The three areas I see ripe for improving rowing power over current technique

[frankencrank]

1. Improving muscle contractile efficiency.
2. Increasing muscle mass available to provide power.
3. Increasing propulsive energy transfer to the water.

The first one is pretty easy to self validate on the ergometer. The second again doable on the ergometer but not quite so easy. The third much more complicated to get it right although the ergometer could be useful for this purpose.

Anyone who might want to discuss these areas with me I would welcome your thoughts.

[strupotter]

Are you looking to discuss how to maximise improvements in these areas?

1. We can maximise muscle contractile efficiency by improving neural pathways via technical training both on water and on ergos. A case can be made that a static ergo negatively affects the technical carryover to on water, and a dynamic system may be more appropriate. If an individual is not looking to row on water, then technique is not as big a priority as physiological adaptations. Strength and power training (via weights and plyometrics) aid with maximising motor unit recruitment and flexibility routines to ensure there is minimal interference so we can effectively lay power on each stroke.

2. Maximising muscle mass available to provide power is also important for both on water and indoor rowing, but there would be a bell curve for on water performance, where too much mass can affect the boat speed (depending on the boat). Obviously LWT rowers strive to maximise LBM to the best of their ability. Hypertrophy training is best done using weights, and an ergo would not be an efficient means of training for muscle mass.

3. I will defer to someone who has more knowledge of on water technique and power curves, as my knowledge isn't extensive.

[frankencrank]

Are you looking to discuss how to maximise improvements in these areas?

Actually, I have ideas in each of these areas. Others may hove other ideas.

1. We can maximise muscle contractile efficiency by improving neural pathways via technical training both on water and on ergos. A case can be made that a static ergo negatively affects the technical carryover to on water, and a dynamic system may be more appropriate. If an individual is not looking to row on water, then technique is not as big a priority as physiological adaptations. Strength and power training (via weights and plyometrics) aid with maximising motor unit recruitment and flexibility routines to ensure there is minimal interference so we can effectively lay power on each stroke.

That is not my idea. The idea is to maximize contractile efficiency by controlling muscle contraction rate and, perhaps, muscle contraction range (joints also have variable efficiencies). At any given power any muscle will have an optimum contractile rate. Power is force times speed. While higher speeds require less force for the same power, higher speeds require the making and breaking of more bonds which costs a lot of energy. Plus slower contraction speeds means accelerating the body up to a lesser speed, saving that additional loss. Of course, too slow of a contractile speed is also inefficient as the muscle has a limited ability to increase strength and high contraction forces involve fast twitch fibers which are less energy efficient. Since rowing is primarily an aerobic sport, one should try to optimize muscle contraction (power generation) efficiency by finding the optimum slide speed for the power one races at. This can be done by serial trials looking at how changing drag factor (which changes slide speed) affects heart rate (a proxy for oxygen consumption).

2. Maximising muscle mass available to provide power is also important for both on water and indoor rowing, but there would be a bell curve for on water performance, where too much mass can affect the boat speed (depending on the boat). Obviously LWT rowers strive to maximise LBM to the best of their ability. Hypertrophy training is best done using weights, and an ergo would not be an efficient means of training for muscle mass.

My idea doesn't involve bulking up 1 gram. It is using muscles you already have but are not using (at least to any extent). This idea does involve a tiny simple modification to the equipment but, as I read the rules (rowing rules, not C2 competition), would be entirely legal. Care to hazard a guess?

3. I will defer to someone who has more knowledge of on water technique and power curves, as my knowledge isn't extensive.

This is pure physics problem of power transfer from rower to the oar then the oar to the water to drive the boat while looking at the physiological energy cost of generating that power. this would be the toughest one to optimize I believe.
Thanks for showing up. Maybe my hints will get some other brains thinking.

[ampire]

Guessing that the third area might help to row on slides or a dynamic.

[frankencrank]

Guessing that the third area might help to row on slides or a dynamic.

My expectation is the third area will only have a slight impact (if any) on ergometer power and will mostly be applicable to the water.

[jackarabit]

3. Increasing propulsive energy transfer to the water.

Maximum energy transfer to water = Bikini atoll.

Maximum efficient energy application to water measured as end product magic carpet = corn flakes-powered sliding rigger and lifting foil a la AC75.

Tuning flesh and blood response is penny ante marginal gains over aeons. All this storied land sea air junk is Archimedes’ lever as exoskeleton.

[jamesg]

The problem with improving erg technique is where we start from. If the slow/fast twitch idea has any sense, we'll get best results on the erg by using both, as allowed by standard rowing technique during low rate training.

C2's hydrofoil blades serve to transmit force to the water with least slip, not power. We don't want to lose power to turbulence, it has to stay aboard.

[frankencrank]

The problem with improving erg technique is where we start from. If the slow/fast twitch idea has any sense, we'll get best results on the erg by using both, as allowed by standard rowing technique during low rate training.

C2's hydrofoil blades serve to transmit force to the water with least slip, not power. We don't want to lose power to turbulence, it has to stay aboard.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying, especially about the oars on an ergometer. I haven't studies this much at all but intuitively it would seem that turbulence would be an advantage. Regarding muscle fiber use. Doesn't it depend on what one is doing? If one is sprinting one wants to use as many muscle fibers as possible, including the fast twitch ones. If one is doing a marathon one wants to avoid using fast twitch fibers pretty much at all cost. Seems this has little to do with technique but, rather, effort.

[frankencrank]

Since no one has even hazarded a guess as to what I mean by the second area, increasing used muscle mass I will tell you for comment.

It is simple, one simply adds a spring to the oar such that during the recovery the oar must be pushed forward which would add potential energy into the oar which gets returned (less spring loss) on the power stroke. this requires using new and different muscles. (My reading of the rules says equipment modifications are allowed that at commercially available and available to all. bungie cords qualify.) A similar idea (but illegal for competition) on the ergometer is to simply raise the flywheel end such that the recovery is uphill. The amount of potential energy stored will depend on how high the body is raised during recovery. This can be done on the shell in many ways but the easiest is simply to use bungie cords attached to the shell and the oar handle. It is easy to adjust the resistance to what one can do by simply adjusting the tension of the cord and the position on the handle.

The problem with this is it requires training a new set of muscles up to the same aerobic ability as the currently trained ones. This takes time. My experience with this with cyclists is the first time one is required to do this most cyclists last 5 minutes (pros go 10-15). But, with time endurance becomes equal to all the other muscles this can take weeks or months. My experience with cyclists is this change should add somewhere between 10-20% in power to most experienced oarsmen. (Cyclists see more but there are other things going on to improve the cycling stroke.)

Comments?

[Cyclist2]

Better to stick to the weight room for developing muscle mass/power/etc.

Making modifications to the boat or erg as you suggest would so foul up technique and proper sequence that the result would be way slower times. By the time anyone could master those mods, they'd have to relearn the proper technique all over again.

[frankencrank]

Better to stick to the weight room for developing muscle mass/power/etc.

Making modifications to the boat or erg as you suggest would so foul up technique and proper sequence that the result would be way slower times. By the time anyone could master those mods, they'd have to relearn the proper technique all over again.

Indeed. The first thing cyclists saw when they tried this is it slowed them down, a lot. Many gave up when they couldn't go out on their weekly hammer tests with their friends. Those who stuck with it benefited greatly. I'll bet the first time Fosbury tried his flop he didn't jump as high as he was used to. It takes time and dedication to make such changes. If you aren't willing to do that then don't even try.

I will say this, rowers have an advantage. With cyclists it was either all or nothing. In rowing, the resistance can be gradually increased making the adaption much easier (although, probably, a bit slower).

Let me add one more thing. The other thing that takes time for this to be fully developed is the cardiovascular system must adapt to the new oxygen demand. VO2max will increase but it takes time for both the heart and muscles to adapt to the new stresses.

[hjs]

Since no one has even hazarded a guess as to what I mean by the second area, increasing used muscle mass I will tell you for comment.

It is simple, one simply adds a spring to the oar such that during the recovery the oar must be pushed forward which would add potential energy into the oar which gets returned (less spring loss) on the power stroke. this requires using new and different muscles. (My reading of the rules says equipment modifications are allowed that at commercially available and available to all. bungie cords qualify.) A similar idea (but illegal for competition) on the ergometer is to simply raise the flywheel end such that the recovery is uphill. The amount of potential energy stored will depend on how high the body is raised during recovery. This can be done on the shell in many ways but the easiest is simply to use bungie cords attached to the shell and the oar handle. It is easy to adjust the resistance to what one can do by simply adjusting the tension of the cord and the position on the handle.

The problem with this is it requires training a new set of muscles up to the same aerobic ability as the currently trained ones. This takes time. My experience with this with cyclists is the first time one is required to do this most cyclists last 5 minutes (pros go 10-15). But, with time endurance becomes equal to all the other muscles this can take weeks or months. My experience with cyclists is this change should add somewhere between 10-20% in power to most experienced oarsmen. (Cyclists see more but there are other things going on to improve the cycling stroke.)

Comments?

Few weeks ago I saw the Dutch 8 who currently use a motor during parts of their training. Goal is to row longer at race pace and be able to improve technique at that pace. Trouble ofcourse will be, yes the waterspeed is at race pace, but intensity is not. How this will transform to racing? But who knows, the difference between gold and the placed behind is often just a few meters. So only a little improvement could be very usefull.

