Kleshnev's Rowing Speed and Rigging Chart
Charles Carroll
It has been awhile since I last visited Dr. Valery Kleshnev's website. So I
was surprised to find his very interesting "Rowing Speed and Rigging Chart."
I wish I had known about it when we were discussing the pros and cons of
High Rates vs. Slower Rates, and Shorter Outboards vs. Longer Outboards.
For those of you who are interested and haven't looked at Kleshnev's "Speed
and Rigging Chart," here it is.
http://biorow.com/RigChart.aspx
Play with Kleshnev's variables. Perhaps you may find the rigging numbers
surprising when you express these numbers in terms of the variables. I know
I did.
Cordially,
Charles
sander
wrote:
It tells me to use an oar length of 262 cm, 86cm inboard. What's this
'innovative rigging'?
S
sander
For a single scull
Charles Carroll
For me it is surprising.
Boat Type: 1x.
Rower's sex: male.
Rower's weight category: lightweight.
Rower's height: 171 cm.
Rower's weight: 70 kg.
Target 2k race time: 7 mins 30 secs, which I concede is ridiculous!
Blade type:Big Blade.
Target Angle Mode: Function. (Function of the rower's height.)
There were no surprises the Traditional Rigging Method:
SPM: 36.
Inboard: 89 cm.
Oar Length: 289 cm.
Spread: 160 cm.
Now compare this to an Innovative Rigging Method:
SPM: 36.
Inboard: 94.5 cm.
Oar Length: 307.4 cm.
Spread: 172.9 cm.
I would have to buy a custom set of Croker Oars, - does Croker even make
them that long? - and I would have to ask Carl to make a new set of riggers.
I don't even know if you can purchase riggers that can be adjusted to a
172.9 cm Spread. Isn't that a huge Spread?
Another thing to note is that Kleshnev's Innovative Rigging is exactly
opposite of the rigging changes I have been experimenting with. Kleshnev
recommends narrower Spreads, shorter Oar lengths, etc. But Kleshnev's
recommendations are based on science. Mine certainly are not.
Cordially,
Charles
Charles Carroll
> opposite of the rigging changes I have been experimenting with. Kleshnev
> recommends narrower Spreads, shorter Oar lengths, etc.
Sorry, I got this exactly wrong. I am the one who has been experimenting
with narrower spreads (i.e. 155 cm) and shorter Oar Lengths (i.e. 283.5 cm)
and shorter inboards (i.e. 82 cm).
It is Kleshnev who is recommending wider spreads (i.e. 172.9 cm) and longer
Oar lengths (i.e. 307.4 cm) and longer inboards (94.5 cm).
mruscoe
"various" and "the same" you will get smaller measurements. The page has
been updated recently to add this new function - previously the
innovative measurement was all smaller measurements than the
traditional, and made sense, even though some of the oar measurements
were well outside the normal adjustment ranges.
The "target angle mode: function" part needs more explanation.
mruscoe
> The "target angle mode: function" part needs more explanation.
I suspect that there is an error there - it's meant to be rigging as a
function of the rower's height, but the measurements get bigger as the
rower gets smaller.
Walter Martindale
wrote:
I'm working with someone at the moment who at 191 tall is "innovative"
method being recommended for blades in the 250-260 cm range.
Interesting. Must be some error...
W
Tinus
anecdotal information then it is called an innovative result.
The chart seems like a black box and doesn't really make clear what
happens. Without this information it is difficult to tune the result
to make it applicable. Some questions for instance:
- How is outboard defined? Outboard is used to calculate traveled
distance but does it take into account slip? The effective outboard
(distance from oarlock to the fulcrum of the blade) is shorter then
the total outboard (distance from oarlock to the tip of the blade).
- How is handle speed (which is used in the calculations)
determined? I can change the stroke rate but handle speed does not
only depend on stroke rate, it also depends on ratio between recovery
time and drive time.
Charles Carroll
I am very glad to have you confirm Mark's suspicion that there must be some
error in the latest version of Valery Kleshnev's "Rowing Speed and Rigging
Chart."
In all fairness I feel obligated to apologize to Torsten, who cited Kleshnev's
Chart over two weeks ago. Lately my reading has become so rushed that I have
become appallingly careless.
What I suspect may have happened is that whoever entered the formula for
Kleshnev's Chart accidentally entered a plus sign where a minus sign should
have been. As a result, "the Target Angle Mode: Function," which makes the
rigging a function of the rower's height, adds centimeters to the rigging
where Kleshnev would subtract centimeters. Instead of narrowing the Spread
and shortening the Total Oar Length, "the Target Angle Mode: Function"
widens the Spread and lengthens the Total Oar Length."
Of course this came as a complete surprise to me, because not only did it
fly in the face of everything we have been discussing on r.s.r., it also
seemed to contradict many of the findings Kleshnev has reported in various
Newsletters (RBN 2007/03).
Many years ago - it seems like a whole other lifetime - when I was earning
my keep as a medical writer, we used to pay very close attention to plus and
minus signs and decimal points. You never wanted to allow yourself to become
lackadaisical about these. A simple typo could lead serious injury, even
kill someone. I had a close friend who used to have nightmares about this.
