Like most of us, you've learnt to row and race. On the erg we are stroke, engine room, coach and cox; four-way schizophrenia. It's managing it all that make it such fun (for the fifth specialist).NEVER
The bottom line in rowing is the stroke, because there are practical limits to how many times a minute we can go up and down the slide and still pull a good one.The bottom line in erging is one’s average pace.
Have you seen timetriallingforum? Almost not stop talk about watts and power meter data on there.Cyclingman1 wrote:Before I came to rowing, I had never seen so much talk about SPM and Wattage. Especially in running, and even in cycling, you just don’t hear it. In cycling, in some ways and times, power and cadence come up, but not to the exclusion of mph. In both, one is trying to get from point A to point B quickly. Time and pace are what matter, regardless of Watts or turnover.
Maybe it was good that I had such a background when I started erging. Even though one is going nowhere sitting on an erg, time and pace are actually of most importance in erging. That is what I focused on. My SPM was what felt good. I scarcely noticed. I never gave Watts a second thought. I did pay some attention to drag factor. It was only later that I started getting feedback in these forums about my failures to do 20-22 SPM, which I agree has a place in training. The bottom line in erging is one’s average pace. That is the ONLY stat that says you are getting better. You can stare at Watts, calories, force curves all day long, but it is your avg pace that better be improving. And you absolutely cannot simply dial it up. One’s avg pace will definitely not be better than one’s fitness. I wouldn’t say forget about SPM and Watts, but realize they are secondary data. Average pace is what counts.
Bernard Hinault,s time trial technique...Cyclingman1 wrote:I knew just as soon as I mentioned power and cycling that I was going to get feedback. Ever since the Tour de France guys started talking power numbers [only possible with the introduction of strain gauges into cycling], the cycling public would have to have latest gadget. I wonder how Eddy Merckx or Greg Lemond functioned without power numbers. When winners of hammers at Crash-b are announced in Watts, then I will accept Watts as the focus. In other words the measurement system(s) has someone with higher Watts but slower time and still declares him/her the winner. Then for sure I'll know that number obsession has won.
Actually, time trialing was my specialty in cycling. I kept my head down and rode fast. I actually won a few. I got there faster than the other guy. Never knew a thing about watts.
BTW, I would encourage all to add a signature to posts to provide context.
Ordinarily I avoid directly contradicting other forum members, but I can't ignore that phrase. It is utter nonsense. The wattage is the primary data produced by the machine. The pace is introduced to give some sort of feel for distance on a machine that doesn't go anywhere. It is defined as inversely proportional to the cube root of the watts. Watts go up, pace goes down. they are inexorably linked by the equation and higher wattage has to produce a lower time.Cyclingman1 wrote: In other words the measurement system(s) has someone with higher Watts but slower time and still declares him/her the winner. Then for sure I'll know that number obsession has won.
Thanks for your input, Bob. I greatly appreciate it, including your background information.Bob S. wrote:
As far as the current discussion is concerned, what got me started on the concept of relatively constant work per stroke was the realization that there is not much variation in the length and time of any one individual’s stroke. A few years ago, I found that ErgMonitor (http://www.ps-sport.net ) reports show that a typical drive time is 0.7 second with about +/- 0.2s variation, depending on the individual and how hard the person is pulling. The length of the drive would vary a lot from one person to another, but should not vary much for the individual, unless that person is shortening up to try to reach very high stroke rates – often a losing proposition. In any case, for the individual, there really should not be much variation in the work done per stroke in most regular training workouts, including the longer interval pieces and time trials of 1k and up. The only exceptions to this that seem reasonable to me would cool down paddling at one extreme and very high rate sprinting at the other. For the bulk of training, my own feeling that fairly constant work/per stroke is the way to go.
That approach has worked quite well for me in recent years, but I am hardly typical, so I can only report my observations. I am not making any recommendations.
Bob S.
Bob indicated he is a "numbers freak," in part, by profession. So am I. Someone who isn't a number cruncher probably can't relate to the fact that, for someone like me, mashing the numbers is part of the "fun" of rowing.lindsayh wrote:Without being disrespectful to anyone either I must say that after reading the entire thread again I still don't really get it. I must train in a weird bubble where I don't think about these numbers at all! IMO it seems a bit like over analysis - time/life is too precious to be worrying too much about W'/stroke and the like - just get on the machine and have some fun in a sensible and logical way with some good goal setting and measures in place works for me.
Who said anything about "moderately-sustainable"??jackarabit wrote:Jules writes:
Perhaps. Jules, I will trade you my 39spm short-stroking sprint rate for your moderately-sustainable <22spm 9.9W'/stroke any day and twice on Sundays and you won't even have to go to boot!Rightly or wrongly, I was under the impression being able to vary the power per stroke was more important than being able to rate up, so that is what I have been focused on. Perhaps both are valuable.Jack
That type of effort is pretty "snot inducing" for me. 
Jules, you just keep amazing me. Now you have decided who is number-oriented and who is not.Jules wrote:I have no doubt Jim G., hjs and others consider obsessing over the numbers "bizarre." I get the impression they feel doing so is not just bizarre, but "inferior" to their approach. I don't see it that way. You are either a numbers person or you aren't. I
Because it really doesn't make much difference to me. I was just pointing out the obvious, i.e. that the amount of effort is shown directly by watts. Pace shows it, but not in linear fashion. The only place where it really makes a difference in competition is in the decisions made by individual satellite regatta directors as to how they assign the qualifiers when there are more than 4 at the venue. I get the benefit if the easy way is used - just looking at how many seconds each qualifier is under the qualification time. But that way is unfair to the qualifiers that are in the very fast brackets. It would be fair to use the number of watts each one did over the corresponding wattages for the qualifying times. However, that is extra work and slows the process. There is a lot of other work involved in running the regatta and not a lot of time available to do it.Cyclingman1 wrote: Bob, why don't you lobby Crash-B to announce all placements in the future in terms of 'Watts. Meanwhile I'll just stick with my ignorant elapsed time and average pace.