Rate up..Speed down :(

[Coach D]

Hi everyone...long time reader/first time poster and all that

I have a question that the few coaches i have spoken to can't seem to find an answer so wanted to reach out and see if there might be some nuggets of information here.

As a rower i am competing at a relatively high level (just under senior national team level) so have many miles on the water under my belt.

My problem i am looking for a solution with is this

at a rate of 26 or below i am quite fast, i train with many top level rowers (some lwt internationals..i am also a lwt) and at anything at a 26 or below i am equal in speed to the faster guys / if not faster and a lot (say 4 lengths or more over a 2k) over the slower national team guys. I even remember a yr ago doing some pieces side by side with a fellow lwt who had that yr been in an A final at a world cup in the lwt single. He was surprised that over 1k at a 24 and 26 i was actually over a length faster then him but then a few days later when we upped the rate i was quite a bit slower / didn't not increase speed as much as he did

and this seems to be the case,

I am wondering what ideas people might have. I row on a pretty standard set up of 288/88 sculls (either concepts or crokers) and a 159.5-160 span..so nothing hugely different from the norm. Use normal boats i.s. fluids or hudsons

It seems i am like a tractor, i have 1 or 2 really big gears but thats about it.

My max power on the erg is relatively ok 850-900watts is the best i have seen, my SS at 1.5-2mm is around 1.53's on sliders (1.52's on static). Which is far better then it used to be yet my most recent 2k score is only slightly faster 6.20 (pb 6.19 then it was when my SS was 1.56's/7 (6.24).

However when i do pieces the speed i loose is not a gradual thing ie. over the course of a 2k say and occurs straight away so i don't expect it to be a purely a physiology based thing as it happens way before any lactic acid comes into play. At a rate 26 i pull away from the first stroke however once it starts to get higher where as before from the first stroke i would pull away now i am level and everyone els seems to be able to shift gears and see's a larger improvement in speed when going up the rates.

Anyway....all thoughts and ideas welcome

Thanks again

[Carl]

It's hard to say without seeing & knowing a whole lot more. Still,
fools rush in where angels fear to tread, so here goes:

I'm going to guess that you are heavy & slow with your catches? And
maybe that when you try to raise the rate you are trying to do so by
pulling harder?

At 26 you have time to hang around at the catch for up to 1/10th second,
but that's time stolen from your recovery. But catches simply can't be
hard, they can only be fast & then, through being fast, they become
hard. If you took your catch without trying to hammer it home you'd be
fast into the water & you'd be faster to bend the oarshafts, so the work
would go on earlier & you also have saved that 1/10th second on every
stroke. Saving that much per stroke would already give you a 'free'
rate increase of 1.2 spm.

Next, I think of you as an erg-monster - very strong but not yet aware
that rate is a form of gearing. Consider this: if you are at full
pressure at 26, you can't pull any harder. So if you raise your rate
while keeping that pressure, you'll overload, saturate, weaken & thus
will soon go slower. What a higher rating gives you is the ability to
pull a little bit less hard but to get in more strokes, such that the
multiple of strokes/min by work/stroke actually rises. That multiple
being the work done/minute, you must then go faster. The point here is
that a small reduction in load will give you a large increase in endurance.

However, you must have a technique which allows you to do those extra
strokes/minute without tying yourself in knots. I've given you one
suggestion - don't wait to build for & then to drive in the supposedly
hard catch, but catch fast & (it may even seem) slightly short, without
any build up, & then get the load on as swiftly as possible.

And please don't think that increased rating cones through whipping the
hands away at the finish - it doesn't. What can happen then is that you
actually unload & shorten your finish just to get the hands away, which
is clearly detrimental, but also that you then check part-way up the
slide. The fastest way from finish to catch is in a smooth, continuous
movement, so any sudden accelerations & checks will pile time onto the
recovery, & that must either depress the rate or force you to shorten
the stroke to sustain rate.

Anywhere near the mark?

Cheers -
Carl

--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: carldouglas.co.uk & now on Facebook @ CarlDouglasRacingShells

[Coach D]

[Coach D]

Umm it could be.

Below is a link from me rowing last summer..only quality video i have

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUvPv8ojXss&list=UU8H4JKjeWSIxF-KRGIPXIGQ&index=15

I don't think my catches are "that slow" but maybe they are?

[Carl]

On 26/05/2013 18:23, Coach D wrote:

>
>
> Umm it could be.
>
> Below is a link from me rowing last summer..only quality video i have
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUvPv8ojXss&list=UU8H4JKjeWSIxF-KRGIPXIGQ&index=15
>
> I don't think my catches are "that slow" but maybe they are?
>

Interesting. You do a little lung just before the catch, as if seeking
extra length, & then take the catch with your feet with no immediate
connection to the shoulders - the body very slightly jack-knifes with a
hint of early bumshove, which is certainly disconnecting/delaying the catch.

