power/weight
Lungstrum Richard
rowers were known we could reckon the weight-specific power
output of rowers from different weight classes and compare
the distributions of figures in the classes. Well, sitting
here today recovering from stomach flu and seemingly incapable
of turning from taxes [phew] to discourse coreference research,
I pulled the men's heavyweight and lightweight 2000 meter
scores from the USRA tests off the web and did a little
figuring. For reasons which satisfy me, and will seem reasonable
to most of the scientists out there, I trust, I took the fastest
36 lightweight times and the fastest 56 heavyweight times for
comparison [i.e., thee fastest 56 hw times for which weights
were published]. I converted the rowers' weights to kg mass
[ok, did anyone row above a gravitational anomaly?], and used the
algorithm which CII supplied some time back to figure average
power output from time-to-distance. Then I divided the power
by the rower's mass. The results are interesting from several
perspectives. Not too surprisingly, Conal Groom is the overall
king of power to weight ratio; among all the 2000 m scores, his
was more than 10% better than the next best, at ca. 6.58 watts
per kg body mass. There were seven lightweights whose scores
were better than the best heavyweight, and 14 heavyweights whose
scores were lower than the lowest represented [key word]
lightweight.
Ranges:
heavyweight: 5.70 to 4.36
lightweight: 6.58 to 4.75
Means:
heavyweight: 4.966
lightweight: 5.325
A bit more on distribution:
50th percentile 75th percentile
heavyweight: 4.97 5.10
lightweight: 5.30 5.63
Sorry this is only for elite/near elite men and only for 2000m,
but it's a lot of slog to get these numbers. I may do the 6000m
at a later time.
Among the rowers represented here it's clear that the lightweights
have a rather significant power-to-body-mass advantage [even if you
don't count Groom's score]. Even though there are so many more
heavies represented, you have to go down to #27 on the lists
before the trends cross.
One of the quaintest observations I made in running the heavyweight
numbers was how many of the best scores were not near the top of the
"unweighted" results--some of the highest weight-specific power
scores came from 180-190 lb. rowers whose times were in the middle
third or even lower in the pack--many of the faster times had beeen
posted by heavier rowers. E.g., David Lefebvre's time was [not
counting unweighed rowers] fifth fastest, but his was the highest
heavyweight weight-specific power average.
Well, anyway, I hope these figures provide a little grist for the
old heavy/light mill, and that they give an idea how this sort of
question might be approached.
RWLungstrum
Rocky Mountain RC Boulder
[attribute, attribute, attribute]
[those are verbs]
Sullys Maze
lung...@spot.Colorado.EDU (Lungstrum Richard) writes:
>Some days back I made the observation that if weights of the
>rowers were known we could reckon the weight-specific power
>output of rowers from different weight classes and compare
>the distributions of figures in the classes. Well, sitting
If you measure VO2 Max vs O2 efficiency I bet you would get a
similar type distribution, with the heavies getting the high Volumes
of burned O2 and the lights dominating the efficiency scale.
Do you think either of these stats have any application to rowing?
IE, if you knew the power/weight ratio of a crew, you could use it
to select the fastest eight? Could you design an optimum shell
for the top eight ratio guys that would beat the fastest heavy
eight? Is there a way to say: 'Ah if I improve my efficiency and
power ratio over the next couple years, I'll drop my time in the
single by X seconds. Hmm, one way would be to drop from 190 lbs
to 179 by keeping the same erg score.' ?
Mike
jon-erik magnus
: Some days back I made the observation that if weights of the
: rowers were known we could reckon the weight-specific power
: output of rowers from different weight classes and compare
: the distributions of figures in the classes. Well, sitting
: of turning from taxes [phew] to discourse coreference research,
: I pulled the men's heavyweight and lightweight 2000 meter
: scores from the USRA tests off the web and did a little
: figuring. For reasons which satisfy me, and will seem reasonable
: to most of the scientists out there, I trust, I took the fastest
: 36 lightweight times and the fastest 56 heavyweight times for
: comparison [i.e., thee fastest 56 hw times for which weights
: were published]. I converted the rowers' weights to kg mass
: [ok, did anyone row above a gravitational anomaly?], and used the
: algorithm which CII supplied some time back to figure average
: power output from time-to-distance. Then I divided the power
: by the rower's mass. The results are interesting from several
: perspectives. Not too surprisingly, Conal Groom is the overall
: king of power to weight ratio; among all the 2000 m scores, his
: was more than 10% better than the next best, at ca. 6.58 watts
somethingelse to think about is weight adjusted erg scores. CII has an
equation that takes into account body weight.
