All watts all the time

[Dickie]

For a time (about a million meters of my training), I switched to viewing Watts, it was a nice distraction. It also helped me to be more consistant with the power exerted stroke to stroke. I have switched back to PACE though because that is what its all about.

The poster above is right, all the numbers shown on the PM2/3/4 are derived, including watts, so watts are no more legitimate than any other number.

It all comes down to personal preference. If you want to get your time down from 6:52 to 6:40 then the pace has to drop from 1:43 to 1:40 or the watts have to increase from 320 to 350.

I like numbers as well as the next man, but I decided I was putting to much time into trying to figure this all out and not enough time getting the work done.

Fred Dickie

[arakawa]

When the pace is getting faster, would you say the watts are getting inversely faster?

Pace and watts are proportional.

They are not inversely proportional.

I'm afraid your choice of words confuses me. While the phrase "the pace is getting faster" has a fairly clear meaning to me, neither describing watts (which I assume you consider synonymous with power) with the adjective faster nor the term "inversely faster" is clear to me.

Let me first define pace as number of seconds per 500 m, and use the mathematically unambiguous (at least to me) terms lower and higher.

Next, let me try to paraphrase what you wrote.

When you say that "pace and watts are proportional", are you saying that when the pace is getting lower (i.e. you're going faster because it takes you a lower number of seconds to go 500 m), your power output (the SI unit for which is watts) is also lower, and by an equal proportion?

[johnlvs2run]

it's an inverse cubic relationship rather than a proportional relationship.

An inverse cubic relationship, when it is proportional, IS a proportional relationship. The relationship between watts and pace is a relationship that's proportional.

once you've finished your row you can display your time, rate, distance or whatever it is you want to post into the ratings at the push of a button on the monitor.

Yes but if you only view the watts, then you don't know the pace, nor your time for the event, unless you either push the button again or else calculate them out from the watts. If you calculate your time for the event from the watts, then it's not as exact as just looking at the final time for that event. Likewise if you just post the watts on the forum, then no one is going to know what your pace and time for the event was, unless they calculate it out or you post that too, because they have long since disappeared from the monitor and, because, the button is not avaiilable for the rest of us to push on the forum.

[johnlvs2run]

When the pace is getting faster, would you say the watts are getting inversely faster?

Pace and watts are proportional.

They are not inversely proportional.

neither describing watts (which I assume you consider synonymous with power) with the adjective faster nor the term "inversely faster" is clear to me.

When the pace is getting faster, then the watts are also getting "faster", even though one is going lower and the other is going higher. Thus you don't say one is faster and the other is inversely faster, because inversely faster means slower, and the watts are not getting slower, they are also getting "faster", i.e. in a proportional manner to the pace.

Whether the relationship is faster or slower, higher or lower, versely or inversely, is not a factor in related to the relationship being proportional. This can be seen in these two definitions of proportional.

#1- A relationship between things or parts of things with respect to comparative magnitude, quantity, or degree;

#2- A relationship between quantities such that if one varies then another varies in a manner dependent on the first.

[Kodiak]

Again, I meant no disrespect to anyone on this forum; quite the opposite, in fact.

To be honest, I really would LOVE to see more activity over here. It's hard to relate to the various threads/posts on the UK forum when the Brits talk about local events.

And that's another thing...why are there no club/team threads over here? Do any exists? Or event threads? It appears to me that the "sport" of erging is much bigger in the UK than it is in the US. Does anyone else have that impression?

There appears to be a wealth of untapped potential on our "home" site. Xeno and PaulS are expert/elite sources of info, and there are plenty of superb recreational/fitness/competitive ergers that post here.

I just don't see the same level of activity. BTW, if you dig into the team threads over there, you'll notice that there is a good amount of training discussions sort of buried in with all the personal and team-related stuff.

If anything, here's hoping that my little suggestion lights a collective fire under the rowing community on THIS side of the pond. That would be great.

Jim

P.S. Is there a bug in the bold/italics/quote, etc functions? I can't seem to get any of these to work, as I've tried several different ways of quoting GeorgeD and michaelb - all unsuccessful. Bolding and italisizing doesn't seem to work for me, either.

[Yankeerunner]

I like numbers as well as the next man, but I decided I was putting to much time into trying to figure this all out and not enough time getting the work done.

Fred Dickie

Good point Fred.

There are far more of us who know WHAT to do than there are those of us who are willing to do it.

Rick

[arakawa]

When the pace is getting faster, then the watts are also getting "faster", even though one is going lower and the other is going higher.

The reason I requested that both you and I use what I consider mathematically unambiguous terms "lower" and "higher" is because it is, at best, confusing to speaking of power (which you seem to use interchangeably with "watts") as getting faster. I believe that you find describing watts as getting faster to be awkward as well, since you put the word "faster" in quotes above.

Speaking only for myself, when you say that "one is going lower and the other is going higher", that represents an inverse relationship.

Thus you don't say one is faster and the other is inversely faster, because inversely faster means slower, and the watts are not getting slower, they are also getting "faster", i.e. in a proportional manner to the pace.

Whether the relationship is faster or slower, higher or lower, versely or inversely, is not a factor in related to the relationship being proportional. This can be seen in these two definitions of proportional.

#1- A relationship between things or parts of things with respect to comparative magnitude, quantity, or degree;

#2- A relationship between quantities such that if one varies then another varies in a manner dependent on the first.

Speaking again only for myself, language is a tool for communicating concepts to someone else. My inability to convince you to discuss the relationship between pace and power using the terms "lower" and "higher" as opposed to terms such as "faster" and "inversely faster" is preventing me from getting my point across. I resign myself to disagreeing with you in this matter.