If you took the catch just before that little lunge over frontstops
you'd save a lot of time & lose nothing of your stroke. If you took the
catch as if clapping your hands together (because they are moving more
towards each other than towards the bow at the moment of entry) that'd
also be helpful.

In short, what I see is several small actions which aren't connecting
load to blades, all of which could go without your losing anything.

What do you think?

Interestingly, for some reason that video runs straight on into one of a
W2- which, whatever its other faults, has a simpler & effective-looking
catch.

What I like in your video is that you cover the blade well, whereas I
think the W2- are too shallow.

Any help?

[Coach D]

Indeed, i can work on those points. I very much think it is a technical thing as it happens right off the start before any real physiological effect due to lactic acid etc etc could take effect.

Its annoying as if i had the same power / application i do at a 26 at a 34 i believe i would be competitive on the bigger stage as at a 26 or below i can keep speed or beat athletes who have been in world cup A finals, just when the rating goes up i loose connection / can't transfer the power.

annoying to say the least

[A3aan]

Your leg drive is stalling halfway. Clean up your catch approach as Carl suggests and look for a clean 'knees down' in your leg drive. Please show us some high rate video for a better analysis.

cheers,

A3aan.

[Coach D]

Perhaps i can do the hose / tube on the end of the boat and note the water flow to see if it changes during the drive which would indicate loosing connection?

[johnf...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 7:45:02 AM UTC-4, Coach D wrote:

Two thoughts:
(1) Experiment with lighter gearing to get to higher ratings?
(2) If you are serious, find the best coach you can get and pay her/him for some private sessions. You may want to develop a long term relationship with a coach, and, depending on their areas of expertise, may need one for technique and one for fitness. IOW, it might be either a technique or a strength/fitness issue. Getting coaching for free on the internet - maybe not the best course.

[Coach D]

1) the higher rating is not a huge issue i can happily row a 34-36 (conditions dependent) for a 2k.

2) i have a good coach however i thought i would see if there was something else i was missing. Many eyes looking at the same picture might find different things. My coach is at a bit of a loss as to what is going on as though i do a few things wrong i don't scull that badly at least from his point of view to explain such a loss of speed from 26 spm to 28 and beyond. I would happily pay someone however just by offering someone money does not necessary mean the problem will be fixed. I heard good things about rec sport so thought i would see what the forum posters thought, maybe something they see that i and my coach do not??

[James HS]

Looks strong with a good connection.

However, as suggested, it would be good to see what you are doing at high rate work as the low rate work looks like you treat every stroke as a 'power lift' rather than fluidity round the back end and a series of movements tied together by fluidity .... i.e. you seem to 'stop' at the end of every stroke rather than a fluid and continuous rythm.

Do you use a dynamic or a static c2 as it looks to me like you are rowing like a heavyweight on a static, and a more fluid tying together of the back end, plus the other comments, could give you that extra run and rythm ..... try getting it from LESS effort and more effortless fluidity.

James

[Charles Carroll]

I am determined to go sculling this morning, so I don't have a lot of time.
On the 21st I made some notes on rigging after I cam in off the water. It
seems to me that these notes may possibly address some of the questions you
raise in your post:

-----------

REVISED RIGGING—EFFICIENCY VS. EFFECTIVENESS

This morning I modified the second set of sculls. They are now identical
with the set I modified yesterday morning—285/160/85. This gives me two sets
of identical sculls.

This modification amounts to a small tweak with small gains and losses. What
I lose with shorter inboards is leverage. What I gain with shorter inboards
is more efficient catch and release angles. And with longer outboards I gain
more efficient blades.

So the short of it is that I have tweaked my sculls to be more efficient—to
slip less and hold me in the water longer during the drive. As a result I
get more distance per stroke. And that is all to the good.

Or is it?

Isn’t there another question I have to consider—namely, can I handle this
efficiency? Am I strong enough? Are my modest sculling skills proficient
enough? Would my sculling be more effective with less efficient sculls, that
is, with sculls that wouldn’t keep me in the water as long, but that would
allow me to scull at higher rates? In other words, am I over-geared?

“…effective rowing technique is an optimal balance of efficiency and
effective-ness, which must be related to the characteristics of a specific
rower.” — Valery Kleshnev

Consider the following example. With more efficient sculls, sculling at a
rate of 24 spm, say I can average a distance of 10 meters per stroke. So
sculling at 24 spm for one minute I will travel a distance of 240 meters.
Now reduce the outboard by 2 cm and increase the inboard by 2 cm. The sculls
become less efficient and I can only get 9.5 meters per stroke. But I can
pick up the rate to 26 spm. So in one minute sculling at 26 spm at 9.5
meters per stroke I will travel a distance of 247 meters, which is 7 meters
further than I would have traveled with more efficient sculls.

So the question is will distance gained per stroke compensate for sculling
at a lower rate of strokes per minute?

And now it is time to remind myself that in the September 2011 Rowing
Biomechanics Newsletter Valery Kleshnev writes: “Changing oar length in
quite large scale doesn’t affect significantly forces, power and boat speed,
so it should not scare coaches and rowers.” It is fun to play with rigging.
It is even more fun to understand the ideas of rigging—the relationship of
inboard to outboard, blade shape, stretcher placement, oarlock height, etc.
But in the end isn’t it only prudent to keep things in perspective? The
truth is that the stakes are just not very high—leastwise, this is true in
my case. I would conclude that it is more important to enjoy your rigging
than it is to produce theoretically ideal rigging numbers. Rig a shell so
that you feel comfortable sculling it. Stop fretting about whether the
rigging is ideal.

-------------

The last sentence is a conclusion that applies to me. But you are sculling
at a much higher level. At your level it may be that rigging becomes really
important ...

[Carl]

Charles -

I don't think the relatively small changes you're making to your
blades/oars are very significant & I don't think they materially change
the propulsive efficiency of the blade in the water. What really does
change that is blade depth. And that's something you can change without
a screwdriver, just by choosing to pull higher through the middle of the
stroke, & it makes a big difference to efficiency.

Changing rig is about changing gearing. If the gearing becomes very
light that may possibly increase blade loadings enough to cause some
reduction in propulsive efficiency (the blades may slip slightly more).
But changing blade depth by quite small amounts will seriously reduce
slip & hence raise efficiency.

Next to rate:

Rate is only marginally affected by rig & blade efficiency, but you
should never accept a reduced efficiency as a way to raise rating.
That's like oiling the track to get the engine revs up! In rowing,
unless you fail to see that higher blade efficiency must mean a slightly
longer immersed time per stroke, so you must proportionately reduce
pressure, _not_ increase it to get the stroke time down, & very slightly
reduce the recovery time, there is no need for rating to fall

Rating comes from not spending so long in the air, not from spending
marginally less time in the water. Our OP spends a lot of unproductive
time around his catch (doing a lunge, then not actually connecting with
the water until some time after the blades enter). I've stepped through
the film frame by frame & he takes about 6 frames making his entry
before there's any load - that's about 1/6 of his recovery time.
Reducing that time waste will give a substantial rate increase. Drive
the hands faster over the knees & he'd have an even higher rate. All
for no more effort, just slicker timing & no lunge.

What I'm saying is that we pay undue attention to what are really quite
tiny gearing changes, then philosophise on the apparent effects of such
changes when the most variable & unpredictable bit of our equipment -
ourselves - is ignored. Thus a seeming gain from a rig change one day
can feel like it all went wrong the next - because the biggest change
between those 2 outings was in our own heads. I've seen so many
scullers on a circular chase after a "faster" rig, often ending up back
where they started, but with their performance impaired by the time
spent in pursuit of gold in a lead mine.

In discussing the case of the OP I sense we risk ignoring real chunks of
time lost at the catch, the elimination of which would immediately
increase his rating. And perhaps I should refer you back to your
wonderful Youtube film of Vyachyslev Ivanov sculling? Ivanov's catch
was like the strike of a cobra, & his rate soared exactly when he wanted
it to because he was so fast onto the next catch.

Maybe the simplest example of the irrelevance to rating of time spent in
the water is the demonstrable fact that any sculler who puts their mind
to it can paddle light at rates well over 35. It's just a matter of not
wasting recovery time & not dawdling over the catch - the recovery is
not for taking a rest, nor for "letting the boat run", but about
attacking that next stroke, just as Ivanov did.

[Charles Carroll]

> I don't think the relatively small changes you're making to your
> blades/oars are very significant & I don't think they materially change
> the propulsive efficiency of the blade in the water. What really does
> change that is blade depth. And that's something you can change without a
> screwdriver, just by choosing to pull higher through the middle of the
> stroke, & it makes a big difference to efficiency.

Carl,

I am very glad that you think so. I have been told so often that my rigging
is all wrong and that I am over-geared. It seems to me that in my little
world current fashion has it that a decreased spread, decreased outboard,
enlarged blade surface area, and more flexible oar shaft will produce more
speed. I just don’t see it. It hasn’t been my experience. Indeed it seems to
me that all this amounts to is materially trying to change the propulsive
efficiency of the blades in the water in order to produce a higher rate.

As for blade depth — I could not agree with you more. “… choosing to pull
higher through the middle of the stroke … makes a big difference to
efficiency.” But doesn’t increasing the outboard also bury the blades a
little deeper? And if so, increasing the outboard must then make the blades
more efficient.

Do you recall that video that I made a few years ago about Hand Path During
the Drive? It is the most boring video ever uploaded to YouTube. I ask
because I show Ivanov’s hand path during the drive and quote you on why he
is pulling higher in the middle of the stroke.

Now on to the irrelevance of rateng to time spent in the water:

> higher blade efficiency must mean a slightly longer immersed time per
> stroke, so you must proportionately reduce pressure, _not_ increase it to
> get the stroke time down, & very slightly reduce the recovery time, there
> is no need for rating to fall

And with that little paragraph you have taken me to a new and higher level
of sculling.

But I have to explain. I watched the OP’s video and compared it to the video
of Ivanov’s sculling. What a difference!

If you look at the videos in real time, both Ivanov and the OP get long and
have quick catches. The OP, however, as you say, seems to take “several
small actions which aren't connecting load to blade.” To my eye it looks as
if the OP in the beginning phases of the drive is not producing the
propulsive efficiency that he could and should produce.

Ivanov, in contrast, produces propulsive efficiency right from the start of
the catch. He just connects the load to the blade so much faster than the
OP.

So my next question was why? What is Ivanov doing differently?

I reproduced Ivanov’s video in slow motion, then reproduced it again in even
slower motion. If you look at the video in real time Ivanov’s sculling is
awesomely smooth. In very slow motion, however, Ivanov’s smoothness becomes
more jagged. In fact in the video in very slow motion Ivanov very briefly
pauses after the blades are covered. He holds the blades in place with
nearly no perceptible movement of his hands and body almost as if he is
waiting for something.

Isn’t there an unvarying and immutable law of rowing which states that the
rowing stroke is a continuum and that one must never purposely interrupt
this continuum to wait for something to happen? Yet Ivanov is definitely
waiting, albeit the wait time is so brief that you will never see it in real
time. It is only visible in very slow motion.

So what is Ivanov waiting for?

I immediately thought of something that you have said and have been saying
for years — namely, you should not push off the stretcher until you have
established “essential tensile connection between the mass of water behind
the backs of the blades and the backs of the blades themselves.”

So Ivanov is much faster at connecting load to blade. In other words, Ivanov
produces useful power more quickly and for a longer time and does our OP.

So Friday, the last time I went sculling, I put this to the test in my
on-water laboratory.

My whole focus was on not losing length at the catch. To do this I drew the
shell underneath me. Then, when the oar handles were at the furthest point
towards the stern, I put the blades in the water and held them in place
until I established the “essential tensile connection between the mass of
water behind the backs of the blades and the backs of the blades
themselves.” Only after I felt this connection did I push off the
stretcher.

In other words I did something which was quite forbidden. Once I had placed
the blades and they were fully covered, I held them in place and waited. I
even pushed the oar handles ever-so-slightly sternwards after the blades had
been fully covered. Would the Gods of sculling open the heavens and hurl a
lightning bolt that would pulverize me into a pile of ash, I wondered?

But nothing of the sort occurred. Instead I only stayed in the water
slightly longer with a little better propulsive efficiency, particularly in
the beginning phases of the drive.

Ok, so next I followed your suggestion.

You write: “Maybe the simplest example of the irrelevance [of] rating [to]

time spent in the water is the demonstrable fact that any sculler who puts
their mind to it can paddle light at rates well over 35. It’s just a matter

of not wasting time & not dwelling over the catch — the recovery is not for
taking a rest, nor for ‘letting the boat run,’ but about attacking the next
stroke, just as Ivanov did.”

So this is what I did. I paddled light and used the recovery to produce a
higher rate.

I am still finding it hard to believe the results. The readout on the
SpeedCoach said that I had achieved a goal that I have been working on for
months.

With warmest regards and many thanks,

Charles

[Charles Carroll]

Should have read:

So what is Ivanov waiting for?

I immediately thought of something that you have said and have been saying
for years — namely, you should not push off the stretcher until you have

established an “essential tensile connection between the mass of water

behind
the backs of the blades and the backs of the blades themselves.”

So I think this is what Ivanov is waiting for — this “essential tensile
connection.” And this is precisely what makes Ivanov so much faster at

[Carl]

Charles -

Most interesting responses, thanks. I would, however, counsel on this
one point:

I don't actually advocate any delay in applying load at the catch. It
may, however, be that things happen in process of acquiring a faster
catch action which we would not want in the final, polished product.
The blade does not connect, as such, unless loaded & immersion alone
does nothing for you.

You're an elegant classicist, Charles, whereas in the use of words I'm a
rude mechanical, so we may misread each other. But the fact remains
that the "lift" force, which resists any load you put on the blade at
the catch, arises not in anticipation but only in reaction (equal &
opposite) to whatever load you apply. So no tensile connection can
exist except for a loaded blade.

