All watts all the time

[HardGainer]

Your response sounds just a little bit defensive PaulS. You should not think that I was questioning the validity of the assumptions, just pointing out what some of them were, in response to an earlier post where you said you weren't quite sure what they were. (Although I now suspect that you knew full well all along - which confuses me somewhat Perhaps it's just a behaviour acquired through exposure to this forum )

Even given the very small amount of indoor rowing I've done on C2s I don't take much convincing that performance monitoring between different machines and models is indeed remarkably consistent. If this weren't the case it would make a bit of a mockery of competitions.

All that you've said reinforces the proposition that using watts as the measurement for relative performance between competitors in an event would be just as valid as using time or distance. One problem might be that it does not appear to be displayed to the same degree of precision as is the time in any but very short events. This may lead to slightly more "dead heats" being recorded.

To the poor chap who earlier confessed that he couldn't see how this would work ... simple!
The winner of a 2K event is the person who records the highest average power during the event. The winner of a 30min event is the person who records the highest average power during the event.

[HardGainer]

Duplicate post deleted!

[Carl Henrik]

Here is a thought.

Now if you told me how many watts you averaged over 2k, would that tell me how fast you did the piece...well in fact no.

The average watt displayed by the erg "compensates" for nonlinear relation between watts and pace through making average wattage a derived number from average pace. Therefore you do always know how fast you were by looking at average wattage number (This does not imply that instantaneous wattage is derived from instantaneous pace).

Unless your variations during a session are 50w+ the nonlinearity is not going to make the displayed value deviate much from the true value, though. Sometime you may want larger variations in your intantaneous intensity during a fartlek style or intervals with active rest workout and be able to supply yourself or your athletes if you are coaching with a goal average displayed by the monitor. For this it's good to use a script, since it's a bit tiresome math, if you want to test for many different parameters.

[PaulS]

Your response sounds just a little bit defensive PaulS. You should not think that I was questioning the validity of the assumptions, just pointing out what some of them were, in response to an earlier post where you said you weren't quite sure what they were. (Although I now suspect that you knew full well all along - which confuses me somewhat Perhaps it's just a behaviour acquired through exposure to this forum )

Well, it probably was, at least a little, but when being lectured to, I'm happy to let the lecturer expound as long as they like, who knows, there may be something to learn and I wouldn't want to miss the opportunity, for myself or others.

As for the resolution of time or Avg Watts
5:59.9 2k = 480.510 watts Avg
6:00.0 2k = 480.110
6:00.1 2k = 479.710

Even at single decimal resolution, it appears that it is better than time, and perhaps could be used for a 'tie breaker', though even with a 3-way tie a couple years back, I don't think it was looked at.

For the timed event, the usual method would be to take the longest distance covered at the winner. However, would it be possible to have a higher Avg watts figure for the time period while at the same time not cover as many meters (as arbitrarily calculated as it is)? And if so, then who would be the winner? (I really don't know if it would be or not, and don't want to spend the time to figure it out right now, just asking. Gut feeling says that this could be the case though.)

Cheers.

[HardGainer]

Interesting outcome partly arising from the cubic relationship between speed and power as per your example, that average power values could significantly "separate" rowers who would otherwise have dead-heated based purely on times displayed to complete a fixed-distance race of 2km and longer.

On the last point, yes it appears a rower could indeed exert a greater average power over a fixed time and end up "travelling" less "distance". With the help of MS Excel I came up with this very much theoretical example:

30min @ 1:42.8/500m
-> 322.2W, 8755m (rounded)

15min @ 2:00.0/500m + 15min @ 1:30.0/500m
-> 341.3W, 8750m (rounded)

E.&O.E.

Sorry you saw it in that light but here endeth all lecturing and expounding.

[PaulS]

Interesting outcome partly arising from the cubic relationship between speed and power as per your example, that average power values could significantly "separate" rowers who would otherwise have dead-heated based purely on times displayed to complete a fixed-distance race of 2km and longer.

On the last point, yes it appears a rower could indeed exert a greater average power over a fixed time and end up "travelling" less "distance". With the help of MS Excel I came up with this very much theoretical example:

30min @ 1:42.8/500m
-> 322.2W, 8755m (rounded)

15min @ 2:00.0/500m + 15min @ 1:30.0/500m
-> 341.3W, 8750m (rounded)

E.&O.E.

Sorry you saw it in that light but here endeth all lecturing and expounding.

Thanks for the effort in that, so if the avg power happened to differ when time had been a dead heat, who wins, the one with the lower (more efficient) or the one with the higher avg watts? Do we appreciate the perhaps more stenuous effort over the efficient one, or the other way around?

BTW - No negative connotation should be associated with the term 'lecture', I can see how it could be, but that's not my intention here. Happy to be lectured to, especially since there is not going to be a graded test to worry about.

[HardGainer]

... so if the avg power happened to differ when time had been a dead heat, who wins, the one with the lower (more efficient) or the one with the higher avg watts? Do we appreciate the perhaps more stenuous effort over the efficient one, or the other way around?

The elder one?

[PaulS]

... so if the avg power happened to differ when time had been a dead heat, who wins, the one with the lower (more efficient) or the one with the higher avg watts? Do we appreciate the perhaps more stenuous effort over the efficient one, or the other way around?

The elder one?

Good answer!

[johnlvs2run]

Anyone know of Treadmill or Cycle Ergometer competitions?

Actually, yes. When I was racing bikes in college (1970's), our team ran roller races in the winter, as a training exersize. I'm pretty sure other clubs/teams did the same and still do, especially with the newer computerized trainers.

I took a look at the Racermate site, and it looks like they are picking up some of the Concept 2 strategy.
http://68.115.203.26/ranking.html

Ed

Looks like no one in their rankings though.

[Xavier]

Have just seen this. Over on the UK forum I've based my seasons training program on watts. Some of it is in my diary thing

http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/weblog. ... aad0ba92b8

And there's a long post on the "Sub 6:24 Thread" at the bottom of this page

http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... &start=435

Hope that's of some use. My aim in November is 402w for the 2k, which is an average pace of 1:35.5, and a 6:22 2k

Xav