 20s<br />(8.8) (70kg): TB = 1170 / ( (90/85)0.167 ) = 1159s = 19m 19s<br />i.e. a bit of a nightmare for the person who has to select between the two. (Using the 0.222 power would give times 1167s and 1155s respectively, so the lighter rower would win). </td></tr></table><br /><br />ranger

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 27th, 2005, 4:43 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 27 2005, 12:11 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Not sure exactly what your point was in posting from the physics of rowing web site. But you should know that if it were as simple as the formulas offered, things would be much easier than they are in the rowing world.<br /><br />The C2 adjustments for the two rowers would be 1:45.2 and 1:43.4 paces, also giving the edge to the lighter rower. Of course this is complicated by the fact that we don't know the SR's of each rower in this case and if the lighter rower relied on a higher SR to achieve his score, then the results are not likely to be as meaningful, since he will be restricted to taking the same number of strokes as the rest of the crew during a race.<br /><br />For example: All technical skills being equal.<br />A tie goes to the lighter weight or to the lower rate. <br />If one is lighter and the other is lower rating then it is far from decisive.<br /><br />If you are talking about racing 1x's then just put them on the water and race, no other adjustment required. Team boats ALL have heavy contents, even two lwt gals are going to add up to more than a hwt guy, and in fact are about the same speed.<br /><br />Even in seat racing, the SR's are fixed in an attempt to minimize the variables, and even that doesn't work all the time. I.e. The CAN team under Mike Spraklen was particularly known for exactly that, and they had a very disappointing Olympic showing. They would use a fixed low rating during the seat racing and this is why they ended up with a lot of layback, as it was beneficial at the low ratings with a lot of time to deal with, but didn't quite translate so purely to regular racing rates. They did have a good year with it, but that was answered quite quickly by the other countries.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 27th, 2005, 5:08 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 27 2005, 11:18 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Why is he out of shape? </td></tr></table><br />Because it was my example and I said so. <br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 27 2005, 11:18 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I think he is very fit and the tiny woman is out of shape. [right] </td></tr></table><br />I know you do but you're wrong. <br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 27th, 2005, 5:12 pm

PaulS,<br /><br />I am happy taking good care of myself.<br /><br />It is just incidental to this that I am faster than you. <br />

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 27th, 2005, 5:23 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 27 2005, 01:12 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>PaulS,<br /><br />I am happy taking good care of myself.<br /><br />It is just incidental to this that I am faster than you. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Apparently you do not understand the meaning of the word "faster", unless you are talking about your stroke rate, which I'm certain is as fast as can be, since you are out of strength and have nothing but rate to trade for pace, which you appear to have also run out of.<br /><br />Plus, you chickened out of your own challenge (and bet). That's pretty embarassing. So now you are a welcher as well as a sad little man.

[old] hjs · Post by **[old] hjs** » December 27th, 2005, 5:31 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 27 2005, 10:08 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(hjs @ Dec 27 2005, 11:18 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Why is he out of shape? </td></tr></table><br />Because it was my example and I said so. <br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hjs @ Dec 27 2005, 11:18 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I think he is very fit and the tiny woman is out of shape. [right] </td></tr></table><br />I know you do but you're wrong. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />No I don't think he is fit I am telling you he is and I am also telling you the tiny woman is out of shape. Just as a example. So I can't be wrong.<br /><br />Weight itself says nothing, by the way, it is always related to height. A midget woman weighing as much as you mentioned is very overweight and a 7 footh basketbalplayer weighing 250 can be untherweight. <br /><br />It's al about talent's , and you have them , for a ergorower. Your better built for gymnastics or longdistancerunners.<br />But it ok bye me, go ahead and post a lot more of your ludicros comparisonts. It a good laugh. <br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 27th, 2005, 5:40 pm

PaulS,<br /><br />You are the one who chickened out fatcakes.<br /><br />You're afraid to challenge me to a 5k on the erg based on PATT percentages.<br /><br />Would you like to change your mind now and have me embarrass you more? <br />

[old] gw1 · Post by **[old] gw1** » December 27th, 2005, 6:03 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>PaulS,<br /><br />You are the one who chickened out fatcakes </td></tr></table><br /><br />JR<br /><br />Carefull who your calling fatcakes, Paul's a fellow member of the almost exclusive, "40+HW, not as good as we once were, but good once as we ever were" Club! <br /><br />GW<br />

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 27th, 2005, 6:15 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 27 2005, 01:40 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>PaulS,<br /><br />You are the one who chickened out fatcakes.<br /><br />You're afraid to challenge me to a 5k on the erg based on PATT percentages.<br /><br />Would you like to change your mind now and have me embarrass you more? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You are lying again. It is clear from your non-response to my Dec 22 posting regarding this that you bailed out, and did not follow through. Everyone that cares knows it (I'm sure that is a small population). As quick as you are to respond to any other post, only this goading has brought you back to a possibility of regaining face, so please feel free to follow through as requested. Then I will decide if it is worth taking whatever you are willing to bet.<br /><br />As Gary says, I've already been as good as I will likely ever be. <br />And it wasn't all that bad. <br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 27th, 2005, 6:24 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 21 2005, 10:40 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I know you don't want to challenge me to a 5k based on PATT percentages though, say any time within the next 4 weeks which would be ending January 18th. <br /><br />You would probably be chicken to do that, being afraid of races and time trials and all even though you are so much "faster" right Paul. <br /><br />And you'd probably get tired even trying it! <br /><br />So I won't bother to even suggest such a thing. </td></tr></table><br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 22 2005, 09:07 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />I figured PaulS would chicken out, and I was right about that! <br /><br />So I won't even bother to suggest it again. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Is this the one you are babbling about? <br />

Concept2 Forum

Discussion On Adjustments ...

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions