10mps: Race Pace, Stroking Power, And Ratio

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 30th, 2005, 12:34 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 30 2005, 08:27 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Can't you just change the recovery-to-drive ratio as you move from one to the other so that the drive time remains about the same? [right] </td></tr></table><br />The drive times at faster paces are proportionally faster, as the fan speed and handle speed are likewise much faster.<br /><br />However, provided you are still rowing with the same rhythm, consistency, timing, and drive to stroke ratio, the drive time per minute is still identical, regardless of the pace.<br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 30th, 2005, 12:37 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 30 2005, 11:29 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(Mike Niezgoda @ Dec 30 2005, 07:09 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I am fairly certain that Paul is just assuming a drive time of 0.6 seconds. Drive Time is one of the "gobblity gook" metrics that ErgMonitor outputs.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />You should point out, as you did in the other thread, that EM does not measure the entire length of the drive, but only the first portion of it to the peak. Then it counts the rest of the drive as "recover".<br /><br />Thus someone with a drive time of 1.0 seconds and 1.0 seconds for recover, you would say has a drive time of 0.6s and a 30% drive to stroke ratio, whereas in reality the drive to stroke ratio is 50%.<br /><br />That is not accurate.<br /><br />If you are going to base all your other calculations on this, then they will likewise not be accurate. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yikes! No kidding! In a stroke with a fat middle, that wouldn't count the finish with the legs and the arm pull as part of the drive! <br /><br />My force curve is pretty much semicircular. The force peak occurs at the middle of the drive, not at the end.<br /><br />ranger<br />

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 30th, 2005, 12:46 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 30 2005, 08:27 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'> am fairly certain that Paul is just assuming a drive time of 0.6 seconds. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I guess I am getting confused here.<br /><br />Tell me again. Why is the drive time shorter at the same SPI but at a higher rate and pace? Can't you just change the recovery-to-drive ratio as you move from one to the other so that the drive time remains about the same? Are you saying that if you are rowing at 12.5 SPI but at a 3-to-1 ratio at 20 spm and at a 1-to-1 ratio at 40 spm, the drive times are radically different? If so, that isn't very intuitive for me.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The most simple reason of all, the flywheel is maintaning a higher Avg RPM and the drive speed is directly related to RPM.<br /><br />John is once again blathering on about something he knows nothing about, so if not already ignoring his misrepresentation, I'd suggest doing so. At least if reducing confusion is your goal.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 30th, 2005, 12:50 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'>he drive times at faster paces are proportionally faster, as the fan speed and handle speed are likewise much faster. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Why, if you change the recovery-to-drive ratio to keep the handle speed and drive length (just about) the same during the drive? Just change the length of the recovery.<br /><br />ranger<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

[old] Mike Niezgoda · Post by **[old] Mike Niezgoda** » December 30th, 2005, 10:27 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 30 2005, 04:29 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(Mike Niezgoda @ Dec 30 2005, 07:09 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I am fairly certain that Paul is just assuming a drive time of 0.6 seconds. Drive Time is one of the "gobblity gook" metrics that ErgMonitor outputs.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />You should point out, as you did in the other thread, that EM does not measure the entire length of the drive, but only the first portion of it to the peak. Then it counts the rest of the drive as "recovery".<br /><br />Thus someone with a drive time of 1.0 seconds and 1.0 seconds for recover, you would say has a drive time of 0.6s and a 30% drive to stroke ratio, whereas in reality the drive to stroke ratio is 50%.<br /><br />That is not accurate.<br /><br />If you are going to base all your other calculations on this, then they will likewise not be accurate. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I am not sure why I am bothering to try to clear up the confusion that John seems to enjoy causing. I believe that no amount of words will change John's strange perception of reality. So, for the other forum members that have been following this thread, here goes....<br /><br /><img src='http://www.ps-sport.net/images/screenshotsmall.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' /><br /><br />Just in case this picture is not worth a thousand words, here are a thousand more...<br /><br />The plot of <b><u>Watts</u></b> (the red line) over time is a sin-like wave. At the catch, the <u><b>slope</b></u> of the Watts line is flat. As the drive progresses, the Watts <u>slope</u> increases and then decreases to zero at the peak Watts. At this point, the Watts line starts to slope downward. This is the beginning of the "Finish" where the fan is applying enough drag force to keep the chain engaged with the flywheel as the handle speed slows to zero. This is the point of lowest Net Torque, where nothing but Drag Torque is applied to the freewheel. This is also the point where the flywheel becomes disengaged and starts to freewheel. ErgMonitor marks this point with the hash across the Watts line. The slope of the Watts line through the recovery is now a decreasing convex line to the catch where it will go from a negative slope to zero slope at the catch.<br /><br /><b>ErgMonitor measures the Drive Length (cm) and Drive Time (seconds) from the catch to the point of lowest Net Torque.</b><br /><br />The Torque Curve that is plotted on the PM3 and in ErgMonitor <b>IS NOT A WATTS CURVE!!!</b> The Torque curve in the ErgMonitor screen shot is the black line. You can see the relationship between Torque and Watts. The <u>slope</u> of the Watts line increases up to the point of peak Torque. After the peak of the Torque curve the slope of the Watts line decreases, yet remains positive.<br /><br />The screen shot does not show Net Torque plotted. The Net Torque line is below the Torque line by the amount of Drag Torque applied to the flywheel. If plotted, you would see that the Watts peaks at the point where the Net Torque crosses zero force.<br /><br /><br /><b>So, revisiting this quote from John....</b><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 30 2005, 04:29 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>You should point out, as you did in the other thread, that EM does not measure the entire length of the drive, but only the first portion of it to the peak. Then it counts the rest of the drive as "recovery".<br /><br />Thus someone with a drive time of 1.0 seconds and 1.0 seconds for recover, you would say has a drive time of 0.6s and a 30% drive to stroke ratio, whereas in reality the drive to stroke ratio is 50%.<br /><br />That is not accurate.<br /><br />If you are going to base all your other calculations on this, then they will likewise not be accurate. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><b>.... John is a blathering idiot.</b> I doubt he will admit it, but I strongly suspect that he thinks that he thought ErgMonitor cut off the drive at the peak in Torque. <br /><br />ErgOn,<br />Mike

