Rating versus speed (waterrower/concept ii and singles..)
Neil Wallace
I did a little experiment on my waterrower to assess rating versus speed.
http://freespace.virgin.net/neil.wallace2/rating.htm
My conclusion is that I have to "up the rating" to go faster, firm strokes
do help, but marginally and require massive extra effort. Therefore for a 2K
piece on my waterrower I have to rate at 37.
This appears different to Concept ii technique (I think..) where pieces are
often done at 26-28 spm.
This has set me thinking for any given rating, what is the difference in
"500m split time" you can achieve by increasing the pressure of the stroke?
If you are at rating 20 what is the slowest split you can achieve(as light
as you can do a full stroke and maintain the rating) e.g.. 2min 30sec and
what is the fastest 1min 50sec etc..
Have I explained that OK? difficult to put into words.
Ideally I would be interested in what you can achieve at 20,25,30,35 and 40.
Set the damper as you prefer.
Can you also confirm the rating you would personally use for a 2K piece.
Similarly, does anyone have this data for a single scull (or indeed any
racing craft).
I look forward to any comments.
Thanks in anticipation
Neil - e-mail rowing...@virgin.net
Pm_wi...@notmail.com
Figures for you
Rate 24 (steady)
Time 30 minutes
Distance 5500
HR 130-150 max
Resistance 19 litres.
But give the discussion that we are having elsewhere concerning the
battery, reliability of the monitor, I really believe that comparison
with CII /WR or WR/Boat or CII/Boat are impossible.
Nick Suess
<Pm_wi...@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:t8xoPEJ+iEnM09...@4ax.com...
> But give the discussion that we are having elsewhere concerning the
> battery, reliability of the monitor, I really believe that comparison
> with CII /WR or WR/Boat or CII/Boat are impossible.
Or as someone once said, "Ergs don't float"
Neil Wallace
"Nick Suess" <ni...@scull.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c68d95d$0$11...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
thanks guys. and thanks for your 5K data "Pm".
I still think comparison IS possible (and necessary?), but may require a
bypassing of the figures given by the WaterRower monitor...
Needs data though. (Come on some of you must own a Cii or a speedcoach for
heavens sake).
I would suggest if you collect this data, it will have an effect on your
performance on whichever vehicle you choose.
Come on RSR let's blow the thing wide open.....Their are too many lurkers
here with a commercial interest in stifling this debate (eh. Nick?). Lets
get back to the real value of USENET and MAKE SOME NOISE....
This is NOT simply a pick up joint (although how are you doing Ms
Cameron..still hope to see you on Saturday) or meeting place for muscle
bound Oxbridge intellectuals.
By the way, I have updated my webpage (as of 1am this morning) with my final
conclusions about how I think the Waterrower monitor obtains its speed
value. PLEASE have a look...you may be able to help me before I lose the
plot entirely..
http://freespace.virgin.net/neil.wallace2/rating.htm
Neil (sitting patiently)
Stuart Jones
"Neil Wallace" <neil.wallace2@*nospam*virgin.net> wrote in message
news:gQ5a8.35065$as2.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> This is NOT simply a pick up joint (although how are you doing Ms
> Cameron..still hope to see you on Saturday) or meeting place for muscle
> bound Oxbridge intellectuals.
>
I wish I was musclebound or intellectual... ;-)
Neil Wallace
"Stuart Jones" <stuart...@univ.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a4as3i$imm$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
How did you guess I was referring to you Stuart!
You are certainly strong anyway, 400kg leg press didn't you say.
Actually, you would be a great guy to test my waterrower theory. As you are
so tall (6ft 7in?), you could pull some mega long strokes, and I would bet
that you would be faster than the rest of us for any given rating.
If you get a chance, I would be grateful.
In the meantime, by varying the force on a Cii at rating 25, say what is the
range of splits you can achieve?
Another way of looking at this is that you are varying the speed on the
drive. If drive time=recovery time for any given stroke, this is perhaps the
slowest you can go, whereas drive time= 0.25x recovery time would be much
faster... I just need someone to quantify the proportion.
Point is, for me at least, on my waterrower, this aspect doesn't seem to
matter, and hence to get a good split I have to do drive=recovery at a high
rating. A very good workout, but not the best training for a boat :-(
Regards
Neil
Katy Cameron
Lets
> get back to the real value of USENET and MAKE SOME NOISE....
