You're feathering all wrong
Alistair
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRhUOGyrIIQ
(from 20s in)
Alright I know its an exercise, but there's no reason not to do it all
the time - stops the blade being rolled out on the release, and also
it's a much better way to enter the water, especially if it's a bit rough.
Expect to see a number of crews rowing blades-down in 2012.
zeke_hoskin
Oh please, please, reverse-feather while you're rowing a single in
rough water. It is indeed a much better way to enter the water. In
fact, it makes water entry a sure thing.
Roger
Reverse feather puts the bottom of the blade at the perfect angle to
dig in if it touches the water, as Zeke says, probably a certain
method of smooth entry into the water, for the sculler not the blade.
The guys in the 8+ have clearly done a lot of this, as a drill what
benefits are there? Anyone care to comment.
Charles Carroll
My initial objection to reverse feathering is that reverse feathering requires the oarsman to square his blade over the water before blade insertion.
From what I have read, from what Carl has written, from what Valery Kleshnev writes in his Rowing Biomechanical Newsletter, from my own experiments and observations, quickness of blade insertion is crucial. The faster the vertical acceleration before the catch, the better the catch.
Now blend the vertical acceleration with the horizontal acceleration, and you will be able to apply force ever faster. ". . . elite rowers very often practice combination of squaring with simultaneous upwards acceleration of the handle. (RBN May 2008) Isn't this a description of a flip catch or sculler's catch? And how can you use a sculler's catch with reverse feathering?
The conclusion seems inescapable. Reverse feathering will slow your catch.
Now just exactly how important is a fast catch?
Again, I am going to appeal to Kleshnev for an answer:
". . . it is very important to increase force up to 70% maximal value as quickly as possible."
And why is this?
Because ". . . the faster you increase force up to 70% of your maximum, the longer the duration of the D3 micro-phase. This creates faster moving support for further acceleration of the rowers' mass." (RBN December 2004)
There is a lot more to be said about this, and probably much more articulate ways of saying it., but I am determined to get some sculling in this morning, so this will just have to do.
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
> rough water. It is indeed a much better way to enter the water. In
> fact, it makes water entry a sure thing.
This is the first time I can remember you leaving a post where you begged the question.
What is rough water?
At our boathouse in Sausalito we have a sheet of paper that attempts to describe different degrees of roughness. I'll see if I can find it this morning.
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
Tinus
I can imagine it being an exercise for, balance, forcing squared
release (preventing cheating in a normal delayed feather exercise),
increasing focus and confidence, or improving hand coordination and
synchronisation.
Alistair
> Alistair,
>
> My initial objection to reverse feathering is that reverse feathering requires the oarsman to square his blade over the water before blade insertion.
>
eh? I guess you mean conventional feathering?
> From what I have read, from what Carl has written, from what Valery Kleshnev writes in his Rowing Biomechanical Newsletter, from my own experiments and observations, quickness of blade insertion is crucial. The faster the vertical acceleration before the catch, the better the catch.
Okay. I don't see why either method is implicitly slower or faster than
the other.
> Now blend the vertical acceleration with the horizontal acceleration, and you will be able to apply force ever faster. ". . . elite rowers very often practice combination of squaring with simultaneous upwards acceleration of the handle. (RBN May 2008) Isn't this a description of a flip catch or sculler's catch? And how can you use a sculler's catch with reverse feathering?
So you need to be quick to cover and then be pushing hard early. This is
undoubtedly true, but not especially germane. Or even German.
> The conclusion seems inescapable. Reverse feathering will slow your catch.
The words non and sequitur spring to mind.
> There is a lot more to be said about this, and probably much more articulate ways of saying it., but I am determined to get some sculling in this morning, so this will just have to do.
I'm really hoping you gave it a go.
Charles Carroll
When I was at the Club this morning Liz Stone gave me a copy of the paper I mentioned.
As it turns out the paper is the first 7 classes of the Beaufort scale, which as an engineer is probably not new to you.
The first link is the Wikipedia article on Beaufort scale. Probably because it is all new to me and because I had never even heard of Sir Francis Beaufort, I found the article fascinating.
I am including the second link because of the attempt to portray the Beaufort scale in iconic images. Judging by the tree, smoke and flag, my guess is that I have sculled in maybe the first 6 classes. Rough water, in my highly subjective vocabulary, comprises classes 4 - 7. After that, it is pretty much unrowable water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale
http://www.stormfax.com/beaufort.htm
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
> rough water. It is indeed a much better way to enter the water. In
> fact, it makes water entry a sure thing.
