Line Of Force Application To The Fan

[[old] John Rupp]

The path on a boat, is from the shoulders (hands) to the water.<br /><br />This is close to the --optimal-- path (for generating highest force and strength etc) as used for the Olympic weightlifting snatch and clean. This path is from the shoulders through the balls of the feet or, comparatively, from the back of the butt through the balls of the feet.<br /><br />A line from the CofG of the body should be equal to or --below-- a line from the top of the railing, as anything above that is even farther from the optimal path. The path on the model B is equal to this line. The model C is above it. The path on a boat is far --below-- this and is close to the line for generation of --optimal-- force.<br /><br />Thus taking a line from the seat (or CofG or shoulders) on the "model J" through the axis of applied force is very similar to the line from the seat (or CofG or shoulders) to the application of the oars in the water on a boat.

[[old] Canoeist]

Crystal clear! I am glad that I didn't have John as my professor for Physics. <br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Paul Flack

[[old] Cran]

See page 5<br /><br /><a href='http://www.oarsport.co.uk/docs/rigging_booklet.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.oarsport.co.uk/docs/rigging_booklet.pdf</a>

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Apr 2 2005, 07:36 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Apr 2 2005, 07:36 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The path on a boat, is from the shoulders (hands) to the water.<br /><br />This is close to the --optimal-- path (for generating highest force and strength etc) as used for the Olympic weightlifting snatch and clean.  This path is from the shoulders through the balls of the feet or, comparatively, from the back of the butt through the balls of the feet.<br /><br />A line from the CofG of the body should be equal to or --below-- a line from the top of the railing, as anything above that is even farther from the optimal path.  The path on the model B is equal to this line.  The model C is above it.  The path on a boat is far --below-- this and is close to the line for generation of --optimal-- force.<br /><br />Thus taking a line from the seat (or CofG or shoulders) on the "model J" through the axis of applied force is very similar to the line from the seat (or CofG or shoulders) to the application of the oars in the water on a boat. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Very interesting notions, as usual.<br /><br />I suppose that the concept of a lever would be problematic to introduce here. <br /><br />The geometry of the A, B, C, and D are very nearly equal, and not coincidentally mimic the line of force which Rowers are concerned with.<br /><br />Keep it up John, this is too much fun.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Cran+Apr 6 2005, 05:57 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Cran @ Apr 6 2005, 05:57 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See page 5<br /><br /><a href='http://www.oarsport.co.uk/docs/rigging_booklet.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.oarsport.co.uk/docs/rigging_booklet.pdf</a> </td></tr></table>Nice article.<br /><br />The truisms on a boat as they relate to the erg show that some of the modifications that C2 has made serve to interfere with proper rowing and technique.<br /><br />For example, the railing angle can be adjusted on a boat.<br /><br />The rigging can be adjusted on a boat.<br /><br />However, due to modifications made by C2, supposedly neither of these can be adjusted on an erg. On the other hand, C2 allows slide times in the rankings, with no differentiation from legitimate erg times, albeit as the erg has been modified by C2.<br /><br />Well that is arbitrary and silly.<br /><br />Two of the primary purposes of rowing on an erg are (1) fitness and health and (2) preparation for rowing in a boat. C2, by holding to rigid modifications they have made, throws roadblocks into both of these primarily objectives, as well as increasing the likelihood of injury by having the rigging (axle relationship to railing) too high.<br /><br />Thus it is important everyone realize how important it is to have <b>unmodifications</b> to the erg, i.e. the capability of being able to adjust both the level of the railing, and the relationship of the rigging, i.e. the position of the axle in relation to the line of the railing.<br /><br /><b>Unmodifications</b> are important!<br /><br />I will be working on these and am looking forward to the comments of others who do so as well.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Apr 15 2005, 10:20 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Apr 15 2005, 10:20 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />For example, the railing angle can be adjusted on a boat.<br /><br />The rigging can be adjusted on a boat.<br /><br />However, due to modifications made by C2, supposedly neither of these can be adjusted on an erg.  On the other hand, C2 allows slide times in the rankings, with no differentiation from legitimate erg times, albeit as the erg has been modified by C2.<br /><br />Well that is arbitrary and silly.<br /><br /><b>Unmodifications</b> are important!<br /><br />I will be working on these and am looking forward to the comments of others who do so as well. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />How do you conveniently adjust railing angle in a boat? I've never seen this feature.<br /><br />Rigging in a boat can be adjusted, but so can the Erg.<br />Foot Stretcher Height: Both<br />Gearing: Both (Boat with changing oar length, span, and inboard. Erg with DF)<br />Distance Through the Pin: Boat adjustment, automatic on the Erg<br />Span: Boat, not applicable on the Erg<br />Height of Work: Boat adjustment, Automatic on the Erg (Both allow for seat pads if required)<br /><br />Scientific research show the Slides to cost a bit more energy for the Athlete, but pretty much an equal situation, for that reason they have been included in the C2 World Rankings.<br /><br />Please, keep going, this is priceless stuff.... "unmodifications"? Fantastic!

[[old] BobD]

As an Engineer (retired kind of) your "Unmodifications" should not result in a decrease in durability and reliability for which C2 is famed!! <br /><br />If they do, then they are counter-productive.