Warmest regards,
Charles
Charles Carroll
http://biorow.com/RBN_en_2007_files/2007RowBiomNews03.pdf.
Walter Martindale
wrote:
Accuracy counts, doesn't it. The fellow I'm working with has some
difficulty posting to rsr - his ISP seems to be blocked by Google, but
as part of the rigging experiment he has shortened his blades quite
considerably, to the point where he's carved the groove in the handle
deeper so it can go farther into the shaft, switched his handles to
his wife's oars (much shorter) - the grips are all that stick out of
the handles - and he can't row with 87 cm inboard because he runs out
of sleeve, so he's on 87.5 inboard or maybe 88, and, switching from a
"conventional" but shorter than most use, to this really light rig,
he's knocking seconds off his 500 times. So, he's being quite radical
and cutting several cm off his oars, redrilling the handle clamp
holes, and glueing new sleeves on his blades farther down the shafts,
so he can try the "innovative" rig, with blades that are somewhere
close to 260 long. This is a fellow 191 cm tall, about 100kg.
Walter
Tink
correspondingly shorter oars.
Interesting that the rigging chart seems to recommend shorter oars for
all blade shapes - the calculator does recommend shorter oars for the
fat2 compared to macon but also recommends shorter oars for the macon
than was the standard used for years.
It seems that we have a lot of conjecture about oar lengths/rigging,
but no proof as the oars most people have have a limited range
adjustment, and no firm tests done.
You would've thought that an oar manufacturer might have done some
testing, but then I guess that they would struggle to sell oars that
were too radically different from the norm.
Carl Douglas
And there you have it.
It can make no sense for someone 5'6"/1.68m tall to use oars with the
same length, area, rig spread & inboard/outboard proportion as someone
of 6'7"/2m. But they do. And they row at the same rate. Yet it can't
be right for both of 'em, & probably not for either.
Rowing suffers a number of comprehensive mental blanks, treating certain
areas as being either already decided, too complicated to examine, or
pointless to worry about. In every case that's probably wrong.
Valery Kleshnev is one of those few who is bold enough & has the skills
to pick it all apart, analyse it & publish his conclusions. On the way
he may, very occasionally (but not often), get his wires crossed. But
he has the intelligence & guts to ask those questions, publish his
conclusions & ask rowers "out there" to offer their thoughts & corrections.
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)
Charles Carroll
You write that "It can make no sense for someone 5'6"/1.68m tall to use oars
with the same length, area, rig spread & inboard/outboard proportion as
someone of 6'7"/2m."
It seems to me that this goes directly to the heart of the matter. Valery
Kleshnev writes, ". . . normal rigging dimensions from text books would suit
a sculler of 190 cm height and a rower of 193 cm. It makes sense to vary the
dimensions for rowers of significantly different height, or they should row
at different angles." (RBN March 2007)
http://biorow.com/RBN_en_2007_files/2007RowBiomNews03.pdf
Cordially,
Charles
Carl Douglas
Agreed, of course :)
So when are we going to see little scullers using smaller sticks,
smaller blades, narrower spreads & higher ratings than the big guys?
Until then it is like expecting all runners to use the same stride
length & cadence, regardless of leg length - which might determine most
race results on size alone. I think there are some runners out there
who would find that unacceptable, but rowers seem to think it is OK.
freeheelfunhog
> Charles Carroll wrote:
> > Carl,
>
> > You write that "It can make no sense for someone 5'6"/1.68m tall to use
> > oars with the same length, area, rig spread & inboard/outboard
> > proportion as someone of 6'7"/2m."
>
> > It seems to me that this goes directly to the heart of the matter.
> > Valery Kleshnev writes, ". . . normal rigging dimensions from text books
> > would suit a sculler of 190 cm height and a rower of 193 cm. It makes
> > sense to vary the dimensions for rowers of significantly different
> > height, or they should row at different angles." (RBN March 2007)
>
> >http://biorow.com/RBN_en_2007_files/2007RowBiomNews03.pdf
>
> > Cordially,
>
> > Charles
>
> Agreed, of course :)
>
> So when are we going to see little scullers using smaller sticks,
> smaller blades, narrower spreads & higher ratings than the big guys?
I borrowed some club sculling oars today and noticed that many of the
inboards on our club oars had been set to 85cm. I asked why the
inboards were so short and the answer was because the many smaller
ladies in our club need them that way. Meanwhile, the outboard on
these oars is longer than I row. Shorter inboard, longer outboard.
I can see how club oar setting could be a challenge. I can't wait
until the glue on my oar sleeves has cured. It makes me appreciate
(once again) having my own equipment.
> Until then it is like expecting all runners to use the same stride
> length & cadence, regardless of leg length - which might determine most
> race results on size alone. I think there are some runners out there
> who would find that unacceptable, but rowers seem to think it is OK.
>
> 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: c...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
> URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)
Charles Carroll
> smaller blades, narrower spreads & higher ratings than the big guys?
> Until then it is like expecting all runners to use the same stride
> length & cadence, regardless of leg length - which might determine most
> race results on size alone.
Carl,
You forgot shoe size!
Charles
Carl Douglas
Doh!
C