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 30th, 2005, 10:38 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 30 2005, 08:34 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The drive times at faster paces are proportionally faster, as the fan speed and handle speed are likewise much faster. </td></tr></table><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 30 2005, 08:50 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Why, if you change the recovery-to-drive ratio to keep the handle speed and drive length (just about) the same during the drive? Just change the length of the recovery. </td></tr></table><br />When you are going a faster pace, then the fan speed is higher and the handle speed is faster.<br /><br />For example at 20 spm you are taking 3s per stroke, and let's say the drive time is 1.35s which is a 45% drive to stroke ratio. Now if you keep the same timing but go faster, for example at 30 spm, now you are taking 2s per stroke and your drive time is 0.90s.<br /><br />1.35s X 20 strokes = 27 seconds of drive time per minute<br /><br />0.90s X 30 strokes = 27 seconds of drive time per minute<br /><br />At 30 spm your speed is much faster, the fan is moving faster, the handle is moving faster, your entire movement is faster, and your drive time is much less.<br /><br />However, the drive time per minute is the same.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 30th, 2005, 10:59 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 30 2005, 04:29 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Thus someone with a drive time of 1.0 seconds and 1.0 seconds for recovery, you would say has a drive time of 0.6s and a 30% drive to stroke ratio, whereas in reality the drive to stroke ratio is 50%. </td></tr></table><br />It is too bad that MikeN and PaulS get their egos involved. After all, they are the ones who admitted the drive time and distance is not accurate. By looking into the issue it would more easily be resolved, since I think they have the technical knowhow to correct it, if not the mental tenacity. However, by obscuring the issue and trying to cover up what you said, this only ensures that EM will continue to give false readings, be inconsistent, and not provide the correct information and outputs.<br /><br />There are a number of obvious glitches in MikeN's explanation.<br /><br />I think anyone who reads it will be able to see them and I don't want to bother with it at this point.<br /><br />The problem with coming up with ideas is not that they are hard to find, but that most people put too much in the way of them. In this sense, things are not much different now from when most people thought the earth was flat.

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 31st, 2005, 9:10 am

See the New Year's Resolution Team URL in my signature ...

[old] Porkchop · Post by **[old] Porkchop** » December 31st, 2005, 10:13 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 31 2005, 08:10 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>See the New Year's Resolution Team URL in my signature ... <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Stay strong, brother!

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 31st, 2005, 11:22 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Niezgoda @ Dec 30 2005, 06:27 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Just in case this picture is not worth a thousand words, here are a thousand more...<br /><br />ErgOn,<br />Mike <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Unfortunatley, a picture of reality, along with a good explanation can not change the Bizzarro Universe.<br /><br />While John is right about me having an Ego, I'm not sure what that has to do with the facts of the situation. Mike, nor I, are saying anyone must take our word for it just because we say so, the data are clear.<br /><br />Now there will be times when I will suggest that it would be far easier to just "take my word for it", but that word is backed up by 20+ years of experience, and usually quite a bit of hard data that has been digested over those years. That same data is out there for anyone who wants to get it.<br /><br />Cheers, and Happy New Year!

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 31st, 2005, 11:27 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Porkchop @ Dec 31 2005, 10:13 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(mpukita @ Dec 31 2005, 08:10 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>See the New Year's Resolution Team URL in my signature ... <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Stay strong, brother! <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Sir, thank you sir, may I have another?

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 31st, 2005, 5:44 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Dec 31 2005, 07:22 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I will suggest that it would be ... 20+ years of ... quite a bit ... that has been digested over those years. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />I would have to agree with that. <br />

[old] Bill · Post by **[old] Bill** » December 31st, 2005, 7:21 pm

Hello,<br /><br />I thought this thread was fascinating. <br /><br />I think that hidden inside all of this is a way of finding the optimum combination of DF/SR/Pace for a particular person for each distance ? Did one of Paul's early posts hint at this ? Its possible that I misinterpreted it.<br /><br />I am simply interested in erging rather than rowing on water and dont care if what I do wont help me row a boat any faster, so the way I look at things will be different from OTW people.<br /><br />I've looked at my own training data using various spreadsheets in order to try and understand my stroke so that I might one day plan SR and Pace for PB attempts. I know that people get an intuitive feel for what they should be able to do but I just like messing about with spreadsheets.<br /><br />Mike I've probably got a spreadsheet that does some of the calcs you suggested - have some spare time today and will have a play around and then send it to you - <br /><br />Might minimise your time if I send you what I have got and you finish it off with the DF bits and flick it on to Ranger. If the effect of DF is simply to change the drive recovery ratio I can stick something in what Ive got, I'll have a go.<br /><br />I once wanted to find an optimum DF for me but just got so mind bogglingly confused with the various parameter combinations that I gave up. I stick on 110-115 at the moment.<br /><br /><br />Bill

Concept2 Forum

10mps: Race Pace, Stroking Power, And Ratio

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training