Slides versus Static Erging

[gregsmith01748]

I'm still waiting for a regular Joe Blow rower on these forums, not an ex Olympic medalist, to give me their 5K data [pace, SPM] showing better results on slides. It James G is correct, there should be bunches of you.

The other day I was contemplating weather to buy a set of slides.
I'm very tempted by them so I can reduce the impact on the body and be more technically proficient. In the end, the high price made me decide against it. For a bit more money I can get a SkiErg. Maybe some day, but not soon.

I put a "slides wanted" add on the Row2k classified section and got a set within a week for less than half price. Lots of clubs and schools are upgrading to dynamics and selling slides. Check with coaches in your area, I bet you can get a set used quite cheaply if you want them.

I'm slower on them, but I like rowing on them more. The biggest difference for me is in the way my neck feels. On the static, my head is moving a long distance from catch to finish and my neck really feels it for intense high rate workouts and trials. On slides, it is much more gentle.

[Cyclingman1]

And looking at it in a simply way, on a grounded erg we have to push our body uphill on the rail, slides/dynamic don,t have that, so this saves energy. Now you have to transfer that saved energy in a good enough technique and get it in the flywheel.

That is the trick. Apparently some can do it. At this point I'm a bit of a skeptic.

Just call me a sucker. Paid full price, plus shipping. But when one is rich, who cares?

[Bob S.]

But IMO it is a joke that concept2 allows both statics and sliders to enter WR-times (except for the 2k). It´s a different piece of Equipment so any records/race Performances should be noted seperately.

The times and distances done on slides are not supposed to be eligible for WRs, but, like age, gender, and weight, it is mostly a matter of honor system, as to whether or not a WR applicant reports the use of slides. The dynamic, of course, ia electronically ruled out, since the logcard can sense what kind of machine is used. It can not, however, detect what the machine is mounted on.

[gregsmith01748]

But IMO it is a joke that concept2 allows both statics and sliders to enter WR-times (except for the 2k). It´s a different piece of Equipment so any records/race Performances should be noted seperately.

The times and distances done on slides are not supposed to be eligible for WRs, but, like age, gender, and weight, it is mostly a matter of honor system, as to whether or not a WR applicant reports the use of slides. The dynamic, of course, ia electronically ruled out, since the logcard can sense what kind of machine is used. It can not, however, detect what the machine is mounted on.

I'm not sure where i stand on the topic of whether or not separate records should be kept for slides, no slides, and dynamic. On one hand, it's obvious that there is a difference in the equipment, and it leads to differences in performance. On that basis it is somewhat difficult to compare performances

On the other hand, our sport is so small to begin with, doesn't it dilute it to have so many, very similar records. Between sex, age groups, weigh classes, event distances and now equipment types, you could have a whole Guinness book of records just for indoor rowing. It might be better to just use the fastest time without regard to the equipment choice. If, over time, more and more records are set on specific equipment, then people will migrate to that for attempts. I understand that this places a burden on people who may have one type of erg versus another, but if you are vying for a world record, I would think you could find yourself a machine in a gym or club to use to prepare for and execute an attempt.

I know that my bike is no where near as good as the one the used by Chris Froome. I also know that the bigger difference isn't the bike, but rather the rider. The same is true for erging. And perhaps my perspective is not that valid because I could never get a WR no matter what machine I sit upon.

[steveroedde]

Although, Steve, I think you're way past me on solving the slide riddle. Your times do not lie.

Jim, No the times don't lie. I erg on slides almost exclusively now...because it feels "alive" and I like it more. I only switch to static in the 3-4 weeks before Crash B's for sport-specific training. I don't think I have solved any riddles. Your post resulted in me checking back in my logbook because I think you said I did all my WR's on slides. This may just be a function of which row I used to rank. Using my 500m time as an example, I have tied my 1:27.5 8 times as a 60+ lwt. 3 of them on static. Unlike world class scullers, I think I can achieve identical times static and dynamic...and my 500m results seem to confirm this. The other ranking pieces have been done on slides because they usually are not done in the 3-4 weeks leading up to Crash B's.

