Piece Times and Resistance Levels

[Oreo Bomb]

Hello Everyone,

I'm very new to rowing. I purchased a Kettler Coach magnetic rower last year and have loved getting into it. I came across this site looking for rowing resources and it seems to be the biggest indoor rowing community "out there." I'm learning a lot!

My Coach is not equipped with a training computer, although it has a fine monitor that tracks all the key stats for your workout. The problem is that although the Coach has ten different levels of resistance, it doesn't track total distance based on that. The instruction manual says that one stroke basically equates to 5 meters. So my first question is pretty basic, but I want to make sure I'm not crazy: If SPM stays constant, and total time rowed stays constant, but the resistance level increases between workouts, then shouldn't that equate to longer distance rowed and shorter piece times?

You see my dilemma as I start using the online logbook (or tracking my performance in general). My PB 500m split on a 2,000m piece is really, really bad at 3:21.2, but I don't think it's that bad. I believe my SPM usually runs around 24/25.

This leads to my second question: Is there any other way to try to account for proper piece time in my scenario? Without being able to factor in resistance, I can't see how. Did I get the wrong machine? (that's actually rhetorical, please don't answer that! )

Thanks!

[PaulS]

Yes.
No.
No. (rhetorical answer)

The trouble will be similar to what happened with the Water Rower, the power input means little to nothing if they only base things on a fixed number of meters per stroke, i.e. there are lots of ways to do a stroke rate of 30, some are hard and some are easy, but in your case they both cover 150m. (If only it could be so....)

[Citroen]

You see my dilemma as I start using the online logbook (or tracking my performance in general). My PB 500m split on a 2,000m piece is really, really bad at 3:21.2, but I don't think it's that bad. I believe my SPM usually runs around 24/25.

How about heading to your local rowing club, YMCA or gym where they have a Concept2 machine. Give that a go for 2K to see if you can get an idea of how far from the "Concept2 reality" that the Kettler machine reads.

The C2 machine's calibration is based on trying to get the same results as a 4+ on a land based ergo.

[PaulS]

You see my dilemma as I start using the online logbook (or tracking my performance in general). My PB 500m split on a 2,000m piece is really, really bad at 3:21.2, but I don't think it's that bad. I believe my SPM usually runs around 24/25.

How about heading to your local rowing club, YMCA or gym where they have a Concept2 machine. Give that a go for 2K to see if you can get an idea of how far from the "Concept2 reality" that the Kettler machine reads.

The C2 machine's calibration is based on trying to get the same results as a M4- on a land based ergo.

Fixed.

[Nosmo]

The C2 machine's calibration is based on trying to get the same results as a M4- on a land based ergo.

If they tried to match a heavy weight M4- then the pace one the erg would be slower then for say a light weight W4- for the same power.
For some one lighter the erg be like a slower boat: a lighter person goes faster for the same power in a boat all other things being equal.
(or did I completely screw up my thinking on this?)

My first guess was that the Dreissigacker tried to match the speed on the erg with their own speed in some four they rowed in. But I'm not so sure that is right. The times seem fast given the power required but I'm guessing. Any one know for sure?

[Oreo Bomb]

Thanks for the responses guys. My bro-in-law made the same suggestion as Citroen. I'm considering possibly EBaying my current machine. Obviously I'm still getting a great workout, but not being able to properly track times is going to be frustrating as I'm ready to seriously get into this. We'll see...

Actually, I just saw that Kettler has released a better 2008 model that has a full-blown training computer with push-button resistance that adjusts as you row. Consequently, it is able to track distance/times based on resistance. But it seems like Concept has the edge with the LogCard thingy that counts as an "official" record when uploading data.

Fun, fun...

[PaulS]

The C2 machine's calibration is based on trying to get the same results as a M4- on a land based ergo.

If they tried to match a heavy weight M4- then the pace one the erg would be slower then for say a light weight W4- for the same power.
For some one lighter the erg be like a slower boat: a lighter person goes faster for the same power in a boat all other things being equal.
(or did I completely screw up my thinking on this?)

My first guess was that the Dreissigacker tried to match the speed on the erg with their own speed in some four they rowed in. But I'm not so sure that is right. The times seem fast given the power required but I'm guessing. Any one know for sure?

Yes! M4- (100kg), well at least as sure as calculated numbers from Valery Kleshnev has made some 25 years later, and with no care for what the Dreissigacker boys had already said was the case.


As for your first point, NO, a LM4- with the same power would be faster (even with less power in fact), and yes indeed there are other equivalence boat/rower weight combinations (from Kleshnevs numbers), 2- (45kg), LW2x (60kg), 4x (105kg), and even an 8+ full of 130kg super heavyweights presumably. Why I would use the M4- and LW2x is because the boat and rower weights are in the range that they would actually be. The LW2x doesn't get mentioned much because it probably wasn't considered by a couple of Hwt guys calibrating a Rowing machine for training purposes.

Supporting document since you don't want to belive me, sheesh!

Good lord! Why do I bother?

[Nosmo]

As for your first point, NO....

Well actually YES, My english is not too good, but we actually are agreeing with each other.

Thanks for the link. I was under the impression that sculling was significantly faster then sweep. The charts indicate that this is not the case for 4x vs 4- (almost 1% faster) but it is the case for 2x vs 2- (about 3% faster).

I had been wondering how much of the difference in speed between sculling and sweeping, had to do with the different efficiency of the blades vs the of the athletes movement. This seems to indicate that, it is not so much blade efficiency but rather the asymmetry of the power application due to the oar position in the 2-. and perhaps to a much lesser extent in the 4-. Thoughts?

[Bob S.]

I was under the impression that sculling was significantly faster then sweep. The charts indicate that this is not the case for 4x vs 4- (almost 1% faster) but it is the case for 2x vs 2- (about 3% faster).

Nosmo,

Sorry, I just can't resist this one — I guess that it is my warped sense of humor operating. I don't know how sweeps and sculls compare in the 2s and 4s, but the one thing that I am sure of is that 1x will get down the course a lot faster than a 1-.

I was also going to make some silly crack about the advantage a 1- would have in turning and then I remembered that even as a little kid, I learned how to spin a skiff around fast by pushing on one oar while I pulled on the other. That's a tricky maneuver in a long racing shell and even trickier trying to do it with those clumsy modern blades.

Actually, I can't picture a 1- rower doing anything but flipping over (or 1+ for that matter).

Bob S.

[Nosmo]

I was under the impression that sculling was significantly faster then sweep. The charts indicate that this is not the case for 4x vs 4- (almost 1% faster) but it is the case for 2x vs 2- (about 3% faster).

Nosmo,

Sorry, I just can't resist this one — I guess that it is my warped sense of humor operating. I don't know how sweeps and sculls compare in the 2s and 4s, but the one thing that I am sure of is that 1x will get down the course a lot faster than a 1-.

But a 1- will get down the course a lot faster then an erg!!

I was also going to make some silly crack about the advantage a 1- would have in turning and then I remembered that even as a little kid, I learned how to spin a skiff around fast by pushing on one oar while I pulled on the other. That's a tricky maneuver in a long racing shell and even trickier trying to do it with those clumsy modern blades.

But its not too hard to alternate forward and back. That way the hands stay together at all times. It is much more stable then pulling on one or while pushing on the other, which require the hands to separate.