Catch And Resistance

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 5th, 2004, 7:28 pm

I agree completely Paul, i think it is much more likely that a good on the water rower will erg fast than a fast erger on water. Technique has a huge part in this no doubt but also probably that the water rower may possibly have many more 'miles in the bank' and it appears rowing proficiency / physiology on and off the water is only developed over years. As to goals well I think they have to be high ... even tho I am just under 6:30 my goal is 6:20 not 6:25 as then I just starting to get into the serious speeds lol but a long way off being quick. I find it interesting that my target time of 6:20 is also about 10mps at about 32/33spm. I tried a couple of sessions the other day at the 10mps and can see that it would greatly increase ones ability to judge pace (is this more important on the water) ... where it hurt was that at 1:50 pace that is about 27spm and I am just not used to that at this stage, I also had problems at keeping my pace down at slower rates. For me, for whatever reason I find it easier at the 2:00 - 1;45 paces I guess at a lower rate and higher SPI, but is it intriguing that the closer I get to my target pace the SPI and the 10mps draw inexoribly closer. I had thought to keep working on my low rate high SPI method for a few months and then look to slowly up the rate in some sessions till I am doing intervals at 28/30+ at the higher SPI. I am still arguing with myself if this is the best course ... maybe one could mix and match the SPI sessions with the s10mps but I would have thought for the s10mps to be effective as a tool it needed to become ingrained in the psyche and the muscles Anyones thoughts ? George ps there is the concern that low rates and high spm training will bog me down and I'll become a great 60min rower but struggle to hot up the pace over 2k

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 6th, 2004, 2:42 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If you are planning on rowing along in a fast boat, low DF's are the obvious choice, for Slow Boats pick High DF's. I think this is where some confusion exists in the understanding of DF. While the power required for a given speed (Pace on the PM) is always the same, that is because the translation is simply XAvgWatts = YPace for the virtual boat. I think that a likely parallel would be Oar Length (assuming constant inboard length), at the same boat speed a much longer oar would require more time on the Drive (High DF) than a Shorter Oar (Lower DF). The boat would be propelled further on the drive with the longer outboard and take a bit more time. This would be similar to the relationship between the Flywheel RPMs and drive Speed. At DF200 the rpms may be around 1000, but at DF100 the rpms might be closer to 1500 (these are just examples, I don't have exact figures in front of me at the moment). This means that at the low DF you will have to be moving 50% faster to even catch up to the flywheel before energy can be added. Now you might think something like "I can get more force on the flywheel at high DF's", but that's only due to the limit on muscular contraction rate. Ideally we need to train at appropriate contraction rates as they relate to the goal of racing together, so DF selection becomes a team issue. </td></tr></table> Yep. And if you initially learn to row at 200 df., it can be quite a challenge (to body and mind!) to change from going fast and easy by slugging at a wheel spinning at 1000 rpms to going fast by skipping along after a wheel spinning at 1500 rpms. I started to make this change about two years ago, and I am still working on it. The change (eventually!) comes, but only after an enormous restructuring of your musculature, something that is not easy to achieve at all. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 6th, 2004, 3:03 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Sir Pirate @ Oct 5 2004, 10:15 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>This “magic” drag setting of 110. Why is that so special to every one? Why not 105 or 112. Without sounding rude, is it a case of “well Dwayne and Ranger use it, so it must be great as they are quick” I think people should be careful, what works for some does not work for all. This is meant in a caring way. Sir Pirate </td></tr></table> Again, the problem is: How do you know "what works" until you train yourself over long, long periods of time at one drag factor rather than another? It is not at all a good test to just try a bunch of drag factors (at one sitting, given a certain personal history with training) and then go with the one that feels best/goes fastest. By and large, this result just reflects the history of your training, not which choice of drag factor is really better/faster. But if I have been listening closely, this is how most people decide these things. It is more than a bit euphemistic to say that (even while older than you) Dwayne is "quick." Quicker than you by 37 seconds in a 2K, almost 10 seconds per 500? This is also relevant to Paul's response to George, I think. Yes, George is very, very big. And people his size and age have rowed even faster than this (5:40?). It would be fantastic if George could get to 6:20, nothing wrong with this expectation, but this is still a _full_ 10 seconds per 500 off of what _some_ can do who are his size. Perhaps I am wrong in this, but it seems to me that in most cases these things are more a matter of patience and what you are willing to "settle" for than some sort of definitive result that bears on which df. is better. It may be quite a while before I am as fast at 100 df. as I was at 200 df. But when all is said and done, I think I will be much faster (at all distances) skipping after the wheel spinning at 1500 rpm than slugging at the wheel spinning at 1000. There are other benefits, too. For instance, it is also nice not to fall out of my boat each time I take a stroke! The aesthetics of rowing along in a scull and 15 spm and 14 mps (or whatever) on a beautiful calm morning is quite an experience, too. You get addicted. Let the boat run. Let the wheel spin. ranger