Charles Carroll
Scribbling posts at a maddening pace while you are taking time away from doing what you really want to do guarantees chaos and muddy thinking. Sorry for the confusion. Let me see if I can clear things up a bit.
Recently I have been experimenting with ways to cover faster and push earlier. Specifically I have been trying to teach myself to scull at higher rates and use a different catch.
The reason for sculling at higher rates is that Kleshnev et al. have shown the dependence of force application on the stroke rate. ". . . the higher the stroke rate, the earlier force application [occurs]." (RBN December 2004)
The reason for teaching myself a different catch is that several coaches from whom I have taken lessons, as well as several friends who are very proficient rough water scullers, and of course Kleshnev again have all suggested that the conventional, sequential catch I have been taught is slow.
This catch, which I have been using and which is sequential, is square first, then insert, then push.
The new catch I have been trying to teach myself is a blended movement. Keeping the blades closer to the water, I am trying to insert them before they are fully squared, that is let the water finish squaring them, in unison with pushing. It is a blended movement: Square with vertical acceleration in unison with the horizontal acceleration.
I believe this catch is what Frank Cunningham calls "The Sculler's Catch:"
"It is usual to think that the blade ought to be turned at right angles to the water before it enters. But, since the essence of a good catch is quickness, the best way to acquire quickness is to ignore logic and rely on reflex." (the Sculler at Ease, p. 32)
Then Cunningham goes on to describe how to make this catch:
". . . When you reach the limit of your forward swing, pause and fling yourself boward. Do this in the expectation that your fingers will automatically turn the handle." (ibid.)
What I was trying to ask yesterday is whether it is possible to employ a Sculler's Catch with reverse feathering. It seems to me that the answer and no.
So, inasmuch as you cannot employ a Sculler's Catch when you use reverse feathering, and a Sculler's Catch is hypothetically faster than a conventional catch, I concluded that reverse feathering will slow your catch.
I don't know. The more I think about sculling, the less I seem to know.
Anyway, I did manage to get in a little sculling yesterday, and I did have a good time. Indeed as soon as I post this and walk the dogs I am leaving for Sausalito.
Cordially,
Charles
sully
I'll be more impressed if they spun them 360 degrees on the recovery.
:^)
sully
damn, time for a story.
Had a V-8 and 2V-8 up at Seattle to race Washington at Opening Day.
After the
Sat night partying, I took the crews on on Lake Washington just for
an easy cruise to
have a chance to row on the lake.
Dick Erickson was at the boathouse, asked if he could come in the
launch, Dick was the long time head coach at UW.
So we went out, I had the guys doing all kinds of tricks and
drills, square blade off hand this, pick drill that, eyes closed,
the whole enchilada.
Dick sighed, and said finally in an exasperated tone, "F*** Sully,
stop the bull**** and let them f***ing row."
I looked at him and chuckled. He was right, lesson learned...
Tinus
wrote:
> The reason for sculling at higher rates is that Kleshnev et al. have shown the dependence of force application on the stroke rate. ". . . the higher the stroke rate, the earlier force application [occurs]." (RBN December 2004)
>
This sounds rather narrow. It's like an earlier force application has
become a goal in itself. I would rather change to a higher rate
because it improves speed.
I guess that 'improved speed' is what you eventually strive for and
meant to convey. But the way you express it displays a departure from
a holistic view.
> What I was trying to ask yesterday is whether it is possible to employ a Sculler's Catch with reverse feathering. It seems to me that the answer and no.
This part of the argument is not very clear. Why couldn't the blade be
reverse feathered during the scullers catch?
I can only think of the application of the force by the thumbs having
an advantage in regular feathering. At the catch the thumbs apply a
force upwards turning both the blade and initiating the catch (the
same principal works for the release). But this could be a biased
because I have little experience (and hence imagination) with reversed
feathering. Someone who would apply reversed feathering would probably
apply more force with the other fingers. There is not a really strong
reason why this would be bad (I am not talking about the release).
I would however agree with objections against reverse feathering
because it eliminates the possibility to roll out the blade at the
release (which I would regard as good style being a trade of between
faster release / higher stroke rate and more dissipated energy).
Rob Collings
A not-uncommon technique on our canal, used to clear whatever weed or
other plant life you picked up during the drive.
Rob.
