Claimed World Record For Power Generation

[[old] Roland Baltutis]

I recently read in "Rowing Magozine" that Peter Hardcastle set a new claimed World record for power generation on a erg in Sydney in Nov'05.<br /><br />However it wasn't on a C2 erg but rather a Rowperfect erg during the Aussie Rowperfect Championships. The details are:<br /><br />566 watts<br />2K time 5:21.7 on 8+ setting<br />New prognostic record of 99.2%<br /><br />My question is does anyone know what the average watts were for the current mens world record on the C2 erg as a comparison?<br /><br />Who would have been quicker if both world record holders were on a C2 erg? As the Rowperfect races are done on a 8+ setting and the C2 erg is based on 4X the only way to compare seems to be watts (unless anyone knows of other means).<br /><br />Rockin Roland

[[old] John Rupp]

566 watts = 5:40.8<br /><br />5:37.0 = 585.3 watts

[[old] Roland Baltutis]

Next Question?<br /><br />So if 566 watts is equivalent to 5:40.8 and the world record on a C2 erg is 5:37.<br /><br /><b>If Peter Hardcastle had done his effort that day on a C2 erg rather than a Rowperfect would he have gone faster or slower than 5:37 after taking into consideration the degree of difficulty between the two ergs?</b><br /><br />Before answering you would need to take into consideration the following points:<br /><br />Peter has rowed on water for Australia for a number of years and like a growing number of other Aust team members uses the Rowperfect rather than C2 erg for his training.<br /><br />Rowperfect has a moving flywheel (unlike the fixed C2 flywheel) and limited tilt seat which is more difficult to row well.<br /><br />If slides are not permitted at most major C2 rowing races and it can be debated that they make you go faster, would the momentum of movement of seat & flywheel on the Rowperfect have helped Peter go faster than a stationary C2 erg???<br /><br />Perhaps the calibration of measuring watts between the two machines may differ and not allow us to compare efforts equally between the two machines.<br /><br />Rockin Roland<br />(By the way. I don't train on a Rowperfect and consider myself a loyal user of C2 ergs)

[[old] NavigationHazard]

This came up almost exactly a year ago on the Forum.<br /><br />The consensus between Mel Harbour and Paul Smith seemed to be that direct comparisons between RP and C2 monitor results didn't work, even when the RP was set to "C2 mode." See <a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... 046&st=165#' target='_blank'>Mel Harbour post from 2005 re Row Perfect.</a><br />

[[old] PaulS]

I was in contact with the Campbells (RP folks in AUS) back in November about this and there are a couple very interesting points that came out of the discussion.<br /><br />Since the RP was set up to reflect an 8+ and Pete is 93kg (205lbs) I ran the numbers through the C2 formula for C2 Erg to 8+ conversion and here's what came out.<br /><br />C2 Std: 2k of 5:40.8=566watts=1:25.20 Avg Pace. <br />C2 8+: 2k of 5:20.6 / Avg Pace = 1:20.15<br />RP 8+: 2k of 5:21.7 = 566watts = 1:20.43 Avg Pace<br /><br />Difference of only 0.28sec in Pace when similar factors have been accounted for, which is pretty darn close.<br /><br />To answer Rolands question; No, the watt calculation between the two machines is repeatable, it's the weight and boat factors that made the difference in overall time for Pete. I'd imagine that Pete is quite a competent Oarsman and the "difficulty" of the RP is not really a factor in his case, nor would be the "ease" of the C2 grounded erg. IMO, of course, but I've rowed both machines, and found the adjustment quite easy, in fact nearly imperceptable.<br /><br />Sincere congratulations to Pete, there is no reason that RP should not have it's own World Record standards, and this was certainly a World Class performance by any standard.