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 6th, 2004, 9:33 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Oct 6 2004, 07:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Yes, George is very, very big. And people his size and age have rowed even faster than this (5:40?).  </td></tr></table> I've not heard of any 46 year old's going 5:40, but maybe they are keeping it a secret... Ranger? - Paul Smith

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 6th, 2004, 9:42 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (PaulS @ Oct 6 2004, 08:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Oct 6 2004, 07:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Yes, George is very, very big. And people his size and age have rowed even faster than this (5:40?).  </td></tr></table> I've not heard of any 46 year old's going 5:40, but maybe they are keeping it a secret... Ranger? - Paul Smith </td></tr></table> Yea, o.k., I was exaggerating a little. Forgot that George was 46. Sorry. Nonetheless, the general point still stands, I think. Karpinnen was close to George's age, wasn't he, when he rowed 5:52? So that is still 7-9 seconds per 500 down the line from where George is at these days. ranger

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » October 6th, 2004, 11:27 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Oct 6 2004, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Nonetheless, the general point still stands, I think. Karpinnen was close to George's age, wasn't he, when he rowed 5:52? ranger  </td></tr></table> Karpinnen would have been 42-3 (BD 2/17/53, It's listed as 43 on the "fastest times by age" page.) when he set the 5:52.0 mark, and just prior to turning 50 he managed a 2:59.3 at the 2003 Estonian National Championships (1K event), the same place where Shurmei turned in his 2:39.8. (Back to back sub 1:20's, YIKES!) It would be great to see Karpinnen come out for a go in the 50-59 class. (Keep his name on the WR List since it appears that Dwayne will be gunning for it at the first 'official' opportunity.) Standard Handicapping for Age would give 4.4 seconds for the 3 years from 40 to 43, so even by that standard Dwayne is already there, but it's interesting that the handicap nearly eliminates the gap. (Not that there is any handicapping involved, nor would I suggest that there should be, if you are in the age range you are in the age range.) - Paul Smith

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » October 6th, 2004, 6:12 pm

No apologies necessary from anyone ... considering at this stage I shouldn't even be in the same discussion at those guys - but it does make me think and aspire. I wonder how quick Karpinen would have been at my age if he had only taken up erging/rowing 9 months earlier, it gives me food for thought and I like to think he would have been in about the same place as me but then again he may have just 'blown' me out of the water, but I will ignore that possibility for now % I know that i have 2-3 years of hard work before I evan begin to realise any potential I MAY have (it is not a given that I will get any quicker). The question then will not be so much one of my physical capabilities but as will all of us whether we have the mental strength to pick up our bodies and take them where they dont really want to go - Time will tell and travelling with friends is one of the bonuses - George

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 6th, 2004, 6:53 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>he may have just 'blown' me out of the water,  </td></tr></table> George-- Well, to find out, you would have to get off your erg and get out on the water. Karpinnen was indeed pretty good on the water (understatement of the century)! By the way, if you did, I think you would enjoy it. You are both a thinker and a doer. Sculling is an interesting technical and physical challenge, or at least I have found it to be so far. I have a sabbatical from teaching next year and might take the whole year off from (busy) work (and be writing full time, when I am working). When I am not writing next year, I intend to spend many, many hours in my scull, every moment that I can spare. Hey, I might even take time out for a trip to the West coast for a paddle with PaulS, if he can put up with the embarrassment of trashing about with a novice. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 6th, 2004, 7:14 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I don't know if everyone finds the 2:1 ratio as magic as I do, but I sure know I wouldn't want to row at any other rhythm. Anyone who tells you different has never stroked or sat behind a good stroke and maybe has never been afloat.  </td></tr></table> Yes, the 2:1 ratio is nice at certain rates and paces. Lately, I have also locked into a 3:1 ratio, although the mps to maintain this is indeed high (14.5 mps or so). Today, I was rowing for long stretches at 19 spm and 1:50 (14 SPI). In fact, this rate and pace was so comfortable that I think (with proper preparation) I could stretch such rowing to a marathon. Rowing at a 3:1 ratio (and following the metronome), I turned off the music I usually listened to and even found the PM2 superfluous. As long as I followed the metronome, I rowed at 19 spm and 1:50. Whenever I wandered away from good technique, the metronome corrected my stroke, both the drive and the recovery. I find the 3:1 ratio _really_ smooth and energizing. This is 4-beat measure, the most "natural" meter (e.g., in music and poetry) worldwide, regardless of culture. ranger