Carl Douglas
> On Jul 30, 7:00 pm, "Charles Carroll" <charles_carr...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> The reason for sculling at higher rates is that Kleshnev et al. have shown the dependence of force application on the stroke rate. ". . . the higher the stroke rate, the earlier force application [occurs]." (RBN December 2004)
>>
>
> This sounds rather narrow. It's like an earlier force application has
> become a goal in itself.
Tinus - Why wouldn't an early force application be a legitimate goal?
I would rather change to a higher rate
> because it improves speed.
That's too simplistic, IMHO.
If you delay force application, then later in the stroke you have to
pull harder than you'd otherwise have needed to do. The stroke
efficiency is greatest at the catch, but at the catch you already have
the delaying (hysteresis) effect of the bending of the oarloom - to load
the blade you have to do work (which takes time) to bend the oar. So at
that very point in the stroke where propulsive efficiency should be
greatest & there is also a process which tends to delay blade loading,
why on earth would you not want the swiftest possible application of load?
Let's look at how we raise the rate. Speed can increase only if power
output increass. You'll increase power provided you don't reduce
loading by more than you increase rating. Since stroke duration will
not decrease at anything like the increase in rating (speed being ~
proportional to cube root of power), any rating increase necessitates a
disproportionately faster recovery, implying a faster catch up to just
after the point of entry. So, again, it is then OK to continue with a
delayed or late force application?
>
> I guess that 'improved speed' is what you eventually strive for and
> meant to convey. But the way you express it displays a departure from
> a holistic view.
An holistic view? Isn't that all touchy-feely & drifting us into fluffy
thinking where science can be dismissed?
>
>
>> What I was trying to ask yesterday is whether it is possible to employ a Sculler's Catch with reverse feathering. It seems to me that the answer and no.
>
> This part of the argument is not very clear. Why couldn't the blade be
> reverse feathered during the scullers catch?
>
> I can only think of the application of the force by the thumbs having
> an advantage in regular feathering. At the catch the thumbs apply a
> force upwards turning both the blade and initiating the catch (the
> same principal works for the release). But this could be a biased
> because I have little experience (and hence imagination) with reversed
> feathering. Someone who would apply reversed feathering would probably
> apply more force with the other fingers. There is not a really strong
> reason why this would be bad (I am not talking about the release).
>
> I would however agree with objections against reverse feathering
> because it eliminates the possibility to roll out the blade at the
> release (which I would regard as good style being a trade of between
> faster release / higher stroke rate and more dissipated energy).
I'm puzzled by this discussion! The reason to do exercises not
immediately related to how we'll row is that widening one's range of
skills usually enhances the core skills required to row fast. Rolling
the blade the wrong way is someone's cunning plan to make rowers
concentrate & improve their dexterity. It is not to be practised by the
inexpert, but may possibly improve the general rowing skills of the
already expert. It may also increase overall confidence. I don't think
it has any direct relevance to the quality of catches. First define
what a catch is all about. Get that right, & only then can you start to
consider if this exercise has any value in teaching skills that might
improve speed of load application.
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: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Tinus
Because it is only a means to the goal and not the goal in itself.
Quoting some scientific article which only focusses on a single aspect
is what I call simplistic. As you mention yourself the positive effect
is only helpful provided some other conditions are met.
> I don't think
> it has any direct relevance to the quality of catches. First define
> what a catch is all about. Get that right, & only then can you start to
> consider if this exercise has any value in teaching skills that might
> improve speed of load application.
I believe Alistair claimed the reverse feathering to be a good feature
not as an exercise but as a regular way of rowing. I only tried to
counter arguments against this idea which mention the impossibility of
a fast catch. Regarding the reverse feathering as an exercise I
totally agree with you as you can read in my earlier post. I did not
meant to claim that reverse feathering would be an exercise to improve
the catch.
Carl Douglas
>> why on earth would you not want the swiftest possible application of load?
>
> Because it is only a means to the goal and not the goal in itself.
> Quoting some scientific article which only focusses on a single aspect
> is what I call simplistic. As you mention yourself the positive effect
> is only helpful provided some other conditions are met.
But, I would venture to suggest that the cost of a slow catch is very
serious. That seriousness derives from the complex of reasons which I
gave & will try now to list more completely being that:
1. it further delays the very first stage of power application
2. the which process itself suffers induced lag due to the elasticity of
the oar
3. thus depriving you:
a) of part of the most efficient stage of the stroke, &
b) reducing the time remaining for you to do the necessary work while
c) ensuring you do your work within a less efficient part of the stroke.
