500m World Best Score?

[Chad Williams]

500m World Best time?

Does anybody know what the best recorded score is for a 500m? I have been working on my sprinting power for the last few months and have now discovered the best way to cover this distance.

I have had a few goes over the last few weeks recording scores of 1.17.2 then 1.15.9 both at r45.

Experimenting with technique changes has brought my scores down even more.
My aim is to record the fastest 500m score, what do I have to do for C2 to count a 500m as the official fastest, what is the official fastest at the moment?

Yesterday I pulled a 500m score of 1.12.8 r47, after a few more months of specific erg and weight training geared to sprinting I will be looking to get close to 1.10.
During the last 500m my weights partner counted 8 strokes at 1.03 split.
1.31, 1.14, 1.07, 1.03, 1.03, 1.03 etc.

Is there a link to 500m scores anywhere?

[Francois]

Hi Chad,

The world records are on this page.
There is a link on the left on this page about the requirements for establishing a world record.
It seems that 1:12.8 is comfortably under Dwayne Adams' WR of 1:14.5!

Congratulations!

[Yankeerunner]

Chad, you should go to this thread on the UK forum:

http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... start=6330

A guy there who calls himself 'ranger' is also reporting great things about his training. The two of you seem to be two of the greatest of all time and should compare notes.

[Tyn]

Chad, you should go to this thread on the UK forum:

http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... start=6330

A guy there who calls himself 'ranger' is also reporting great things about his training. The two of you seem to be two of the greatest of all time and should compare notes.

What a Matchmaker you are!!

Happy Weekend!

[johnlvs2run]

Chad,

Those are fantastically great times, especially the 1:03's for 8 strokes in a row.

Leo Young did a 1:10.5 for 500 meters on the model B in 1991. Here is a quotation by him on the UK forum in 2005.

"The world record 500 metre time of 1:10.5 was performed in 1991 on a model B (the model C didn't come out until 1993)."

Leo also had a number of kayak world records. You can find more quotations from him here:
http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/search. ... ults=posts

What are your secrets for success. Cheers for continuous improvements of your times.

[Chad Williams]

Chad,

Those are fantastically great times, especially the 1:03's for 8 strokes in a row.

Leo Young did a 1:10.5 for 500 meters on the model B in 1991. Here is a quotation by him on the UK forum in 2005.

"The world record 500 metre time of 1:10.5 was performed in 1991 on a model B (the model C didn't come out until 1993)."

Leo also had a number of kayak world records. You can find more quotations from him here:
http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/search. ... ults=posts

What are your secrets for success. Cheers for continuous improvements of your times.

Thank you John, this is the information I was interested in, I will aim to beat that 1.10.5 by Leo Young. I will see if I can record my efforts in video format and post online.

How does a model D compare to a Model B?

No secret to rowing the sprints John, I am very tall, heavy and am now also getting very strong, the 3 things I have found are ideal for erg sprinting.

[Yankeerunner]

What a Matchmaker you are!!

Happy Weekend!

Tyn,

Sorry (again)

Happy weekend back at you.

Rick

[PaulS]

Chad,

Those are fantastically great times, especially the 1:03's for 8 strokes in a row.

Leo Young did a 1:10.5 for 500 meters on the model B in 1991. Here is a quotation by him on the UK forum in 2005.

"The world record 500 metre time of 1:10.5 was performed in 1991 on a model B (the model C didn't come out until 1993)."

Leo also had a number of kayak world records. You can find more quotations from him here:
http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/search. ... ults=posts

What are your secrets for success. Cheers for continuous improvements of your times.

Thank you John, this is the information I was interested in, I will aim to beat that 1.10.5 by Leo Young. I will see if I can record my efforts in video format and post online.

How does a model D compare to a Model B?

No secret to rowing the sprints John, I am very tall, heavy and am now also getting very strong, the 3 things I have found are ideal for erg sprinting.

In your pace range there is about a 3 second advantage built into the PM1 (over the PM2 or later). The 1:12.8 500m is very fast.

Make sure to get your Verification code, or a photo, or something. Well Done! A video of this sort of thing would be fantastic.

[johnlvs2run]

How does a model D compare to a Model B?

The machines are much the same as concept2 takes care with the balancing of flywheels and moment of inertia.

I found the pm1 to record slower times than the pm2-4, by 1 to 2 seconds per 500 meters, and the pm1 was not accurate. The times at a given wattage would fluctuate, even through the same piece.

The pm3/4 are similarly not accurate, in particular for short sprints but for different reasons. The pm3/4 monitors are slow to react, and appear to round times under 60 seconds to the nearest 1/2 second. From checking the pm3/4 results at various distances, the start/finish appear to be off by as much as 1 to 2 seconds.

The pm2 and pm2+ monitors are the nicest and most accurate. In any case, using any of the pm2 or later monitors should give you a time that is acceptable for record recognition.

[Tyn]

Cheers for continuous improvements of your times.

Dito!

I'm tall,heavy and strong, but just a little boy compared to you!

[johnlvs2run]

In my experience the pm1 does not have an advantage for sprinting, but rather has a disadvantage over distance.

If the pm1 has any advantage over sprints then it must not be a consistent one. However, I found the pm1 results to be more consistent for sprinting, and not any faster than my results with the pm2 later.