[[old] John Rupp]

Bob,<br /><br />You might have noted that many people get injury problems on the erg, which is more prevalent with the models C and D, than it was with the B.<br /><br />This is because C2 modified the C and D models so the rigging (axle position) was farther away from the line of the railing than it is on the B.<br /><br />Unmodifying the erg would result in the same or more durability and reliability for the erg.<br /><br />More importantly, however, it would result in more durability and reliability for the rower.

[[old] BobD]

As a biologist and engineer and having been an almost Olympic swimmer, in most cases the equipment is not the cause of an injury. It's bad technique or overtraining.<br /><br />Of the thousands of C2 users in the world only a small percentage probably have injuries which can be related to the C2...and most of the C2 users are not on this board.

[[old] John Rupp]

That would be true IF the C2 had flexible rigging, and IF there were indeed very few injuries.<br /><br />However that is not the case. Most of the more experienced C2 rowers, the ones who post on this forum as compared to the average C2 users, suffer from periodic and ongoing injuries.<br /><br />Additionally, rigging that might be okay for a 6'6 rower with long torso, has nothing to do with proper rigging for a rower who is 5'4 or less.<br /><br />Thus your message consists of wishful thinking and dedication to C2 and, though there is certainly nothing wrong with either of these, neither of them have anything to do with the design of the erg, and it's relation to injuries and performance.

[[old] whp4]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Apr 16 2005, 06:36 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Apr 16 2005, 06:36 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That would be true IF the C2 had flexible rigging, and IF there were indeed very few injuries.<br /><br />However that is not the case.  Most of the more experienced C2 rowers, the ones who post on this forum as compared to the average C2 users, suffer from periodic and ongoing injuries.<br /><br />Additionally, rigging that might be okay for a 6'6 rower with long torso, has nothing to do with proper rigging for a rower who is 5'4 or less.<br /><br />Thus your message consists of wishful thinking and dedication to C2 and, though there is certainly nothing wrong with either of these, neither of them have anything to do with the design of the erg, and it's relation to injuries and performance. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />John, there are over a thousand members on this forum; can you give me a list of say 100 experienced forum members who have reported periodic and ongoing injuries related to erg use? Let's agree up front that blisters, rough hands, and a sore butt don't count <br /><br />I'm curious about your source of statistics for injury rates on different erg models. Have you adjusted for the number of each model in the field? From my limited set of data points at health clubs, universities, races, private ownership etc. I see a huge number of model C ergs, a growing number of model D ergs, and a handful of model B ergs. There would have to be a huge disparity in the injury rate to overwhelm the much larger population of model C and D users. I'd further suggest that most model B ergs still in use by their original owners are being used by people who don't have egregiously bad technique, or they would have stopped long ago due to injury or frustration, which might slightly reduce the injury rate on a model B vs. someone who just bought a new model D. And how are you ruling out the possibility that someone who both ergs and sweeps/sculls isn't getting their injury from the erg, but the possibly less back-friendly on-water activities? <br /><br />You never buy new ergs from Concept2, seem unlikely to do so in the future, and have notions about the product which might charitably be described as different than those of most of us who do; my expectation is that the call from Morristown asking for your assistance in designing the next generation is likely to be placed on the first day of April

[[old] GeorgeD]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Apr 17 2005, 04:21 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Apr 17 2005, 04:21 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You might have noted that many people get injury problems on the erg, which is more prevalent with the models C and D, than it was with the B.<br /><br />This is because C2 modified the C and D models so the rigging (axle position) was farther away from the line of the railing than it is on the B.<br /><br />Unmodifying the erg would result in the same or more durability and reliability for the erg.<br /><br />More importantly, however, it would result in more durability and reliability for the rower. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I would have thought that in the land of litigation such comments could get ones arse sued ... as the implication is that C2 knowingly and willingly have created a piece of equipment that is 'faulty' and dangerous. Of course the person making these claims would have detailed statistical evidence to support their claim ... which I am sure they will share in due course.<br /><br />maybe C2 will have to put a 'Warning' notice down the rail that erging is hazardous to your health

[[old] John Rupp]

Whp4,<br /><br />Yes I agree that C2 is notoriously unresponsive to user feedback.<br /><br />For example when they added the half marathon, a number of forum members pointed out the distance should be 21098 meters, as the official distance is 21097.5 meters. They considered this at the time then dragged their feet and yo this day still have it listed as 21097 meters. In fact the log book says, "(Note: the correct distance for a half marathon is 21,097 meters)" -- NOT TRUE!!!!<br /><br />The half marathon is 21097.<b>5</b> meters, i.e. 21098 meters on the erg.<br /><br />You should read the article posted by Cran, which shows very clearly the importance of rigging.<br /><br />And if you read the earlier parts of this thread, you would have seen that I have already measured the differences between the model C and model D.<br /><br />This is something that anyone can do, which I certainly encourage!<br /><br />The model C rigging (i.e. axle height in relation to a line from the railing) is <b>signficantly</b> higher than that of the model B.<br /><br />

[[old] BobD]

Which you have in no way proven has anything to do with injuries. <br /><br />The model C rigging (i.e. axle height in relation to a line from the railing) is <b>signficantly</b> higher than that of the model B. <br />[/quote]<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

Birds fly.<br /><br />I have no need to prove that they fly.<br /><br />Needing to prove or have "facts" for everything would be a severe restriction on learning, open mindedness, and capacity for understanding basic concepts and realities.