Seems pretty obvious grounds, to me, for considering a rapid load
application at the catch to be a prime requirement - as long as you do
everything else well.
BTW, I quoted no "scientific article". The need for early & solid power
application is something for which I have been arguing for very many
years, explaining always the fundamental reasons why & doing so without
the need to lean on anything but my own analysis of the basic fluid
dynamics of the rowing stroke. Of course, I could be wrong. And of
course I remain open to reasoned correction
>
>> I don't think
>> it has any direct relevance to the quality of catches. First define
>> what a catch is all about. Get that right, & only then can you start to
>> consider if this exercise has any value in teaching skills that might
>> improve speed of load application.
>
> I believe Alistair claimed the reverse feathering to be a good feature
> not as an exercise but as a regular way of rowing. I only tried to
> counter arguments against this idea which mention the impossibility of
> a fast catch. Regarding the reverse feathering as an exercise I
> totally agree with you as you can read in my earlier post. I did not
> meant to claim that reverse feathering would be an exercise to improve
> the catch.
We agree, & I was not accusing you, Tinus, of claiming any advantage for
reverse feathering. Whoever first set a crew this exercise may be
chuckling right now over the attention being given here to what was just
a bit of fun.
Tinus
> Tinus wrote:
> >> why on earth would you not want the swiftest possible application of load?
>
> > Because it is only a means to the goal and not the goal in itself.
> > Quoting some scientific article which only focusses on a single aspect
> > is what I call simplistic. As you mention yourself the positive effect
> > is only helpful provided some other conditions are met.
>
> But, I would venture to suggest that the cost of a slow catch is very
> serious. That seriousness derives from the complex of reasons which I
> gave & will try now to list more completely being that:
The seriousness also depends on the amount of difference between slow
and fast. I would not like to claim that a quick application of force
is unimportant. However I would like to claim that certain types of
(small) improvements in quickness are not in all cases an improvement
when viewed as part of the total picture.
The type of improvement in slow speed (or speed of force application)
which we are talking about is, I believe, only a very small deviation
from a high speed as it is of the type which only occurs indirectly as
the result of the stroke rate. It was claimed that stroke rate has a
causal effect on increasing the speed of force application. Changing
the stroke rate in any way would improve the catch ("The reason for
sculling at higher rates is that Kleshnev et al. have shown the
dependence of force application on the stroke rate."). Could one not
simply just change the catch in order to improve the specific aspect
instead of changing the entire stroke which would indirectly change
the catch? Sure a slow catch might have some serious costs but the way
to achieve a fast catch might have a cost as well.
Besides all this stuff It could also be argued that the statement
ascribed to Kleshnev (rbn dec 2004) and others is not like a causal
effect of stroke rate on speed of force application. The relation
between stroke rate and fast application of force was mentioned in
relation to training. It was not concluded that fast force application
could not be achieved at slow rates. Instead it was concluded that it
is something to focus on when rowing at low (training) rates.
Tinus
> reverse feathering. Whoever first set a crew this exercise may be
> chuckling right now over the attention being given here to what was just
> a bit of fun.
Discussing the biomechanical aspects of reverse feathering as a way of
normal rowing, is a great exercise for core skills in analyse of
rowing and fluid dynamics.
zeke_hoskin
The blade can not be reverse feathered before the sculler's catch
because the sculler's catch works by beginning to draw the blades
before they are squared and letting the water snap them square. From
reverse feather, touching the water before drawing the blades would
cause the blades to dive and try to face the wrong way, and drawing
them fast enough for a sculler's catch to work would just skate them
on top of the water the way regularly feather blades bounce off wave
tops during the recovery.
.
It's certainly useful to be able to reverse feather, because one
reverse feathers to row backwards.
Charles Carroll
Do I understand you correctly? Are you arguing that focusing exclusively on
the swiftest possible application of load is simplistic because it makes the
means the end?
If so, then it seems to me that you are asking if I haven't mistaken a tree
in the forest for the forest itself.
It is a valid problem. It deserves attention. But the long-established
retort is how can you have a forest without trees? Obviously you can't. The
point is that you have to know the trees to know the forest.
I'll try to be more specific. Can we agree that the sculling stroke is made
of up complex components - fluid dynamic, biomechanical, physiological,
etc. - and that it should be the goal of the sculler to bring these separate
components into balance?