This does not provide grounds, therefore, to immerse the blade & then
wait to sense a connection, which is what I think you are saying, nor to
push forward as I think you suggest. The one will only delay the
application of useful propulsive force while the other must (if really
it does happen) cause back-splash or check.

I'm interested in what you say about a greatly slowed down viewing of
Ivanov's catch, but without myself seeing what you see I can't usefully
comment. I would say only that a single frame is a very small thing on
which to hang an case when you are dealing with rapid movement of a
whippy stick.

I think we have limited ability to micromanage every aspect of the
stroke, & my passing reference, above, to the elasticity of the
oar-shaft underlines this. We have long discussed on RSR the key point
that we never actually do what our brain or our coach tell us to do. To
that I'd add the suggestion that we don't even do what we think we
perceive in our own actions. So we work to a broad plan & are
vulnerable to interpreting what we do, especially when it works well for
us, in terms which may not be entirely accurate.

But I could be wrong ;)

[wmar...@gmail.com]

On Monday, 3 June 2013 07:22:44 UTC-4, Carl wrote:

> .... But the fact remains

>
> that the "lift" force, which resists any load you put on the blade at
>
> the catch, arises not in anticipation but only in reaction (equal &
>
> opposite) to whatever load you apply.

Hi...
About lift depending on the sculler loading the blade... Um... How do wings "load" other than by being pushed through their medium? If your oar blade is driven through the water tip-first by the boat, would lift not be generated by the blade passing through the medium of the water? I recognize that the idea in sculling is to get on with the work quickly, but... You're implying (I think) that a wing has to be pulled in the direction opposite to the lift in order to generate lift... The lift comes from the blade moving tip first in the water and not from the person pulling on it, n'est ce pas?
WM

[Carl]

Errr... No.

Lift results _only_ to counteract a load. Any foil can be aligned to a
flow so as to generate zero lift - a symmetrical foil needs its axis
aligned with the flow while a cambered foil (more positively curved on
one face than the other - e.g. an oarblade, a commercial aircraft wing
or an axial turbine blade) will need a negative (nose-down) AoA to reach
zero lift. If then rotated by some degrees about an axis perpendicular
to the flow to increase AoA & held fixed in place, then it will generate
a lift force, perpendicular to the flow & to the rotational axis (we're
thinking in 30D here), which is directly proportional to that angular
rotation. That force must be resisted by whatever is holding the foil
in place. If, however, you do nothing to restrain the foil in the lift
direction, then it will move at a steady rate in that direction,
generating only enough lift to support its own weight. And if the
weight of the foil is perfectly counterbalanced so that it has zero
weight, & its support is frictionless, then it will rise at almost
exactly the same rate but now under effectively zero lift.

The sum of lift on the wings of an aircraft in level flight exactly
equals the weight of the plane. Only if the plane changes from level to
climb or dive will that change, & then only transiently, by the amount
of the vertical acceleration which effects that change in flight path.
As the plane uses fuel, so the lift required reduces & the pilot may put
its nose down a tad or (possibly) alter the setting of its control
surfaces, in either case to reduce lift.

Going back to the oarblade:
If. in a moving boat. you drop a squared blade at catch position into
the water, then water will flow from tip to root & the blade will swing
around the pin at a rate consistent with there being no lift. If
instead you load it, 2 things happen which are in apparent conflict:
1. Supposing the oar to be infinitely stiff, then the angle of attack of
the oncoming (tip-first) flow WRT to shaft goes from that at which zero
lift is induced to a slightly steeper angle at which lift exactly
matching & opposed to the applied load is generated - angle of attack on
any foil in a flow will self-adjust to give the requisite lift.
2. But - the shaft is not infinitely rigid. So it bends. And by
bending it rotates the blade towards the bow, which steepens its angle
of attack. So, without getting things too complicated for a simple
discussion (OK, I just did that!) it could even be that the bend on the
shaft increases the blade's AoA by more than is needed to generate the
necessary lift force to match the applied load. In which case, the rate
of rotation about the pin might actually _reduce_ as you apply more load!

Please remember - you heard that here first! But I'd advise against
anyone bashing their brains out over that, just stick the blade in fast
& load it fast. But what #2 does mean is that the flow situation around
the loaded blade is counter-intuitively different for the HWt than for
the LWt. And you also heard that here first!

Enough brain damage for one day, methinks.

Cheers -
Carl



There are many examples of this

[Charles Carroll]

Carl,

I read your reply with great interest and have been thinking about it all
morning.

My question was what is Ivanov waiting for in the milliseconds after blade
entry?

But this begs the question, doesn’t it? Even though Ivanov appears to be
waiting, is he actually waiting for anything?

It occurs to me that I myself unwittingly may have provided the answer.