The changes you are thinking of will change the sport.
Current example is runningshoes, records are falling like leaves, with the energy the shoes are saving.
Swimming, one season “floating” swimsuits made swimmer sit high on the water, records dropped. This was soon forbidden.
Speedskating, old skated had fixed ankles, now the “klapskate” has a anklejoint which is both easier and faster.
Crossski, the classicstyle versus the skatestyle.
Ski-jumping again classic versus the V style, which was first not appreciated, but now common.

I personally am not in favor of changing rules easily, reason being, comparability of results of different generations. In some sports records don’t matter that much, but in other a lot. The current trend in running I really dislike, people with less talent are now breaker records due to their shoes.

[frankencrank]

Since no one has even hazarded a guess as to what I mean by the second area, increasing used muscle mass I will tell you for comment.

It is simple, one simply adds a spring to the oar such that during the recovery the oar must be pushed forward which would add potential energy into the oar which gets returned (less spring loss) on the power stroke. this requires using new and different muscles. (My reading of the rules says equipment modifications are allowed that at commercially available and available to all. bungie cords qualify.) A similar idea (but illegal for competition) on the ergometer is to simply raise the flywheel end such that the recovery is uphill. The amount of potential energy stored will depend on how high the body is raised during recovery. This can be done on the shell in many ways but the easiest is simply to use bungie cords attached to the shell and the oar handle. It is easy to adjust the resistance to what one can do by simply adjusting the tension of the cord and the position on the handle.

The problem with this is it requires training a new set of muscles up to the same aerobic ability as the currently trained ones. This takes time. My experience with this with cyclists is the first time one is required to do this most cyclists last 5 minutes (pros go 10-15). But, with time endurance becomes equal to all the other muscles this can take weeks or months. My experience with cyclists is this change should add somewhere between 10-20% in power to most experienced oarsmen. (Cyclists see more but there are other things going on to improve the cycling stroke.)

Comments?

Few weeks ago I saw the Dutch 8 who currently use a motor during parts of their training. Goal is to row longer at race pace and be able to improve technique at that pace. Trouble ofcourse will be, yes the waterspeed is at race pace, but intensity is not. How this will transform to racing? But who knows, the difference between gold and the placed behind is often just a few meters. So only a little improvement could be very usefull.

This sounds like the motor pacing that cyclists do. I am aware of zero evidence that it makes a difference but, it is what many pros do. I am a firm believer in "train the way you race, race the way you train."

The changes you are thinking of will change the sport.
Current example is runningshoes, records are falling like leaves, with the energy the shoes are saving.
Swimming, one season “floating” swimsuits made swimmer sit high on the water, records dropped. This was soon forbidden.
Speedskating, old skated had fixed ankles, now the “klapskate” has a anklejoint which is both easier and faster.
Crossski, the classicstyle versus the skatestyle.
Ski-jumping again classic versus the V style, which was first not appreciated, but now common.

Changing the sport (within the rules) is how sport evolves. If someone starts doing this (and winning) either everyone will do it or it will be banned (or another "unlimited" category will be established). If you are afraid of changing the sport then stay away.

I personally am not in favor of changing rules easily, reason being, comparability of results of different generations. In some sports records don’t matter that much, but in other a lot. The current trend in running I really dislike, people with less talent are now breaker records due to their shoes.

This does not change the rules. There are lots of changes that have been made over the years that prevent fair comparison of today to then (how does Navy's "Great Eight" of the 50's compare to crews today? Probably not very favorably but for their time they dominated?) Lots of sports have this "problem." Although it is only a problem if you are afraid of change.

[hjs]

If means of help are not part of the rules, then no it does not change the rules. But those are part of the rules, see swimming. Rowing is not a record sport, so a change does not matter much. But still the more “pure” a sport stays the better I like it. I like to see the best, combi of talent and training win and not the one with the best techniqual tools.

[frankencrank]

If means of help are not part of the rules, then no it does not change the rules. But those are part of the rules, see swimming. Rowing is not a record sport, so a change does not matter much. But still the more “pure” a sport stays the better I like it. I like to see the best, combi of talent and training win and not the one with the best techniqual tools.

What does "pure" mean. This is simply a matter of training the athlete differently to get more power out of him or her into the water. Just because it is something you didn't understand possible doesn't make it unpure (all of the power is generated by the athlete), just different than before. Carbon shells, fat blades, and electronic megaphones are "unpure" to me. If it is legal and you want an advantage over your opponent to win then training a technique to get more power is about as pure as one can get.