[[old] Roland Baltutis]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Jan 14 2006, 08:56 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Jan 14 2006, 08:56 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was in contact with the Campbells (RP folks in AUS) back in November about this and there are a couple very interesting points that came out of the discussion.<br /><br />Since the RP was set up to reflect an 8+ and Pete is 93kg (205lbs)  I ran the numbers through the C2 formula for C2 Erg to 8+ conversion and here's what came out.<br /><br />C2 Std: 2k of 5:40.8=566watts=1:25.20 Avg Pace.  <br />C2 8+: 2k of 5:20.6 / Avg Pace = 1:20.15<br />RP 8+: 2k of 5:21.7 = 566watts = 1:20.43 Avg Pace<br /><br />Difference of only 0.28sec in Pace when similar factors have been accounted for, which is pretty darn close.<br /><br />To answer Rolands question; No, the watt calculation between the two machines is repeatable, it's the weight and boat factors that made the difference in overall time for Pete.  I'd imagine that Pete is quite a competent Oarsman and the "difficulty" of the RP is not really a factor in his case, nor would be the "ease" of the C2 grounded erg. IMO, of course, but I've rowed both machines, and found the adjustment quite easy, in fact nearly imperceptable.<br /><br />Sincere congratulations to Pete, there is no reason that RP should not have it's own World Record standards, and this was certainly a World Class performance by any standard. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Brilliant post Paul. Very informative and exactly what I wanted to know. I didn't know that you were involved with the Aussies after Pete's effort. I guess a bloke with your experience on these matters would be sought after from all over the world.<br /><br />Once again thanks for the info.<br /><br />Rockin Roland<br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-Roland Baltutis+Jan 16 2006, 01:39 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Roland Baltutis @ Jan 16 2006, 01:39 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Jan 14 2006, 08:56 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Jan 14 2006, 08:56 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was in contact with the Campbells (RP folks in AUS) back in November about this and there are a couple very interesting points that came out of the discussion.<br /><br />Since the RP was set up to reflect an 8+ and Pete is 93kg (205lbs)  I ran the numbers through the C2 formula for C2 Erg to 8+ conversion and here's what came out.<br /><br />C2 Std: 2k of 5:40.8=566watts=1:25.20 Avg Pace.  <br />C2 8+: 2k of 5:20.6 / Avg Pace = 1:20.15<br />RP 8+: 2k of 5:21.7 = 566watts = 1:20.43 Avg Pace<br /><br />Difference of only 0.28sec in Pace when similar factors have been accounted for, which is pretty darn close.<br /><br />To answer Rolands question; No, the watt calculation between the two machines is repeatable, it's the weight and boat factors that made the difference in overall time for Pete.  I'd imagine that Pete is quite a competent Oarsman and the "difficulty" of the RP is not really a factor in his case, nor would be the "ease" of the C2 grounded erg. IMO, of course, but I've rowed both machines, and found the adjustment quite easy, in fact nearly imperceptable.<br /><br />Sincere congratulations to Pete, there is no reason that RP should not have it's own World Record standards, and this was certainly a World Class performance by any standard. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Brilliant post Paul. Very informative and exactly what I wanted to know. I didn't know that you were involved with the Aussies after Pete's effort. I guess a bloke with your experience on these matters would be sought after from all over the world.<br /><br />Once again thanks for the info.<br /><br />Rockin Roland <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Thanks for the compliment Roland, but the real story is a bit more humble. The RP folks posted a NewsGroup question regarding Pete's performance, I answered some questions, and then we exchanged a few emails to nail down some historical specifics.<br /><br />What I really want, is the stroke file from Pete's race, but that's his business and I have been told it is quite close to HJZwolle's, which is impressive indeed.<br /><br />Are you making the trip to Boston? I'm looking forward to meeting up with the folks previously met there, and I'll make sure to get you onto ErgMonitor. <br /><br />Cheers!

[[old] Carl Henrik]

Just a question:<br /><br />Peter Hardcastle rowed the 2x and came 12th in the olympics 2004. With a 5:40 erg time on an erg that demands more boat like technique (If I have understood things correctly), shouldn't he have been better on water?<br /><br />Xeno rowed only 5:53 on an unwobbly C2 erg and won the 1x!<br /><br />I think this suggests that even if RP is closer to onwater rowing it's still too far for that difference to be significant. Perhaps there are things suggesting otherwise. <br /><br />By the way, when I was testing my VO2Max and ventilation at a lab. They said something about having tested wether the D model was "slower" than the C model because some people got slower. Both machines showed correct numbers though. I didn't hear their explanation to why people got slower. Mine is that they didn't realise the dragfactor vs dragsetting relationship was different and was unaccustomed to the lighter drag at a certain setting.

[[old] Alan Maddocks]

One other factor regarding comparability ....<br /><br />Peter H. would have had to row for an extra 20 seconds to row a 5-40 2K on a Concept 2. His average 566 watts would probably have been less if the effort required an extra 20 seconds worth of rowing.

[[old] Roland Baltutis]

<!--QuoteBegin-Alan Maddocks+Jan 25 2006, 07:02 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Alan Maddocks @ Jan 25 2006, 07:02 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One other factor regarding comparability ....<br /><br />Peter H. would have had to row for an extra 20 seconds to row a 5-40 2K on a Concept 2. His average 566 watts would probably have been less if the effort required an extra 20 seconds worth of rowing. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Alan,<br /> I don't follow your claim of Peter having to row an extra 20 seconds on a C2 erg. My understanding is that if Peter was sitting on a C2 erg, rather than a Rowperfect, he would have had the fastest time for 2Ks, for this current season, next to his name. Faster than Adams and Benton.<br /><br />Please elaborate further on your post.<br /><br /><br />Rockin Roland<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

5:40.8 - 5:21.7 = 19.1 seconds