“When the oar handles were at the furthest point towards the stern,” I
wrote, “I put the blades in the water and held them in place until I
established the essential tensile connection between the mass of water
behind the backs of the blades and the backs of the blades themselves.” And
then I went on to confuse “holding the blades in place” with waiting.

But is it?

I remembered that in another thread you wrote: “… you apply the load with
the hands.” This is something you have been saying for years.

Voila!

Could it be that Ivanov is applying the load with his hands? Is this why he
appears to wait a few milliseconds after blade entry before pushing off the
stretcher?

Ivanov is not really waiting at all, is he? What’s more he applies the load
with his hands so fast that you cannot even see it in real time. You have to
reproduce the video in very slow motion to see it all.

If I am right then this may be why Ivanov is able to produce more useful
power than the OP. While Ivanov applies the load with his hands, the OP, in
contrast, applies the load by pushing off the stretcher. In other words,
could it be that the OP is pushing off the stretcher before the blades are
loaded?

I suddenly realize that in my case, in spite of ever admonition to the
contrary, this is how I have been sculling. I have been trying to apply the
load by pushing off the stretcher.

Just a quick thought …

Warmest regards,

Charles

[Charles Carroll]

> But catches simply can't be hard, they can only be fast & then, through
> being fast, they become hard. If you took your catch without trying to
> hammer it home you'd be fast into the water & you'd be faster to bend the
> oarshafts

The one thing no sculler or rower wants to be known for is being a “Hammer.”

Think of using a hammer to drive a nail. While the initial force is
explosive, it is without follow-through. In other words, a hammer is a
sculler or rower who at the catch employs a hard beginning followed by an
immediate collapse in force.

This is what I think it means to "hammer it home.”

But I am curious as to what anyone else thinks. I suspect there is a better
way to think of it.

[James HS]

Charles,

I think you have hit the nail on the head here.

We have often discussed that the first loading is the bringing of the hands closer together without stretcher drive, then possibly some arm bend, then the leg drive.

From the side the hands moving closer together would appear to be a pause .... but it is not - it is active application of load to the blades once immersed.

unfortunately coaches often say to pause at the catch and what I think they are trying to say (in a sculling boat) is bring the hands together with the pecks.

What would be the equivalent in rowing - slight bend of the arms to load the blades and bend the shaft?

James

[davie...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 2:58:48 PM UTC+1, James HS wrote:
> ...

> What would be the equivalent in rowing - slight bend of the arms to load the blades and bend the shaft?
>
>
>
> James

You can apply force on the blade towards the centre of the boat in a rowing catch, but it requires a very strong core to provide the firm base that's needed.

Kit

[tjhco...@googlemail.com]

Do you have access to a GoPro camera or similar? That way you might be able to get some footage of yourself without having to get a coach to do it for you. It would be great if you could post footage of yourself from a similar angle doing maybe 5 x 1min pieces at R26, R28, R30, R32, R34?

...I'll throw in my 2c...

1. As Carl says, the main thing holding you back is the coordination around the front end of the stroke.

Taking a look at the guy in the background, he seems to be picking the boat up with 2-3" of check at the catch (i.e. a little bit of a break in the flow around the front, but he's 'ghosting along' more), whereas you often have as much as a foot of boat travelling 'backwards' before it starts to accelerate back through again. Your acceleration through the second half of the drive looks strong though. When people crank up the rating, it's often the length in the second half of the drive which suffers, so it becomes a bit of a vicious circle if you don't have a good pick up at the front.

What I mean to say here is that it is purely a coordination issue - it's not about working harder, it's about working more in time. Don't go pounding the catch to hit it 'harder'.

Try sitting at front-stops, tapping squared blades in and out of the water. It looks like you've got the balance to do this fairly easily. Once you're able to complete 10-20 taps with good stability, move to completing the same movement, but with a extra little movement built in to 'hook' the blade on to the water - it's a bit like a little circle at the front end. As you execute that little circle at the front think about the first half of the blade covering being done by pushing the handles away and up, as the blade gets towards being half covered, keep the hands going up, but start to draw them back towards you - keep this movement rounded - no sharp corners. It should really feel like you're 'hooking' on to the water and you'll start to see first a little back splash and then a little front splash as the spoon hooks around that little circle.

When you start to hit this right, you start to hear a musical 'ber-doink' sound, like dropping a pebble into a glass of water. If you don't quite hit the timing right, then it sounds like a cow crapping on concrete. Try it with one hand to begin with, then the other, then both. Do three strokes at a time and tell yourself which was the best of the three. Do it at front stops, do it at arms away, then start to lengthen the strokes. As the stroke length and speed builds, you'll start to lose the musical note, but you'll keep the same 'hook' feeling and the purchase on the water that comes with it. If you do this in a 4- or an 8+ at speed the sound at the catch is like the crunch you get when stamping on a lightbulb, but the feel of purchase is the same.