I can do some digging to see what the differences have been if it's important, but again, my results are just my results.

Theoretical physics, is: theoretical physics. It is not evidence.

Evidence is the study I posted. This implied that in men, slides would be slower (over 1k) given the higher oxygen uptake to produce the same watts.
Again, we need evidence, not opinion (mine, yours, or Eric Murray's) about which is faster. Until there is new evidence, people should, in my view, label their posts as theory, opinion or evidence. Still, individual's experiences are interesting to hear about.

As for Concept 2's decision about no slides/dynamicsthe 2k, I suspect that given that they deemed it important to set 2k WR's in race venues', it is impractical to have some folks racing on slides, some on static and so on. It's tough enough to run a race as it is!!!

I share Greg's opinion, there are few enough of us as it is. Having WR's for different pieces of equipment, different weights, different ages...becomes even more meaningless than they are at present:-) We are really just a bunch of folks pulling on a handle in our garages after-all!

Again Jim, a good post/discussion.

[Alissa]

I suspect at least one reason I like slides better, is because when I first started "rowing," it was on a C2 with slides. i started in Xeno Muller's then-rowing studio, The Iron Oarsman. The slides allowed me to move to match motions with Xeno, who was rowing on a machine to my right, without having to match his pressure or pace. Sort of like learning the choreography before going into full "gear."

Another thing slides allow (since the rower is moving the machine around him/herself) is single leg drills, where one grounds one leg with the foot flat on the floor, then rows with the other. That allow you to correct imbalances between legs.

I have a model D, but wish I had slides again.

Alissa

[Bob S.]

On a dynamic or slides, the power needed is roughly 1/3 of this, say 15 W, because we shift mass at lower speed. So these machines for the same pace, and for the same rating by a 100kg erger, need 35 W less total power from him. Scullers have it even better, as the boat weighs about 15kg.

There is quite a bit of difference between slides and the dynamic. On the dynamic it is only the stretcher that moves (in addition to the rower and seat) and the weight of the stretcher is on the order of 9 pounds. On slides, it is the whole machine (57 pounds for the D) plus a little more from the moving carriages (3 or 4 pounds??). This is further complicated by the use of bungees. On slides they moderate the movement of the carriages and on the dynamic, it moderates the movement of the seat. On slides, there is an additional factor in that some ergers use shims at the outer ends of the slides in order to have gravity moderate the movement of the carriages. It is my impression that this is common practice in Oz. Rocking Roland posted some of the details a few years ago and I adapted them for my own use when I was using a model D on slides at home. The dynamic has its own leveling system and is supposed to be set at the angle that produces equal travel of the seat in each direction. That would also have an effect of gravity moderation of both stretcher and erger/seat.

[Cyclingman1]

Theoretical physics, is: theoretical physics. It is not evidence.

Evidence is the study I posted. This implied that in men, slides would be slower (over 1k) given the higher oxygen uptake to produce the same watts.
Again, we need evidence, not opinion

Exactly. Of course, this is one study, but it is pretty decisive. I wish the study had been for a longer distance, not 1K.

Perhaps "riddle" is a poor choice of words, but you, Steve, have figured something out about slides. And I'm pretty sure that there are some physiological characteristics that help. Given the study, I would be inclined to think that, yes, you would row at least as well on a static for all distances. However, I think that <= .5K distances stand in a class of their own. Not sure how slides and static play out for those shorter distances.

I also don't know how to process Eric Murray's slide and static results. The bottom line is that I can only assess what I experience. And I need more experience on slides. I initially posted because when first trying slides, I was surprised at the results.

[Carl Watts]

You would have to make the observation that just because your good on a static Erg doesn't mean you can row OTW well.

As the likes of Eric Murray are focused on OTW results and the technique to move a boat, then this clearly translates to an advantage for him to use slides.