> This is NOT simply a pick up joint (although how are you doing Ms
> Cameron..still hope to see you on Saturday)
Speechless... Actually no, I'm not, just rightiously indignant! I
haven't had the panic call yet to ask me if I can get up there, so I'll
probably not be there - you coming down to Clydesdale 4's and 8's the
next weekend?
KT
Stuart Jones
>
> "Stuart Jones" <stuart...@univ.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:a4as3i$imm$1...@news.ox.ac.uk...
> >
> > "Neil Wallace" <neil.wallace2@*nospam*virgin.net> wrote in message
> > news:gQ5a8.35065$as2.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > >
> > > This is NOT simply a pick up joint (although how are you doing Ms
> > > Cameron..still hope to see you on Saturday) or meeting place for
muscle
> > > bound Oxbridge intellectuals.
> > >
> >
> > I wish I was musclebound or intellectual... ;-)
> >
> >
>
> How did you guess I was referring to you Stuart!
> You are certainly strong anyway, 400kg leg press didn't you say.
May have strong legs, but my upper body just doesn't do it for the ladies...
Better cut down on the pies I think ;-)
> Actually, you would be a great guy to test my waterrower theory. As you
are
> so tall (6ft 7in?), you could pull some mega long strokes, and I would bet
> that you would be faster than the rest of us for any given rating.
>
> If you get a chance, I would be grateful.
Haven't got access to a waterrower I'm afraid - if I find one, I'll see for
you...
> In the meantime, by varying the force on a Cii at rating 25, say what is
the
> range of splits you can achieve?
I'll do it in a bit for a warmdown after my erg...
> Another way of looking at this is that you are varying the speed on the
> drive. If drive time=recovery time for any given stroke, this is perhaps
the
> slowest you can go, whereas drive time= 0.25x recovery time would be much
> faster... I just need someone to quantify the proportion.
>
> Point is, for me at least, on my waterrower, this aspect doesn't seem to
> matter, and hence to get a good split I have to do drive=recovery at a
high
> rating. A very good workout, but not the best training for a boat :-(
>
Sounds like an interesting problem anyway, can't say I've experienced it
myself...
Neil Wallace
> "Neil Wallace" <neil.wallace2@*nospam*virgin.net> wrote in message
> > In the meantime, by varying the force on a Cii at rating 25, say what is
> > the range of splits you can achieve?
>
> I'll do it in a bit for a warmdown after my erg...
Stuart - you're a star.
I look forward to your findings.
Neil
Neil Wallace
"Neil Wallace" <rowing.golfer@*NOSPAM*virgin.net> wrote in message
news:iiaa8.36391$as2.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
OK I'm replying to my own post, but I am pleased to say Stuart was good to
his word and sent me a very nice range of figures. To him I am most obliged.
Now, have any of you got a speedcoach on your boat??
I am looking to find the speeds obtained by light, and firm pressure at
ratings 20,25,30,35 and 40. (or at least some of them!)
Please note you do not have to be an elite athlete to give me figures. It is
the proportions I am looking at.
My interest is purely for my training purposes on my waterrower.
Regards
Neil
Sebastian Förster
> I am looking to find the speeds obtained by light, and firm pressure at
> ratings 20,25,30,35 and 40. (or at least some of them!)
have i ever done something like that???? ??? ?? ?
No!
ok... i rowed 4 times 250m with different SRs on the Waterrower(WR)
and Concept(CII).
This is what i've rowed with the following parameters:
. distance: 250m
. WR: 17l
. CII: small pinion, flaps closed
. rowing as firm as i can
. rowing with a constant SR (it is more or less a ave. SR)
. no respect to heartrate(HR) (if logged then because of unsecure
sources like...
.. CII: polar-heartrate, looked at the watch at the end of the
exersice
.. WR: a little program i wrote that records what the WR delivers
through the interface
Typ ,~ S/R ,~max. HR ,t
CII ,21 ,165 ,00:00:54,2
CII ,25 ,165 ,00:00:51,2
CII ,31 ,181 ,00:00:49,4
CII ,36 ,183 ,00:00:48,0
CII ,43 ,186 ,00:00:47,1
WR ,20 ,168 ,00:01:32,5
WR ,24 ,177 ,00:01:21,3
WR ,29 ,183 ,00:01:09,7
WR ,34 ,186 ,00:01:05,5
WR ,39 ,186 ,00:00:58,7
A chart can be found here
<http://de.geocities.com/sebastian_foerster/rowing/waterrower/cii_wr.PNG>
> Please note you do not have to be an elite athlete to give me figures. It is
> the proportions I am looking at.
puhhh... i don't have to be ashamed that i'm not a muscle-show off
bye
sebastian ~°
Pm_wi...@notmail.com
Pull hard an a high rating, the speed increases !