When you've got the 'hook' and placement that comes from the hands, build the legs onto it, for me it feels like I hook the blades on to the water and push the boat on to the blades at the same time using my feet. That gives me a strong connection in the small of my back just below my pelvis and I suspend and swing my weight back against that.

2. IMO most people run rigs that are too heavy for them. So, I'd suggest backing off the rig until you actually start to lose boat speed when rowing at maximum capacity - at this point you'll feel like you're on a bike in too high a gear, spinning your legs away. When you get to this point, gear back up a bit until you feel like you've found a happy medium with a dynamic, productive send, but not a heavy wrench.

Just because you *can* hit rate 34 doesn't mean that it's a good R34. You may well be shortening the length of the drive in the water in order to get the rate up, which could explain why you're fast at 26, but lose advantage as you go up...

3. Remember that every conversation on RSR turns into a discussion of blade efficiency drag/lift within 12 posts. It's the same phenomenon as all of the 10mm and 13mm spanners in your tool bag changing to 11mm and 14mm ones if you leave them in there too long - or all cassette tapes turning into Queen's Greatest Hits if you leave them in your car too long.

So, have fun. I hope that this helps. Have a play around with the skills at the front end, but above all, don't think about how your body is moving, think about how you're using the blade and the water to move the boat.

TC

[Charles Carroll]

> We have often discussed that the first loading
> is the bringing of the hands closer together
> without stretcher drive, then possibly some
>arm bend, then the leg drive.
>

James,

I am trying to break myself of the habit of pushing off the stretcher before
the blades are able to offer resistance. So recently I have spent on water
time keeping to low rates/low pressure and concentrated on the initial
phases of the drive.

Think of the drive as a process � a series of actions taken to achieve an
end.

Now consider the initial phases of the drive. A sculler arrives at the
catch, as defined as the furthest point of the oar handles towards the
stern. His blades are already square as he arrives at the catch. Or he
combines squaring the blades with simultaneous upwards acceleration of the
oar handles.

Once the blades are fully covered and square the sculler initially uses his
fingers and hands to begin putting a useful load the blades.

But what is a useful load?

I have had no formal training in mechanics, so I am hesitant to use phrases
such as �useful load.� My guess is that a �useful load� is enough force on
the blades to offer resistance to the force the sculler will build on the
oar handles when he pushes off the stretcher.

As Carl argues, �You can�t hit something hard that offers no resistance ��

Thus Carl�s argument becomes another way of saying that the force the
sculler builds on the blades must be able to balance the force he applies to
the oar handles. If it doesn�t balance, if the force on the oar handles is
greater than the blades can resist, then instead of employing the blades to
move the shell the sculler employs the blades to shovel water.

In the initial phases of the drive at low rates a sculler has enough time to
feel a movement of the oar handles towards the bow. This movement tells him
that the blades have begun to offer resistance.

At high rates, however, there is not enough time to feel the oar handles
moving bowards. For this reason at high rates everything becomes a matter of
timing. Without thinking about it a sculler must regulate the force he
generates pushing off the stretcher to the resistance he is building on the
blades.

As Carl puts it, �No effective catch can be hard from the outset, since
before there can be much pressure the blade must already have entered & the
hands already be moving bowards. You can�t hit something hard which offers
no resistance, but you can build that resistance faster by moving the oar
handles faster.�

So how do you build resistance on the blades?

You cover the blades and then using your fingers and hands begin applying
pressure bowards against the oar handles. In the initial phases I am finding
that only a few milliseconds are required to build sufficient resistance on
the blades to balance the push off the stretcher. The crucial point here is
that there should be no delay in applying this pressure.

Another crucial point is that during these milliseconds the sculler should
try to lose as little length as possible. For this reason any movement of
the sculler with respect to the slides should be virtually unnoticeable.
Only the fingers and hands, and maybe the arms, should move.

Even so there should be a slight movement of the oar handles bowards and a
slight bend in the oar shaft. This indicates that the blades are now
prepared to resist the substantial pressure that will be applied to the oar
handles from pushing off the stretcher.

One might make a case that the blades could also be loaded in the initial
phases of the drive by training yourself to push off the stretcher lightly.
The drawback is that pushing off the stretcher entails a bowards movement
down the slide; and any movement down the slide, however slight it may be,
will result in a loss of length. Such a loss, if it occurs in the initial
phases of the drive, is particularly important because it means less length
when the legs are making their major contribution. On the other hand, using
the fingers and hands to load the blades in the initial phases of the drive
allows you to stay in the stern while losing only minimal length.

I don�t know. The SpeedCoach says I am going faster. I find this
encouraging. But my sculling feels a bit weird. I keep thinking I am not
working hard enough � that I don�t deserve the increase in speed.