Or, in slightly different words, can a sculler reach his full potential
without having the components of his stroke in balance?
Not only do I think he can't, but I also am beginning to wonder if there
isn't a unique balance for every individual sculler. Moreover I am even
beginning to wonder if this balance doesn't change over a life span of
sculling. Obviously it does; for where are the rates of yesteryear?
In any event I am now at a point in my sculling where the problem for me has
become how do I go about bringing the components of my stroke into balance?
With this problem comes an unrelenting question. Is it possible to find this
balance without working separately on the separate components? Analyze the
stroke, take it apart, and then put it back together in a way that works for
you.
After my appalling time in last April's OWRC Regatta I came to a
realization. All my sculling, everything I know, or think I know about
sculling and sculling technique comes from sculling at low rates.
Is it any wonder, then, that I am so slow and lose all my races?
What I realized is that I have been trying to teach myself to "race by
rowing," which Steve Fairbairn says is impossible.
According to Fairbairn, "You cannot learn to race by rowing, and you can
only learn to row by racing."
So I decided to try a different approach to sculling. Instead of sculling at
the low rates I am used to, I decided to try racing against myself and scull
at rates of 30 spm and above. I want to stress that this is an experiment.
You can think of me as beginning Phase One of what could become a long term
study with multiple Phases.
Initially I picked a distance between two channel markers. Between these
markers I set out to do three one minute pieces at the highest rate I could
keep. I would focus exclusively on sustaining this rate. This meant that I
wouldn't concern myself with any of the elements of technique - with keeping
blades off the water, with missing water at the catch, with washing out at
the finish, or sculling short, or anything else like that. My only goal was
to sustain the rate.
The first day I tried it wasn't pretty. Not only did my sculling look ugly,
but I was red in the face, sweaty, gasping for air, and feeling very shaky.
But the second day was markedly better, and the third even better.
And my rating was surprising. By the fifth time I tried these pieces I rated
at 38/40/37 respectively. And the sixth time I tried by the time I reached
the second channel marker I could only get in two pieces.
So something I was doing must have been right.
I hope this explains my current interest in sculling higher rates, and
quickening the force application at the beginning of the drive, and how this
may relate to some of the other components in the stroke.
In the past I focused exclusively on getting long at the catch. I reset my
rigging, I taught myself confidence and balance in the stern, I gave away
some of my finish - I did everything I could to increase my catch angle and
get my hands wider and get more distance-per-stroke. And the result was I
was appallingly slow.
Now, sculling at higher rates, I have "a shorter drive time and lower rhythm
(ratio of the drive time to the total cycle time)." But I am also finding,
as Valery Kleshnev suggested I might, that with this technique I am
"decreasing boat speed fluctuations and eliminating some energy losses."
Using a shorter drive time at a higher rate has proven to be particularly
effective in rough water. With the resultant increase in boat speed I am
finding that it is much easier to keep Carl's shell level and move it
straight.
It has also taught me to stop trying to scull the boat and instead scull the
water.
I think I need to elaborate a bit on this last point. I have never been any
good at surfing rollers. But now I find that with "the swiftest possible
application of load" at the moment the water is up and over my stern about
one-third towards the quarter deck, I can get ahead of the wave again and
stay with it. In the past, when I ignored the water and tried to get long
and look pretty sculling the boat, the wave would always get ahead of me.
But sculling the water I can stay with the wave, sometimes all the way
between channel markers.
There is another thing about boat speed my little experiment has shown me.
The faster the speed at which you move the boat, the easier it is to get
long and the lighter the catch feels.
Ok, this is long enough.
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
Tinus
> in the forest for the forest itself.
>
> It is a valid problem. It deserves attention. But the long-established
> retort is how can you have a forest without trees? Obviously you can't. The
> point is that you have to know the trees to know the forest.
>
I agree but my argument was also very subtle. It is not that you can
not look at a particular tree, it is you should not get lost by only
looking at a single particular tree and forget it's relation with the
other trees. Looking only at a particular tree could result in killing
all the trees surrounding it in order to make life better for that
particular tree. Indeed, you need to know the trees to know the forest
but you also need to have more then one tree to have a forest. In the
same way, in order to improve the forest you need to improve all trees
on average and not just one in particular.
A part of the reason why I made my argument is that I regard a higher
stroke rate as imparting negative effects as well. It could be that we
have different opinions regarding this premise. So, if a higher stroke
rate is made only based a single tree then it could result into a
weaker forest.