Neil Wallace
<Pm_wi...@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:dcNsPDr+mdYWhs...@4ax.com...
> Thanks to Sebastian you now have the answer
>
> Pull hard an a high rating, the speed increases !
But on a waterrower, pull long and light, as pulling hard makes no Fxxking
difference.
Honestly.
If you don't believe me, pull 20 hard strokes on a waterrower at whatever
rating you chose, just KEEP THE STROKE LENGTH THE SAME.
Note the distance you travel (perhaps 130m - depending on stroke length)
then pull 20 weedy strokes on a waterrower at whatever rating you chose,
again with THE SAME STROKE LENGTH..
Note the distance......exactly the same heh.
Now if that is a fair representation of work done or even "more like a boat"
I'm Steven Redgrave!
Neil.
Walter Martindale
Pm_wi...@notmail.com wrote:
Sorry if I'm being picky, but you CAN compare them. When you do, you'll
find that there are considerable differences in the kinematics and
kinetics of rowing with the different devices. That was the whole thrust
of my master's thesis, comparing sculling in a single with a Gjessing erg
sitting on solid ground, and with a Gjessing erg on wheels.
Rather a crude study, done >20 years ago, but - they're different.
In terms of "what approximates sculling", the single was closest (duh),
next was the Gjessing on wheels, and worst was the Gjessing on the floor.
An educated (based on the thesis) guess would be that the approximations
of the rowing would be ranked as:
Single
Any Crew Boat
"Row Perfect" (because you have to balance, at least a little bit)
Concept 2 on "slides"
WaterRower
Concept2
Walter
Neil Wallace
"Sebastian Förster" <sebastian...@yahoo.de> wrote in message
news:2a9f1410.02021...@posting.google.com...
Excellent work Sebastian.
Your graph proves that you can go fast on a Cii at almost any rating
(provided you can pull hard enough)
and
that on a waterrower speed is directly proportional to rating.
By the way, try the same test (on the waterrower) with light strokes,
keeping the stroke length the same. I would put my mortgage on it that you
get the same figures (except your heartrate will be much,much lower)
A Waterrower is a fine simulator of rowing (and I own one, and love it, but
it is NOT an ergometer (i.e. work meter - from the Greek I think).
It does not accurately record work done.
I would go as far as to say that if he used his normal rowing stroke I could
probably beat Pinsent on one.
On a Cii he would beat me by well over a minute.
Pm_wi...@notmail.com
can suggest to WR's the following method to Improve WR times:
"over-compress at the catch, pull a weedy stroke, and lean back at the
finish"
When I was considering the two models CII or WR, the monitor was the
last of my considerations, In fact I nearly ordered without one, and
just used a heart rate monitor instead.
However since we know what is supposed to be going on in a "real"
stroke I'll continue logging the distance and times, just to monitor
my own progess.
I doubt that there will be a reverse engineering of the software in
the series III monitor.
Wilf
Neil Wallace
<Pm_wi...@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:tLZwPFJ+UZkSJY...@4ax.com...
> I tested your theory last night, and can confirm your findings, and
> can suggest to WR's the following method to Improve WR times:
>
> "over-compress at the catch, pull a weedy stroke, and lean back at the
> finish"
>
whilst rating like a madman, of course. For those of you that don't follow
this, we've been having a discussion elsewhere. I've updated my page again
http://freespace.virgin.net/neil.wallace2/rating.htm so all should become
clear. If you have ever wondered why Waterrower times can't be compared to
Concept ii, take a look.
> When I was considering the two models CII or WR, the monitor was the
> last of my considerations, In fact I nearly ordered without one,
That would, with hindsight have been very wise ;o)
and
> just used a heart rate monitor instead.
>
> However since we know what is supposed to be going on in a "real"
> stroke I'll continue logging the distance and times, just to monitor
> my own progess.
>
but, with respect, in what way does that monitor your progress?
I put it to you that it will simply monitor your progression towards
"over-compress at the catch, pull a weedy stroke, and lean back at the
finish" (your words) and rating like a madman....
Maybe you could measure the temperature of the water before and after your
workout...that would at least have some element of effort applied to the
resistance medium.
> I doubt that there will be a reverse engineering of the software in
> the series III monitor.
>
that is a shame ... do you know something we don't??