What keeps me going is something Richard Packer wrote recently. He had a
golf coach make some tiny adjustments to his grip on a driving range.
Richard said his slice instantly disappeared. When the golf coach asked him
how he felt, Richard complained that the new grip felt really uncomfortable.
"Good," said the coach. "If it doesn't feel weird at first, then you haven't
changed anything. Keep practicing."

Every time I go out I think of what Richard wrote �

Cordially,

Charles

[Henry Law]

On 20/06/13 18:14, tjhco...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Taking a look at the guy in the background

This is such a useful post. My crew has now more or less got the hang
of what rowing looks like, so we need to start refining their technique.
Your drills and observations will be of enormous use.

--

Henry Law Manchester, England

[John Greenly]

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:14:52 PM UTC-4, tjhco...@googlemail.com wrote:
>but above all, don't think about how your body is moving, think about how you're using the blade and the water to move the boat. TC

Ahhhhhh! yes, I think that's the real answer to the difficulty that I have been posting about recently in the "relaxation" thread. I just began suspecting this morning that when I have one of my wobbly "bad days" it's because I'm starting off my workout way too conscious of the details of my body movement during the recovery. All of your suggestions here are very helpful, and I think this one is really the key for me right now- thanks very much!!

--John G

[Charles Carroll]

> As you execute that little circle at the front
> think about the first half of the blade covering
> being done by pushing the handles away and up,

TC,

If you push the handles away, wouldn’t you be backwatering?

Charles

[Mike De Petris]

On Sunday, May 26, 2013 1:45:02 PM UTC+2, Coach D wrote:
> at a rate of 26 or below i am quite fast, i train with many top level rowers (some lwt internationals..i am also a lwt) and at anything at a 26 or below i am equal in speed to the faster guys / if not faster and a lot (say 4 lengths or more over a 2k) over the slower national team guys. I even remember a yr ago doing some pieces side by side with a fellow lwt who had that yr been in an A final at a world cup in the lwt single. He was surprised that over 1k at a 24 and 26 i was actually over a length faster then him but then a few days later when we upped the rate i was quite a bit slower / didn't not increase speed as much as he did

Sorry, I have no time to read all the useful and wise comments and answers.

I'm just curious about a thing, how much of your training is done at 24/26 and how much is done at 34 or more?

mike 2c

[tjhco...@googlemail.com]

Yes.

A little bit.

But just a little bit.

The movement that I look for is demonstrated beautifully by Ivanov in your slow motion youtube clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1R3pE05_78)... you see him 'windmill' his blades around the front of the stroke to grip the water.

Fairbairn said "The more brilliant the oarsman the nearer he can take the water to the dead centre (the full reach)."

This is exactly what I coach for... except that modern blades are longer from the bottom edge to the top as compared to the blades of Ivanov and Fairbairn. So in order for the top of the blade to finish the entry at the same time as Ivanov, you've got to start the movement from earlier in the cycle.

So I look for scullers to execute that circular 'hooking' movement earlier, starting slightly closer to the water so that they grip the water closer to the 'top dead centre'.

This involves starting to cover the blade before reaching full compression...

At this point I'll reference Xeno Muller from last night's RowPerfect rowing chat organised by Rebecca Caroe - start listening at 18:27 and go through to 20:17.

https://soundcloud.com/rowperfect/rowingchat-0005-with-xeno-m

Take a look at every catch in this Olympic singles final: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDb2zYKuOrs

So, yes, there is some backsplash, but I don't think that you should ever coach for back splash. I coach for an early connection - not a hard, or fast connection - but a well timed, early connection.

Hope that this helps?

TC

[wmar...@gmail.com]

I'd agree with Charles. TC's suggestion might prevent "missed water" but it (IMO) applies the brakes every stroke (and no I haven't read in detail the entire thread). I'd suggest that "the little circle" have it's vertical tangent at the moment of contact with water - up and out with the hands (forward and down with the blades) ending with water contact, up and in with the hands primarily due to leg drive starting - with a quick entry going from touching the water to full immersion in the time it takes to get from zero pressure on the feet to full pressure on the feet.
IMO.
W

[Carl]

Tom - it is an illusion to think the old needle blades were shorter from
top to bottom.

Sure, they were narrower (& longer) overall, but consider first their
angle to the vertical plane. The cleaver simply took the Macon blade
shape and dropped its bottom edge downwards to meet the water at nearly
the same moment from end to end, & made similar adjustments to the top edge.

I would agree that there is a circling (I prefer "hooking") action at
the catch, but this does not need to imply backwatering. In Ivanov's
day the far end of the much narrower blade entered, was fully covered &
then well subsurface by the time the neck got wet. And that is one
reason why the differences in performance between blades of that shape &
the modern cleaver are in reality small to vanishing - the major part of
the blade was sufficiently well immersed for it not to generate an
air-filled cavity behind it.

Cheers -
Carl