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » October 6th, 2004, 8:17 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Rowing at a 3:1 ratio (and following the metronome), I turned off the music I usually listened to and even found the PM2 superfluous. As long as I followed the metronome, I rowed at 19 spm and 1:50. Whenever I wandered away from good technique, the metronome corrected my stroke, both the drive and the recovery. </td></tr></table> A suggestion along these lines: turn out the lights and erg a steady-state piece in the dark to a metronome. You really have to internalize the rhythm in order to stay in sync w/o being able to look at the performance monitor.... This is not necessarily to be recommended on the water, however....

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 7th, 2004, 3:47 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (NavigationHazard @ Oct 6 2004, 07:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Rowing at a 3:1 ratio (and following the metronome), I turned off the music I usually listened to and even found the PM2 superfluous. As long as I followed the metronome, I rowed at 19 spm and 1:50. Whenever I wandered away from good technique, the metronome corrected my stroke, both the drive and the recovery. </td></tr></table> A suggestion along these lines: turn out the lights and erg a steady-state piece in the dark to a metronome. You really have to internalize the rhythm in order to stay in sync w/o being able to look at the performance monitor.... This is not necessarily to be recommended on the water, however....  </td></tr></table> Yes, good suggestion. I'll give it a try. I haven't erged in the dark too much. I like a little light. Candlelight is great, though, especially for things like (early morning) marathons. When I was a marathon runner, I did a lot of running in the early morning, often when it was pretty dark. I have also done a lot of (high speed, tandem) canoeing in the dark. Great stuff. People tell me that when I race on the erg I close my eyes. I never really noticed, but could be. I don't pay attention to much in and around me (including the PM2) when I race. I just focus inwardly on the task and try to draw as completely as I can on my training and race preparation. The major problem in my scull this summer was that I would get so zoned out that I would run into things (like the shore!). Not good for the scull! No problem with boats and people, etc.; I was out there by myself on a lot of open water (i.e., on pretty big lakes or bays of big lakes, not rivers). But I had pretty frequent close encounters with the land. If your nickname, ("navigationhazard") describes your behavior in a scull we might share some of these things. ranger

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » October 7th, 2004, 3:59 am

Ranger, Impressive mps and SPI there. I also find high mps on water to be quite inspiring. It just looks and feels good to be surprised and impressed by how far you are able to get with each stroke (or perhaps I'm just stupid and should'nt be surprised any more ). Then again, every stroke is a piece of art (though somewhat crude by me still I think) and should be regarded as such. With the eye one can follow the giant leaps of the oarblade positions in the water and with just a few of them, you see you have travelled a very long distance.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 7th, 2004, 6:53 am

I'm figuring out and having fun with the rhythmic aspects of technique now. With the metronome beating at 76 clicks a minute, I pull a 3:1 ratio at 19 spm (1:50), a 2:1 ratio at 26 spm (1:40), and a 1:1 ratio at 38 spm (1:30). Concentrating on rhythm, these are fun rates and paces to row at, then. At the moment, I find I do a little trading of rate for pace (i.e., shortening and lightening of my stroke) as the rate rises, but surprising little. This morning, if I took a good strong stroke, I was pulling 14 SPI at 19 spm in a 3:1 ratio, 13.5 SPI at 26 spm in a 2:1 ratio, and 12.9 SPI at 38 spm in a 1:1 ratio. If I get fully trained with this new stroke, if I could use it productively in a 2K, and if I race somewhere between 26 spm and 38 spm, say, 32 spm, the implication is that I would pull 13.2 SPI (a 6:16 2K) with a 1.5:1 ratio. Lots of "ifs"! Nonetheless, this is probably some indication of my ultimate potential. ranger

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » October 7th, 2004, 9:30 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If your nickname, ("navigationhazard") describes your behavior in a scull we might share some of these things. ranger  </td></tr></table> "Death to buoys" pretty much sums up my approach lately.... Seriously, I'm trying to wean myself from checking the boat by looking over my shoulder every three strokes or so. As my wife puts it, "Anything coming? Okay, now take ten strokes towards that bridge half a mile away. Why do you need to look now? Has the bridge moved recently?"

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 7th, 2004, 1:55 pm

Maybe attach a mirror to your boat. Rich, What kind of a metronone do you use?

Concept2 Forum

Catch And Resistance

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training