Waterrower have been informed of the "problem"....no response as yet ;o(
> Wilf
mike
1. - waterrowers make a nice peice of furniture but a cr*p for
training on?
2. - 40 minutes on a waterrower at a constant HR will give different
distances, not based on how hard youre pulling but based on how long
your stroke is, and theres no way to compare one session with another?
can think of a third.
I was going to buy one and use it at home for when I cant get down to
the club to use the C2, but if I cant compare the distance covered in
x minutes with the same heartrate from one day to the next, whats the
point??
Nick Suess, you out there?? Nows your chance...
Ewoud Dronkert
> 2. - 40 minutes on a waterrower at a constant HR will give different
> distances, not based on how hard youre pulling but based on how long
> your stroke is
Is the given: at constant HR? More interesting would be: at the same rating.
Neil Wallace
"mike" <mikes...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:49d2fc3e.02021...@posting.google.com...
Mike, this should clear it up for you.
http://freespace.virgin.net/neil.wallace2/waterrowergate.htm
RowH2O
>2. - 40 minutes on a waterrower at a constant HR will give different
>distances, not based on how hard youre pulling but based on how long
>your stroke is, and theres no way to compare one session with another?
In fact there is a way, or at least there will be very soon. The SIII
problem was originally discovered using RowH2O WaterRower Software as
the screen shots in Neil's web page demonstrate - there is a problem
with the way data is being interpreted by the SIII. Fortunately a
solution is in the pipeline and should be launched in the next few
days. RowH2O will feature a new specially developed power algorithm
which factors back in the power applied - pull harder at a given
stroke rate and stroke length and you get an appropriate step up in
speed. Power indicated will also be far more accurate and performance
comparison with air ergo's will be closer than many people have
assumed is possible.
This update is being tested at the moment and results are looking very
promising. One notable observation came from two guys who have tested
the new software - previously they had an inconsistency where one was
faster both on a CII and in a boat than the other, but the other guy
could beat him on a WaterRower - with the new power algorithm, the
faster guy is faster on all three...
I will post further information when the update is released.
Colin
RowH2O WaterRower Software
www.rowh2o.com
mike
> Mike, this should clear it up for you.
cheers Neil!
So its half useful then, in that you can sit on it for 40 minutes and
accurately replicate the rowing movements while [in my case] sweating
heavily. But after your 40 minutes, you cant really tell how far
youve been so you've no way of showing you're getting fitter without
doing regular 'comparison' tests on a concept2.
hmm.
Neil Wallace
> > > Nick Suess, you out there?? Now's your chance...
mike
> "mike" <mikes...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:49d2fc3e.02021...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > > Nick Suess, you out there?? Now's your chance...
I actually tried a waterrower last week, and the display _is_ pants.
<blasphemy mode>
felt better than a CII though.
</blasphemy mode>
Didnt feel as heavy at the catch or the finish, and to me felt more
like rowing in a decent (light) boat. Definately get one, if they get
the display sorted out..
(no, I've never tried a rowperfect and it wouldnt fit in my spare room
anyway!)
I'm told I can do it with the rowh20 software, but seems a bit of a
pain in the proverbial!
Nick, over to you to fill the aching void left by
'sup...@waterrower.co.uk' who havent acknoledged my questions yet
(theyve only had a week though..)
rgds
mike
RowH2O
>I actually tried a waterrower last week, and the display _is_ pants.
><blasphemy mode>
>felt better than a CII though.
></blasphemy mode>
>Didnt feel as heavy at the catch or the finish, and to me felt more
>like rowing in a decent (light) boat. Definately get one, if they get
>the display sorted out..
>(no, I've never tried a rowperfect and it wouldnt fit in my spare room
>anyway!)
>I'm told I can do it with the rowh20 software, but seems a bit of a
>pain in the proverbial!
<unashamed plug mode>
Hooking up your rowing machine to a PC doesn't immediately appeal to
everyone, but once you have experienced 'the big picture' with saved
training logs, power curves, session progress displays, split
analysis, speed, stroke rate and heart rate real-time graphs *and*
good comparison with CII times, I doubt you will want to go back to a
machine with just a little black and gray LCD...
</unashamed plug mode>
BTW I agree that a WaterRower does feel more like a boat. Quieter
too...
Phate
Neil Wallace
"Phate" <decide...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q6Wf8.3654$XZ.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> So is it possible to hook a CII to a PC?
>
>
Yes it is. New models at least.
(although I do not own a C2, and someone will be able to give you more
details)
I know of 2 programs, there may be more.