For example, when I was doing sprints with the pm1 in 1994, my fastest max split was 1:22.

After a long layoff from the erg, then 10 years later doing primarily distance training - not sprints - I was able to accomplish a 1:24 max split with the pm2. This even though I was then 57 instead of 47 years of age. My running speed had a similar or even greater decline through these years. There is no way I was able in 2004 to do a max split anywhere close to what I was able to do in 1994, at least not without considerably more training with sprinting and weights.

So I would say, in my experience, the sprint times with the pm1 and pm2 are quite similar.

[PaulS]

In my experience the pm1 does not have an advantage for sprinting, but rather has a disadvantage over distance.

If the pm1 has any advantage over sprints then it must not be a consistent one. However, I found the pm1 results to be more consistent for sprinting, and not any faster than my results with the pm2 later.

For example, when I was doing sprints with the pm1 in 1994, my fastest max split was 1:22.

After a long layoff from the erg, then 10 years later doing primarily distance training - not sprints - I was able to accomplish a 1:24 max split with the pm2. This even though I was then 57 instead of 47 years of age. My running speed had a similar or even greater decline through these years. There is no way I was able in 2004 to do a max split anywhere close to what I was able to do in 1994, at least not without considerably more training with sprinting and weights.

So I would say, in my experience, the sprint times with the pm1 and pm2 are quite similar.

The difference is variable, the PM1 and PM2 (or later) match up at a 1:55 pace. Either direction from there the difference increases, that is why I said "the range" that Chad was in.
As for Max Pull, that is subject to too many variables to consider a valid test regardless of who or when it is done.

John, seeing that most of your rowing is done at paces slower than 1:55, you would see exactly the effect I am specifying, the PM2 would give you an advantage in your pace range. Your experience is simply so limitted that you should not draw conclusions based on it. OR at least recognize the limitations that it had, based on your pace range. As for the 1:22, even if it were to be considered a valid test, the PM1 truncated the displayed pace rather than rounding like the PM2(+), so it could have been a 1:22.999 and still shown you what it did. The PM2 could have been a 1:24.49 and still shown you what it did, so what might look like only a 2 second slowing of pace over 10 years of aging may even been as little as 1.5 or as much as 2.5, and you would have to account for Stroke rate in any case.

[johnlvs2run]

Well the pm1 truncated times up.

This means if I did a 1:23.01 the display would be 1:24. If I did a 1:24.0000001 the display would read 1:25. However, the pm1 often truncated up higher than this.

I was much faster sprintwise at age 48 than 58 so a difference of at least 3 seconds in my results for max split sounds reasonable. I've always found max splits to be quite consistent. They don't jump around on the screen. Usually I've been able to hold a max split for 3 or 4 strokes in a row.

The thing about measurement with the pm1 is that the watts appeared to be quite accurate, as to consistency and comparison with the pm2. However, the pm1 watts conversion to pace was not accurate, reliable, or consistent. So if we took the watts measurement on the pm1 and converted this mathematically to pace, the conversion would be more accurate than as was done automatically by the monitor.

The inaccuracy of the pm1 was primarily in it's conversion from watts to the pace.

This appears to be the case based on tests of the pm1 I did previously. Comparing pace times from pm1 to pm2-4 would show the inconsistency and variability, whereas comparing watts would show more consistency in results.

When I mathematically converted the pm1 watts to pace the result was very consistent, and the times were in line with times obtained with the pm2 monitor.

[PaulS]

Truncating is simply removal of the fractional portion John, by definition it would always be 'down', rather than up. This much is perfectly clear.

As for the PM1 calculating Watts accurately, that is true, so if you kept records of the Avg watts it reported for your workouts and used the formula for Pace that the PM2 uses, there is no other answer but for them to agree.

The discrepancy comes into play if you were to set up two sensors so that the PM1 and PM2 (or later) are gathering data from exactly the same flywheel at the same time. This is the experiment that lead to my conclusions and subsequent quantifying of the differences between the monitors. The PM1 used a precalculated table for the conversion of watts to pace, there was a slight flaw in that table that caused the discrepancy. The PM2 and later, have far more processing power than was available in 1985 as a reasonable price, so do the conversion live for each stroke, just as the DF is also now calculated for each stroke rather than batches of 17 strokes, as was done with the PM1.

[johnlvs2run]

Yes you are exactly correct that truncating is removal of the fractional portion. Concept2 did refer to the pm1 operation as truncation, but it was actually "rounding up" and more. A constant display time of 1:58 would give you an average pace of 2:00 to 2:01 etc. I know because this happened to me many times.

The discrepancy comes into play if you were to set up two sensors so that the PM1 and PM2 (or later) are gathering data from exactly the same flywheel at the same time.

Did you gather the information from pace, or from watts then convert it to pace?

If the former, then the results would be inconsistent and variable, i.e. not repeatable from one test to another.

If the latter, then I am interested to see the results. Do you happen to still have them?

The PM1 used a precalculated table for the conversion of watts to pace, there was a slight flaw in that table that caused the discrepancy.

I would say the flaw in that table was huge. However there must have not only been a flaw in the table but also a flaw in the mechanism that caused a great variation of the results, not only from one piece to another, but from one stroke to another, and from one part of a piece to another. The pm1 was very inconsistent in the transfer of conversion from the watts to the pace.