That means not that I say a higher stroke rate could not be beneficial
I am more like attacking the type of argument (the reason why a higher
stroke rate could be better) and not the conclusion (a higher stroke
rate could be better). I believe it would be good to broaden the basis
for the motive to adopt a higher stroke rate. It might result in a
better execution (For instance, I can imagine it is not a good idea to
increase rating by reducing drive time. This could be a case of
cutting the other trees around your beloved one).
> After my appalling time in last April's OWRC Regatta I came to a
> realization. All my sculling, everything I know, or think I know about
> sculling and sculling technique comes from sculling at low rates.
>
> Is it any wonder, then, that I am so slow and lose all my races?
>
> What I realized is that I have been trying to teach myself to "race by
> rowing," which Steve Fairbairn says is impossible.
This is where you broaden your argumentation for a higher stroke rate.
(although it is more an argument for higher rates during training and
not a general argument which works for racing rate as well)
> Now, sculling at higher rates, I have "a shorter drive time and lower rhythm
> (ratio of the drive time to the total cycle time)." But I am also finding,
> as Valery Kleshnev suggested I might, that with this technique I am
> "decreasing boat speed fluctuations and eliminating some energy losses."
It also depends on whether your body-boat speed acceleration has
increased or not and whether the increased rate is entirely due to
improved catch and release speed. If you increase body-boat speed
acceleration then the boat speed fluctuations increase (if not
cancelled or overwhelmed by a decrease from shorter recovery time).
Also if the increased rating is due to a shorter stroke distance then
you loose some efficiency due to smaller oar angle and higher rate of
internal kinetic energy loss.
> Using a shorter drive time at a higher rate has proven to be particularly
> effective in rough water. With the resultant increase in boat speed I am
> finding that it is much easier to keep Carl's shell level and move it
> straight.
That's the ultimate point. Increase in boat speed. I would not have
touched on this point if it would not occur regularly that people are
worrying and spending time on certain aesthetic or technical points
which hardly matter if not do more harm then good.
Carl Douglas
>> it seems to me that you are asking if I haven't mistaken a tree
>> in the forest for the forest itself.
>>
>> It is a valid problem. It deserves attention. But the long-established
>> retort is how can you have a forest without trees? Obviously you can't. The
>> point is that you have to know the trees to know the forest.
>>
>
> I agree but my argument was also very subtle. It is not that you can
> not look at a particular tree, it is you should not get lost by only
> looking at a single particular tree and forget it's relation with the
> other trees. Looking only at a particular tree could result in killing
> all the trees surrounding it in order to make life better for that
> particular tree. Indeed, you need to know the trees to know the forest
> but you also need to have more then one tree to have a forest. In the
> same way, in order to improve the forest you need to improve all trees
> on average and not just one in particular.
That might be advanced by some as an argument against higher education.
We want everyone educated (maybe regardless of their ability to
learn), so to plough our limited resources into the same level of
education for all we must lift up the lowest & level down the highest.
While I am not too keen on selective education at the earlier stages, it
seems evident that the progress we make as a society depends in part on
providing the special resources needed to advance the most able. Thus
with the forest it is necessary to do what we'd never (I hope) do in
society - eradicate the weakest, the most diseased & the least valuable
trees & saplings to make space & release resources for the rest to grow
better.
In analysing the stroke, every discernible aspect merits careful
examination & assessment. Only those aspects shown to be of vanishing
significance should be removed from consideration. The stroke, like the
forest, must be considered as the sum of its component parts, but there
is every reason to remove parts which are irrelevant (like reverse
feathering maybe?) from that consideration.
>
> A part of the reason why I made my argument is that I regard a higher
> stroke rate as imparting negative effects as well. It could be that we
> have different opinions regarding this premise. So, if a higher stroke
> rate is made only based a single tree then it could result into a
> weaker forest.
Bad analogy, IMHO. This is a multivariate analysis & those trees of
yours, & how they relate to & influence each other, are your variables.
The forest can be examined, as a venture or by whatever other value
system you wish to apply (in rowing that'd be the effect on overall
sustainable speed, I suppose), by varying the treatment of individual
trees. The problem with the forest analogy & why I think you
overstretch its limited utility is that rowing, a sequential action, is
dense in features in 1 direction - a long & rather narrow avenue of
trees, each dependent on the next - whereas a forest extends in all
directions.