[arakawa]

I thought that, far from the power being proportional to the pace, the average power (one possible unit of measurement of which is the Watt) was related to the pace in a C2 rower by the formula:

Power = 2.8 / pace^3, where the Power is in Watt, pace in sec/m.

In other words, it's an inverse cubic relationship rather than a proportional relationship.

I agree with you. According to the physics of ergometers FAQ, the power supplied is proportional to the cube of the flywheel speed. If we accept that flywheel speed is directly proportional to your speed, and since pace (defined as time per unit distance) is inversely proportional to speed (defined as distance per unit time), then power is indeed inversely proportional to the cube of pace.

Furthermore, page 15 of chapter 5 of the C2 indoor rowing training guide has a table with pace and watts. I've confirmed myself that the relationship is an inverse cubic relationship.

[johnlvs2run]

I put the words "faster" and "slower" so you can see the relationship with these terms is going the same direction.

So how can the relationship be going the same direction with faster and slower, and the opposite direction with higher and lower? Thus one being proportional and the other inversely, yet nothing has changed, so how can they be the same and yet opposite???? No.

The point is that faster and slower or higher and lower have nothing to do with being proportional.

The relationship is proportional, regardless of those things.

[PaulS]

The poster above is right, all the numbers shown on the PM2/3/4 are derived, including watts, so watts are no more legitimate than any other number.

Fred Dickie

I'd suggest that the watts are at least a bit more 'legitimate' than the pace, since Pace uses the rather arbitrary factor of '2.8' to reflect the potential speed of the "virtual boat", which does not truly exist. At least with the Moment of inertia of the flywheel, the calculatable Drag Factor, and a way to determine the change in angular velocity of the flywheel, we can arrive at the same conclusion for Joules input per drive and use the total stroke time as the denominator to arrive at "Avg watts" for a give stroke.

If this were not the case, the RowPerfect and C2 would display the same paces for a given input, but they don't, due to the internal adjustment for both boat type and rower weight. That said, the RP Watts are the same.

[johnlvs2run]

the RP Watts are the same.

Two completely different machines and the watts are the same? If that's the case then the watts on a stairstepper much be the same, because they also use watts. And the watts on my treadmill must be the same too then. Thus when I'm riding my bicycle, the watts on the bike are the same as on the c2 rowing machine. If these are really accurate and thus interchangeable then I can just ride my bike, get the watts, convert this to pace, and then put my times in the rankings.

However, having the name "watts" does not make them accurate.

Rather, all the watts are different, and are not even measured the same ways.

[PaulS]

the RP Watts are the same.

Two completely different machines and the watts are the same? If that's the case then the watts on a stairstepper much be the same, because they also use watts. And the watts on my treadmill must be the same too then. Thus when I'm riding my bicycle, the watts on the bike are the same as on the c2 rowing machine. If these are really accurate and thus interchangeable then I can just ride my bike, get the watts, convert this to pace, and then put my times in the rankings.

However, having the name "watts" does not make them accurate.

Rather, all the watts are different, and are not even measured the same ways.

John, 1 watt = 1 Joule/Second. As far as the different machines go, the input of Joules varies, so if the different machines are calculating the value for watts based on the physical characteristics of the system, yes the watts are the same.

You are correct that simply calling something "watts" is meaningless, similar to your claim of Eskild Ebbesen rowing his 2k erg tests at R40, which he does not do, no matter how much you repeat it.

Now go ahead with your name calling, personal insults, and such, just remember, you started it.

[haboustak]

I too believe that the rowing machine does a pretty good job at directly measuring Power and as a result the rest of the available units are calculated based the reported output in Watts. Watts are great because they're real. Calories and Pace are just simulated so we can pretend we're on a boat moving quickly across the water rather than sliding around on a steel rail jerking a flywheel.

In terms of comparing machines, you really need to look at how the machines are measuring Power and how the exerciser is applying it. I wouldn't want to equate the physical effort of someone stepping or cycling to someone rowing because the stepist or cyclist is only applying Power to the bike using their leg muscles. I wouldn't tell someone they should be able to exert X Watts of Power on their stationary bike just because I'm able to exert that much on my rowing machine. That doesn't mean the energy applied to the machines is different or incomparable. Just that the physiological capacity to generate Power differs. You can probably equate Power on an accurate bike to Pace on a C2 erg, but you'd certainly have a harder time getting a fast 2K time without your arms or back.

In terms of RowPerfect and the C2 rower, they measure Power in similar fashions and that Power is generated using similar means. But who knows if the Drag Factor calculations and measurement of flywheel acceleration are similar enough to directly equate the values. I know that RP tries to measure energy stored in the shock cord, which I certainly wouldn't include if it were my product.

I haven't yet decided for myself whether there's an improvement in efficiency or an error in measurement caused by moving the flywheel with respect to the rower. On the surface it seems like there should be.

Mike

[johnlvs2run]

Paul Smith is crapflooding again. Please ban him from the forum.

[JohnBove]

I put the words "faster" and "slower" so you can see the relationship with these terms is going the same direction.

So how can the relationship be going the same direction with faster and slower, and the opposite direction with higher and lower? Thus one being proportional and the other inversely, yet nothing has changed, so how can they be the same and yet opposite???? No.

The point is that faster and slower or higher and lower have nothing to do with being proportional.

The relationship is proportional, regardless of those things.

Did you write the above, read it, and post it believing it made sense?