Cheating on CII erg
an...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Regarding "ways to cheat on a Concept II erg":
(1) Cover the cage with a towel (or for the old bicycle wheel ones, take off
the fins), OR
(2) Start the test with the vents open, and get someone to close them some time
during the test, OR
(3) Erg immediately to the left of someone else who is also erging, as close as
possible.
Unfortunately (1) is too obvious (but the result is striking). (2) and (3) are
easier to get away with, but they don't have quite as much effect (ie I
wouldn't win CRASH-B anyway, so I don't mind spilling the beans).
Phil Earnhardt
>Dear All,
>
>Regarding "ways to cheat on a Concept II erg":
>
>(1) Cover the cage with a towel (or for the old bicycle wheel ones, take off
>
>(2) Start the test with the vents open, and get someone to close them some time
>during the test, OR
>
>(3) Erg immediately to the left of someone else who is also erging, as close as
>possible.
The unique feature of an Erg is that you can measure what happens to
the flywheel--how much of its momentum is lost--during the rower's
recovery.
#1 and #3 sound pretty unbelievable, since the computer already has to
deal with different flywheel resistance -- it's perfectly permissable to have
the vents open, closed, or anywhere in-between.
Since the computer has to measure different flywheel resistance, it seems like
#2 is improbable, too. Why can't it just keep measuring the resistance all the
time? #2 seems to suggest that resistance is only measured at the beginning;
why can't it be measured all the time? After all, the electronics has got to
measure the acceleration on each stroke.
As you said, these could all be prohibited during any official race. Assuming
any of them really changed the measurment, that is. I'll ask my CRASH-B
insider about this (Geoff: are you reading?).
Do you have any estimate of the percentage error possible with any of your 3
examples? What do you think would happen if you did a really extreme case of
#1: putting the flywheel in a vacuum?
BTW, I would believe that any and all manipulations were possible on the old
bike wheel models. Remember, they were using a bicycle-style
speedometer/odometer -- by themselves, those "computers" could not measure
acceleration. Concept II made no attempt to even calibrate them -- the CRASH-B
staff had to cook up a calibration factor for every single erg. Those
calibrations -- strobing the bike wheel to measure its resistance -- sound a
heck of a lot like what the computers are doing automagically in the new machines.
Phil Earnhardt p...@netwise.com
Netwise, Inc. Boulder, CO (303) 442-8280
Phil Earnhardt
From Geoff Knauth, one of the CRASH-B organizers:
>CRASH-B's only ruling regarding vents and sprockets is that settings may not
>be changed during the race. There is no existing policy on towels. However,
>if you read the fine print carefully, CRASH-B can change any rule as it sees
>fit, and "all decisions are final and arbitrary." Thus, if your friend uses
>a towel, he may get away with it, or he may not. I won't mention towels at
>our next board meeting, because the rules of CRASH-B have traditionally been
>set by precedent.
I talked with Geoff about this for a while. Apparently, the "changing vents"
hack can help you cheat a bit: at CRASH-B, Hartley Rodgers (sp?) had his son
close the vents near the end of his piece. This gives temporary high
mis-readings until the machine adjusts to the lower flywheel resistance.
Nobody at CRASH-B has ever quantified this effect; I'd guess it would give you
about 10 seconds max. Maybe someone at Concept II would know -- they might
have a simulation running. Besides being illegal, there are some other
problems:
o You can only do this effectively once per race, since opening the vent would
have the opposite effect.
o Changing the resistance may have a negative effect on performance -- most
people have an optimum resistance for races. Hartley was clever and did it
near the "sprint" at the end of his piece.
o (According to Geoff) covering the flywheel with a towel is a very bad idea.
You would have to go at a stroke frequency of around 40. It would be nearly
impossible to maintain this stroke speed for any length of time, especially
2500m.
Geoff went on to talk about some erg research he's been doing recently with
his coaches at Harvard. Multiply your body weight (in pounds) by 1.5 and see
how long you can maintain this wattage output on the erg. The big number is
instantaneous watts. The small number is average watts; that's the important
one. If you can maintain this for 20 minutes, it's very good. 40 minutes is
excellent.
For the person who wanted more resistance on the erg: go with the small cog
but go at a slow cadence (around 20). This is an excellent way to use the
machine for long-distance workouts -- it gives you enough time to recover on
each stroke. The flywheel will decelerate enough to make each pull pretty
hard.
Finally, here's the data that Geoff gathered on some world-class rowers. You
can see how you stack up on your next 70,000-meter piece. ;-)
[Note: the ap is the average 500m pace for each piece. --pae]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - C U T H E R E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ap = average pace in secs, aW = average Watts, wpp = watts per pound
date meters secs ap aW weight wpp comments
901223 70000 19541 139.47 n/a 125 n/a
901118 60000 16949 141.27 n/a 125 n/a
901104 50000 13394 133.94 n/a 120 n/a
901020 30000 7796 129.56 n/a 120 n/a
900911 30000 8336 138.56 n/a 115 n/a before 1990 Trials
910202 22280 5935 133.19 150.3 125 1.20 steady state
910127 20000 5250 131.25 159.2 125 1.27
900908 20000 5400 135.0 n/a 115 n/a before 1990 Trials
901204 15000 3873 129.1 n/a 125 n/a
910206 13650 3600 131.87 154.8 125 1.24 steady state
910112 10000 2533.2 126.66 178.1 125 1.43
911031 10000 2548.1 127.41 179.9 128 1.41
901120 7500 1848.9 123.26 n/a 125 n/a
910311 7186 1800 125.25 181.8 125 1.45
910205 6000 1345.1 112.1 246.7 125 1.97 5-20-5-15-5-10
910129 6000 1370.7 114.2 237.4 125 1.90 5-20-5-15-5-10
910122 6000 1343.9 112.0 249.6 125 2.00 5-15-5-5-10-5-5-10
910207 5001 1200 119.98 209.8 125 1.68
910110 4847 1200 123.79 191.5 125 1.53 best of 2x 20 min. AT (#1)
910117 4814 1200 124.64 191.9 125 1.54 best of 3x 20 min. AT (#1)
910107 4907 1200 122.27 201.7 125 1.61 best of 3x 20 min. AT (#1)
910204 3766 900 119.49 212.2 125 1.70
910219 2500 567.8 113.56 237.6 130 1.83
910217 2500 578.3 115.66 n/a 128 n/a
910211 2500 577.1 115.42 229.0 125 1.83
910212 2000 449.8 112.45 246.6 128 1.93
910208 1500 336.6 112.2 244.4 125 1.96 best of 2 (#2)
910210 1000 222.6 111.3 254.4 125 2.04 best of 3 (#3)
910201 1000 221.6 110.8 255.0 125 2.04 best of 6 (#1)
910125 969 216 111.46 252.4 125 2.02 best of 6 x 3:36 (#6)
910115 503 108 107.36 275.8 125 2.21 best of 12 x 1:48 (#2)
910625 500 105.8 105.8 301.0 118 2.55 just after 1991 Nationals
910111 263 53 100.76 341.4 125 2.73 best of 12 x 0:53 (#12)
This is sample data. The only data included are all PR's, and representative
steady state, AT, and speed type workouts. No erg data at all for 108-115 lbs.,
since only running has been used at Worlds, Trials, and Nationals. --geoff 10/31/91