In summary it looks like the better you are OTW the bigger the difference between your performance on the static and the dynamic.

Moving your entire body weight at high ratings is a total waste of energy. The slides must assist in reducing the losses and make it easier, there is no other way to explain a faster time on a rower with slides, less energy wasted and therefore more available to go into the flywheel. Ratings of 37 to 40spm are draining, I cannot really get past 34spm and that's for the 500m. My 5K PB was at like 26spm.

Obviously its all about technique, clearly it can be better or worse for you and you really will not know until you jump on slides to find out.

My question would be does fine tuning and improving your performance on slides translate back to better performances that you had on a static ? You would have to expect it works backwards as well as forwards and using slides would help you more OTW.

[jamesg]

Theoretical physics, is: theoretical physics. It is not evidence.

The evidence is that better results are not easily reached on a dynamic or slider erg, for someone coming from a static erg. We might even say the evidence shows that using static erg technique on a dynamic, we'll go slower.

This is hardly surprising: to gain on screen any reduction of inertial power losses means putting less work into shuttling along the rail and more work into the handle, with maybe a major change of technique. It certainly won't be automatic, as It implies some combination of using our hamstrings less, quads more, an increase in rating and the increase in net stroke length that higher acceleration at the catch will allow.


Intuitively, shifting masses slow is easier than shifting them fast. Classical mechanics confirms this and lets us do a quantitative estimate. Sure, it's theory; the same one that was used to navigate to the moon and back.

[steveroedde]

Theoretical physics, is: theoretical physics. It is not evidence.

The evidence is that better results are not easily reached on a dynamic or slider erg, for someone coming from a static erg. We might even say the evidence shows that using static erg technique on a dynamic, we'll go slower.

This is hardly surprising: to gain on screen any reduction of inertial power losses means putting less work into shuttling along the rail and more work into the handle, with maybe a major change of technique. It certainly won't be automatic, as It implies some combination of using our hamstrings less, quads more, an increase in rating and the increase in net stroke length that higher acceleration at the catch will allow.


Intuitively, shifting masses slow is easier than shifting them fast. Classical mechanics confirms this and lets us do a quantitative estimate. Sure, it's theory; the same one that was used to navigate to the moon and back.

James, I apologize if you felt I was being critical of the physics. Nor did I mean to insult. Physics seems an exact science. I have no doubt that the physics got man to the moon and back.

Application of physics to complex systems (particularly ones where human physiology interact with the item being studied), sometimes might not end up with expected results. This seems to be the case here...until we get more evidence.

I have seen the physics you posted used elsewhere to "prove" the "belief" , "assumption" and perhaps "conviction" that humans using the C2 rower on slides have an advantage that is in some way unfair. There seemed much chatter elsewhere that Murray "cheated" or otherwise had an unfair advantage by using slides.

My area of expertise is not physics, it is interpretation of medical evidence...an area littered with the carcasses of great ideas that work in theory, often supported by incredibly strong convictions....that fail to work in reality. I believe that exercise physiology is similar.

This is my only point. We need study. We need evidence. Until such time as more evidence is available, I believe that the current "rules" set out by C2 makes sense. Although clearly "different" there is no evidence that one offers an advantage over the other (and such as there is, suggests that the static would give faster times...in varsity and novice scullers who have access to both in their training).

Again, if I offended, I apologize!
Steve

[sander]

The only data I have for comparison are Pete Plan interval workouts which I did both on slides and on a static. For me (Masters OTW rower, LW), the slides seemed easier and I had faster results. I am not very strong, and I guess for me it is easy to work at 32spm doing many "light" strokes than rowing the same pace at 26spm.

I could do my next 5k on slides, but I am not going to do another 5k on the static in the same week just to compare.