Concept have a program called "e-row" which they do not charge for. You can
download it off their website. www.concept2.com That would be a good place
to start - it allows internet racing, amongst other things.
Also, fitcentric do a virtual reality type software program called
"netathlon" - again internet racing is possible, although it appears that
the demand for this is low as "e-row" dominates the market there.
Netathlon does, however, have a variety of virtual reality rowing courses
(including the "boat race" course!), and does analyse your HR during
workouts.
Unlike e-row it can be used with WaterRower (that is what I have) and a
variety of treadmills and cycle machines.
The web site is www.fitcentric.com for further information. you can download
it, but I wouldn't personally recommend it unless you have a fast
connection, just get the disk.
Hope that helps
Neil
Nick Suess
I'm in Australia, and this one came down on an overcrowded and leaky fishing
boat from Java. My partner found the crabs on Christmas Island picking over
it when she was there last week, and brought it back for me along with some
duty free grog.
After 40 minutes on a WR or a Concept 2 I can tell you exactly how far
you've been. Nowhere. Just take a look at the scenery around you, and you'll
believe it. The only way to cover distance while rowing is in a boat.
So please all of you come down from your virtual world and the fantasy that
the distance number on an erg has some firm and absolute relationship to how
far you'd travel on water. Equipment and skill level are just two factors
that are not in any way taken account of. Is the distance algorithm on a
Concept 2 any more real than the one on a WR? I just wish I could scull as
fast as I can theoretically tug myself along on a Concept 2, but I can't. A
WR with medium level of wet stuff in it is more realistic for me. Colin at
RowH20 seems to be doing wonderful things, and is far more expert than me on
these matters. Please listen to what he has to say.
And in any case, despite selling the things, I still prefer to be in a boat.
We get dolphins in the river here, and I've never seen them when erging.
Neil Wallace
> >
> > > > Nick Suess, you out there?? Nows your chance...
>
that
> the distance number on an erg has some firm and absolute relationship to
how
> far you'd travel on water. Equipment and skill level are just two factors
> that are not in any way taken account of. Is the distance algorithm on a
> Concept 2 any more real than the one on a WR? I just wish I could scull as
> fast as I can theoretically tug myself along on a Concept 2, but I can't.
A
> WR with medium level of wet stuff in it is more realistic for me. Colin
at
> RowH20 seems to be doing wonderful things, and is far more expert than me
on
> these matters. Please listen to what he has to say.
>
Nick,
You are right.
Ignore the monitor on a waterrower and you soon appreciate its qualities.
Far nicer than a C2 IMO and as WaterRower themselves often state "more like
a boat" even though they don't float.
However, as you point out - these are fitness machines - "work meters" -
ergometers call them as you will.
In this regard the C2 beats it hands down. C2 users have access to masses of
performance statistics all of which helps motivate them into greater
performance.
Furthermore, to monitor progress (on any machine), you rely on the values
given by the monitor.
Distance, speed, power, etc... should relate to the work you do... to some
degree of precision.
This is where a waterrower fails badly, and, in failing to acknowledge this,
you are doing a diservice to all your customers, past and present.
I wonder whether, privately, you are not as frustrated with WaterRower as
the rest of us.
You are correct to mention Colin Muir's waterrower software and perhaps a
link is called for www.rowh2o.com
Regards
Neil.
P.S. why not join the waterrower user group Nick perhaps a better place for
these discussions?
Nick Suess
>
> (snip)
> Distance, speed, power, etc... should relate to the work you do... to some
> degree of precision.
>
> This is where a waterrower fails badly, and, in failing to acknowledge
this,
> you are doing a diservice to all your customers, past and present.
> I wonder whether, privately, you are not as frustrated with WaterRower as
> the rest of us.
Well, Neil, none of my customers have complained that the output is
imprecise, and in fact I have had a very high degree of satisfaction out
there, with occasional comments back from customers that they love their
WaterRowers. Should I now write to them and say some Pommie guy has told me
the output is crap?
My main business is in Braca oars, and I added WaterRower as a little
sideline to the business. I don't make a great deal on them, but I sell one
or two a month, I have happy customers, and as far as I know it's going OK.
It obviously concerns me that this allegation is being made, especially in a
public forum like this, but you can hardly slate me for failing to
acknowledge what you assert to be a design defect in the product, but of
which I am otherwise unaware and about which have received not one single
complaint.
How do I access the user group?
Nick
Neil Wallace
>
Nick I have e-mailed you privately.
regards
Neil