It would be interesting to repeat the experiment to see if watts on the dynamic are comparable to watts on the bikeerg. I think they could well be because the weight of the moving parts in the machine is negligible so the only reciprocating mass is the legs (and, to a small extent, arms) -- similar to bikeerg.
I would further guess that slides would be in between. The rower moves along with legs & arms. So to the extent that the rower is lighter than the head and torso and abdomen, it would be more efficient. Depends a lot on the weight of the person, though.
BikeErg "easier" that RowErg
-
Carl Watts
- Marathon Poster
- Posts: 4692
- Joined: January 8th, 2010, 4:35 pm
- Location: NEW ZEALAND
Re: BikeErg "easier" that RowErg
Everything is a "Ballpark correction" because no two people are going to be the same.
It depends on how "Trained" you are on the rower compared to how "Trained" you are on the bike and then you have everything in between.
You have to come up with your own conversion factor and its pretty easy. You need both a rower and a bike and a heartrate monitor and you do a set distance or time on both in steady state and get a match on your average heartrate at the finish.
What you will find is that for the average person the difference is 30%. You can put in 30% more power on the bike for the same HR as the power on the Erg. So basically at about 2:00 pace on the rower or 200W on the Erg, the power on the bike would be 260W.
This seems about right but only for a pace at about 2:00, the correction is not linear because you have no gears on the Erg. Try and do a sprint on the Erg and you cannot get the power right up there due to the DF being to low and on a long distance row your unable to change it if you suddenly want to do a short burst using your Erg on Zwift.
As long as your not going in totally cold on either the bike or the rower and you have done a bit of both your going to find you can put in more power on the Bike than the Erg for the same heartrate.
Physical differences make a big difference on the rower, height is obviously a huge disproportionate advantage. There is pretty much a "Set build" for an ideal rower but in cycling due to the massive variation in events there is a whole range of "Ideal" body types to match the event. Cycling is not as bad as running, running is the worst the 100m runner looks absolutely nothing like a marathon runner, the difference is extreme.
Ultimately this is why the Erg was never "Officially" incorporated into Zwift, even though the power on the monitor is self calibrating and is pretty much bang on for every Erg and has less variation than all the bike trainers, those on a bike would throw their toys at the possibility of BIG problems in converting the Erg power to an equivalent bike power.
If I want to do an Erg using Zwift I use the RowedBiker app on a 30% power boost. The ride can be an hour and it needs to be a flattish course with basically no hills and an hour long and its doable at 2:04 pace so its the "D Cat" for me if I want to try and stay with the pack.
It depends on how "Trained" you are on the rower compared to how "Trained" you are on the bike and then you have everything in between.
You have to come up with your own conversion factor and its pretty easy. You need both a rower and a bike and a heartrate monitor and you do a set distance or time on both in steady state and get a match on your average heartrate at the finish.
What you will find is that for the average person the difference is 30%. You can put in 30% more power on the bike for the same HR as the power on the Erg. So basically at about 2:00 pace on the rower or 200W on the Erg, the power on the bike would be 260W.
This seems about right but only for a pace at about 2:00, the correction is not linear because you have no gears on the Erg. Try and do a sprint on the Erg and you cannot get the power right up there due to the DF being to low and on a long distance row your unable to change it if you suddenly want to do a short burst using your Erg on Zwift.
As long as your not going in totally cold on either the bike or the rower and you have done a bit of both your going to find you can put in more power on the Bike than the Erg for the same heartrate.
Physical differences make a big difference on the rower, height is obviously a huge disproportionate advantage. There is pretty much a "Set build" for an ideal rower but in cycling due to the massive variation in events there is a whole range of "Ideal" body types to match the event. Cycling is not as bad as running, running is the worst the 100m runner looks absolutely nothing like a marathon runner, the difference is extreme.
Ultimately this is why the Erg was never "Officially" incorporated into Zwift, even though the power on the monitor is self calibrating and is pretty much bang on for every Erg and has less variation than all the bike trainers, those on a bike would throw their toys at the possibility of BIG problems in converting the Erg power to an equivalent bike power.
If I want to do an Erg using Zwift I use the RowedBiker app on a 30% power boost. The ride can be an hour and it needs to be a flattish course with basically no hills and an hour long and its doable at 2:04 pace so its the "D Cat" for me if I want to try and stay with the pack.
Carl Watts.
Age:56 Weight: 108kg Height:183cm
Concept 2 Monitor Service Technician & indoor rower.
http://log.concept2.com/profile/863525/log
Age:56 Weight: 108kg Height:183cm
Concept 2 Monitor Service Technician & indoor rower.
http://log.concept2.com/profile/863525/log
Re: BikeErg "easier" that RowErg
Carl,
I'm not sure why you are so dismissive. BikeErg and RowErg do a good job of measuring energy at the flywheel. The error on the RowErg was measured by the Ulm study and it is small.
The distance calculation is set so that double the distance on the BikeErg involves precisely the same flywheel energy as on the RowErg.
Because of (primarily) losses due to reciprocating mass, metabolic energy is considerably higher for the RowErg than for the BikeErg (for a given power at the flywheel). So there is an inherent error in comparing the training effect/exertion, etc. between 1000m pace on the bike and 500m on the rower. The same inherent error as comparing watts on both.
G
I'm not sure why you are so dismissive. BikeErg and RowErg do a good job of measuring energy at the flywheel. The error on the RowErg was measured by the Ulm study and it is small.
The distance calculation is set so that double the distance on the BikeErg involves precisely the same flywheel energy as on the RowErg.
Because of (primarily) losses due to reciprocating mass, metabolic energy is considerably higher for the RowErg than for the BikeErg (for a given power at the flywheel). So there is an inherent error in comparing the training effect/exertion, etc. between 1000m pace on the bike and 500m on the rower. The same inherent error as comparing watts on both.
G