>
> That means not that I say a higher stroke rate could not be beneficial
> I am more like attacking the type of argument (the reason why a higher
> stroke rate could be better) and not the conclusion (a higher stroke
> rate could be better). I believe it would be good to broaden the basis
> for the motive to adopt a higher stroke rate. It might result in a
> better execution (For instance, I can imagine it is not a good idea to
> increase rating by reducing drive time. This could be a case of
> cutting the other trees around your beloved one).
>
>> After my appalling time in last April's OWRC Regatta I came to a
>> realization. All my sculling, everything I know, or think I know about
>> sculling and sculling technique comes from sculling at low rates.
>>
>> Is it any wonder, then, that I am so slow and lose all my races?
>>
>> What I realized is that I have been trying to teach myself to "race by
>> rowing," which Steve Fairbairn says is impossible.
>
> This is where you broaden your argumentation for a higher stroke rate.
> (although it is more an argument for higher rates during training and
> not a general argument which works for racing rate as well)
Nor is it any argument against that proposition, which stands quite
separate. We race at our highest rates, however, so it makes sense to
do some of our training nearer to those rates. As any musician can tell
you, practice with precision at speed helps fast playing. Also, there
is, to put it mildly, some acceptance that increased rates do go with
higher speeds - or no one would sprint (as Ivanov sprinted) & we'd all
race as 22/min.
>
>> Now, sculling at higher rates, I have "a shorter drive time and lower rhythm
>> (ratio of the drive time to the total cycle time)." But I am also finding,
>> as Valery Kleshnev suggested I might, that with this technique I am
>> "decreasing boat speed fluctuations and eliminating some energy losses."
>
> It also depends on whether your body-boat speed acceleration has
> increased or not and whether the increased rate is entirely due to
> improved catch and release speed. If you increase body-boat speed
> acceleration then the boat speed fluctuations increase (if not
> cancelled or overwhelmed by a decrease from shorter recovery time).
This is simply answered:
First, acceleration is somewhat irrelevant. It is not acceleration per
se that causes drag, it is boat speed. More speed = more drag. Rowers
continually confuse acceleration with speed, seemingly unaware that you
can have large accelerations at low velocities & vice-versa.
Increasing stroke rate without altering other dynamic aspects of the
stroke or the boat's mean velocity should reduce the time for speed
fluctuation. So although accelerations may increase, their durations
will reduce & the speed range may remain unaltered.
One of many objectives - Tinus' or Charles' trees in a forest - ought to
be to keep down the amplitude of velocity fluctuations. Better
technique, such as earlier engagement at the catch which spreads the
propulsive load over a longer time span within each stroke, again
without changing the other aspects of the stroke, will tend to diminish
velocity fluctuations.
At higher speeds the fluid drag is disproportionately increased (drag is
roughly proportional to cube of velocity). If the boat goes faster, due
to higher power output without technique alteration, then you will
inevitably get higher accelerations & decelerations, precisely because
the average drag (= decelerating force) must be higher. If you
decelerate more, then you must also accelerate more to sustain a steady
average velocity.
>
> Also if the increased rating is due to a shorter stroke distance then
> you loose some efficiency due to smaller oar angle and higher rate of
> internal kinetic energy loss.
>
>> Using a shorter drive time at a higher rate has proven to be particularly
>> effective in rough water. With the resultant increase in boat speed I am
>> finding that it is much easier to keep Carl's shell level and move it
>> straight.
>
> That's the ultimate point. Increase in boat speed. I would not have
> touched on this point if it would not occur regularly that people are
> worrying and spending time on certain aesthetic or technical points
> which hardly matter if not do more harm then good.
On the irrelevance of aesthetics as an objective we must agree. That
does not mean that good rowing may not be beautiful to behold, but
coaching for aesthetics is like putting the cart before the horse, or
style over substance. To know whether "technical point" matter one must
first fully understand what those points really are & be able to
quantify their influences. It smacks of theological disputation rather
than scientific argument to airily dismiss, unanalysed, "certain
technical points".
Tinus
> > It also depends on whether your body-boat speed acceleration has
> > increased or not and whether the increased rate is entirely due to
> > improved catch and release speed. If you increase body-boat speed
> > acceleration then the boat speed fluctuations increase (if not
> > cancelled or overwhelmed by a decrease from shorter recovery time).
>
> This is simply answered:
> First, acceleration is somewhat irrelevant. It is not acceleration per
> se that causes drag, it is boat speed. More speed = more drag. Rowers
> continually confuse acceleration with speed, seemingly unaware that you
> can have large accelerations at low velocities & vice-versa.