[Cyclingman1]

I would once again like to make the point that modeling real world behavior, especially man and his machines, is very complex. And the results are no better than the model. Yes there are some straightforward movements involving masses and speeds on an erg, but there are the endpoints - the sudden change of direction, the human mechanics, the various frictions, and I'm sure many more variables hard to pinpoint and measure. I think actual evidence is very key in this discussion - evidence obtained from very carefully controlled studies. One man's row, including mine, is completely secondary to such a study. Clearly, in the study referenced, distinctly more energy is required on slides with the SPM being much higher and the handle forces much lower. It is hard to not draw the conclusion, in so far as the study is generally applicable, that using slides is tougher than no slides.

I would also like to suggest that for some, the higher SPM, shorter stroke length, and lower handle forces may align with someone's preferred method rowing. I hate to say this, but perhaps the same individual(s) has never really mastered the static machine. In Steve's case, he clearly has mastered both, so his efforts are highly valued in this discussion. If anything, he slightly undermines the study's results, because he has overcome the disadvantage of slides. Most likely his fitness level is out of the roof. I happen to think, Sander, that you are probably one of those who is predisposed to slides and has not really mastered the static machine. [You almost suggest that yourself.] Posting a time on a setup that you really do not prefer will prove nothing.

I started this discussion, because the slides immediately surprised me. I thought beforehand that my times would be very similar to those on my static machine. I think it is fair to say I am an accomplished static erger. In my late 60s, I have numerous sub-17:50 5Ks with a best of 17:34. Within the limits of my strength and fitness, I get the most out of a static erg that can be gotten. On slides, all of a sudden, long, hard pulls don't work as well. You have to ramp up the SPM, which is very taxing even with reduced handle forces. I'm not really close to static performance. Yes, there is a learning curve, and yes, I could be fitter, but it could just be that the study has revealed a truth: slides are inherently more difficult. Ironically, if I continue to vigorously use slides, it could be that my static erging will improve as any overload principle in training works.

I still await the legitimate reporting of faster slide times for distances over 1K with the assumption that the effort and skill are comparable.

[jamesg]

We need study. We need evidence

Evidence already shows clearly that some, on a dynamic type erg, do more work in total but can deliver less of it to the handle.

We might want to know why, since there is a problem: moving our mass slower needs substantially less energy, not more, so we can't blame the machine. So where are we putting it, if not into the handle, and why; and how can we reverse this?

Certainly it's difficult to get the loss difference into the handle. After all, the work not done in one set of muscles would have to be supplied to the handle by another set that's already working hard. So I at least would need a few months specific dyno work on technique, strength and training.

[tcattell]

I have an opinion that is non-scientific, but I have 40+ years OTW sweep/sculling, and have been comfortable with "gamut" ergs of the 70s, the stationary C2, and over the past 5 years, I have been a dedicated "slider" with the model D. Upon putting the erg on slides, I immediately experienced a significant jump in performance. For 2,000 and shorter, 1 second improvement per 500 with 3-4 higher SPM. For longer pieces the improvement was harder to pin down. There was a very positive "confidence" factor that helped me in training and racing. There is a level coordination needed to get going, and I agree that getting comfortable with slides is more natural for OTW rowers.

In my opinion, the key is being able to drive the rate up efficiently and comfortably. I now row 2K at 35-36, DF 120 (I used to do 130+), and longer pieces 32-34, DF 120. I don't like to pull hard, thus I naturally like the higher SPM and lower DF. The 2K is the only distance I regularly do on the stationary erg, and I find that the 3-4 second advantage on slides has continued (I take my erg off the slides 2 weeks before the CRASH-Bs).

There is another benefit to slides, in my opinion. It is easier on the back. I find that there is a split second delay, or "hitch" at the catch with a stationary erg. This is not the case with slides.

Here is an additional piece of non-scientific, but unassailable evidence: I discussed this very issue with Dick Dreissigacker at the CRASH B a few years ago. He agreed that for shorter pieces (2,000 and shorter), there was an advantage if you could use the higher rating. But he thought the advantage disappeared for longer pieces, presumably because you don't use a high rating, or a high rating is not as much of an advantage.

Tom Cattell
Falmouth, Maine