>
> Increasing stroke rate without altering other dynamic aspects of the
> stroke or the boat's mean velocity should reduce the time for speed
> fluctuation. So although accelerations may increase, their durations
> will reduce & the speed range may remain unaltered.
You very well tackled a semantic error in my argument. It does not
however tackle the concept of boat speed fluctuation not only being
determined be the periodic speed fluctuation of the cm of the system
but also by the periodic fluctuation of the speed difference between
boat and rower. The former might decrease as the stroke rate goes up
but the second increases at the same time. The increase of the second
grows faster then the decrease of the former (quadratic versus
linear). So, at a certain point increasing the stroke rate (while
keeping length the same) has no decreasing effect on boat speed
fluctuation.
Tinus
> The increase of the second grows faster then the decrease of the former (quadratic versus
> linear).
Should be linear versus inverse linear.
luber
standing you in good stead at higher ratings. For the less skilled,
rating rises often mean slower boat speed, I have often seen races where
crews try to put on a spurt to win/avoid defeat and go slower and slower
(relative to water) as the slide goes faster and faster.
Lu
Carl Douglas
That will be because they're labouring under the twin misapprehensions
that a) you can get the rating up "through the water" (i.e. by pulling
even harder) & b) you have to shorten up to raise the rate.
Although they may seem to be rushing up & down the slide, their time on
the slide may hardly reduce but the time spent hanging at front-stops
may well increase & the work done in the water will very likely fall,
both per stroke & per minute.
Now who told them that could ever work?
One needs to teach the importance of quick catches, that rating can't
increase through the water but comes from faster (but smooth)
recoveries, & that shortening up is not the way to go faster.
ben
Sorry, seeing this thread late but thought I'd add that crews I rowed
in and coached used to do these "tricks" all the time as a part of
basic watermanship. You can get it up to something like doing a 360,
tap head right hand, tap side of boat left hand, another 360 and row!
When you go back to normal rowng it seems easy.
As for the reverse feathering, it's a great drill to take somebody
down a notch. It's pretty easy as long as your blade doesn't touch
the water and then....instant crab/flip. The comment about it being
an easy way to guarantee quick entry into the water is spot on.
Ben
Tinus
> As for the reverse feathering, it's a great drill to take somebody
> down a notch. It's pretty easy as long as your blade doesn't touch
> the water and then....instant crab/flip. The comment about it being
> an easy way to guarantee quick entry into the water is spot on.
I am entirely not a fan of reverse feathering but, since the advocates
of the initial posters idea are scarce, i would like to make the
argument that when one is thinking about reverse feathering as a
normal way of rowing then ofcourse the sleeves would have to be
adjusted such that the angle of the blade relative to the water during
is positive instead of negative during the return.
Carl Douglas
I dislike 'clever' exercises - such as rowing feet out which removes the
brakes from a boat with potentially disastrous consequences - but there
can be a real benefit in doing something different from the normal
rowing stroke.
In our business there are many separate craft tasks, a different range
of which is normally he province of each colleague. However, we find
that when someone works outside their usual area of expertise there are
always gains in skill in their usual tasks. I'm sure that's also true
in rowing & elsewhere.
I'd go further, to suggest that rowing (especially) is in some ways a
very limiting exercise. With minor variations, each rower repeats the
same set of simple actions a thousand or more times in each outing,
(often without much improvement!). Although the exercise itself is
highly strenuous, in athletic terms it could be argued that the set of
skills is not wide or demanding. So it is possibly a good idea to
introduce the rowers to other skills involving the same equipment, even
if they have little to do with boat moving, provided they are not
particularly hazardous to the equipment. The dexterity thus gained must
build on-water confidence, improving balance & adaptability, & thus make
individuals & crews more coachable & effective.
It is interesting that trick sculling is encouraged in some settings,
but trick rowing (except feet out :( ) is rather sparse & formulaic.
Tinus
> It is interesting that trick sculling is encouraged in some settings,
> but trick rowing (except feet out :( ) is rather sparse & formulaic.
Instead of training physical skill it could also be a practice in
mental state trying to induce flow.
I personally feel that, because of the additional focus on the crew
members, the optimal stimulation level in rowing is reached earlier
and less difficult tricks are needed. The same may be true for
sculling in double or quad. Isn't trick sculling more something for a
single?