I think the equation is something like this:
(170/body weight) * erg time in seconds = weight adjusted time
I'm not sure if it's 170 or 165 but its all in pounds
just my 2 cents
Jon-Erik Skidmore Crew
Nic Herriges
GC....@forsythe.stanford.edu writes:
>Do you think either of these stats have any application to rowing?
>IE, if you knew the power/weight ratio of a crew, you could use it
>to select the fastest eight? Could you design an optimum shell
>for the top eight ratio guys that would beat the fastest heavy
>eight? Is there a way to say:
Speed is a function of power and weight (and a whole bunch of other
things. In lightweight boats you've set an upper bound on the weight
so you can concentrate more on power. Here the power/weight ratio can
be helpful (but not definitive). In heavies, though, you still have to
contend
with the effect of weight on speed. However, this is not a linear
relationship.
At low weights each additional pound will have a small effect on speed.
At
higher weights each additional pound will have a proportionately greater
effect
(eventually, one additional pound sinks the boat). Thus, in heavies, the
power/
weight ratio does not have as direct an impact on speed.
Nic Herriges
n...@analogy.com
Sullys Maze
Nic Herriges <n...@analogy.com> writes:
>In article <3n0ptm$n...@morrow.stanford.edu> Sullys Maze,
>GC....@forsythe.stanford.edu writes:
>>Do you think either of these stats have any application to rowing?
>>IE, if you knew the power/weight ratio of a crew, you could use it
>>to select the fastest eight? Could you design an optimum shell
>>for the top eight ratio guys that would beat the fastest heavy
>>eight? Is there a way to say:
>
>Speed is a function of power and weight (and a whole bunch of other
>things. In lightweight boats you've set an upper bound on the weight
In rowing, speed is a function of power and hull drag, and a whole
bunch of other things. This is why I ask this question of the ratio
formulas.
>so you can concentrate more on power. Here the power/weight ratio can
>be helpful (but not definitive). In heavies, though, you still have to
>contend
>with the effect of weight on speed. However, this is not a linear
>relationship.
>At low weights each additional pound will have a small effect on speed.
>At
>higher weights each additional pound will have a proportionately greater
>effect
>(eventually, one additional pound sinks the boat). Thus, in heavies, the
>power/
>weight ratio does not have as direct an impact on speed.
What matters as far as weight is how the additional weight affects
wetted surface. A shell AUTOMATICALLY starts with a fixed quantity
of wetted surface that the weight of the oarsmen ADD to.
Richard had an interesting response to my question, I'll try to get
him to agree to post it (or have me post it), I'm not going to
unilaterally post his email response to me.
this stuff cuts to the heart of what i believe is the nature of
athleticism in rowing.
Mike
Sullys Maze
>> Lungstrum": power/weight (fwd)
>>
RLs original:
>>>Some days back I made the observation that if weights of the
>>>rowers were known we could reckon the weight-specific power
>>>output of rowers from different weight classes and compare
>>>the distributions of figures in the classes. Well, sitting
>>
>>similar type distribution, with the heavies getting the high Volumes
>>of burned O2 and the lights dominating the efficiency scale.
>>
>>Do you think either of these stats have any application to rowing?
>>IE, if you knew the power/weight ratio of a crew, you could use it
>>to select the fastest eight? Could you design an optimum shell
>>for the top eight ratio guys that would beat the fastest heavy
>>power ratio over the next couple years, I'll drop my time in the
>>single by X seconds. Hmm, one way would be to drop from 190 lbs
>>to 179 by keeping the same erg score.' ?
>>
>>Mike
>
>
>If you did get Klaus Filter to design you an optimal shell for eight
>guys, they'll still be pretty big, because their additional deadweight as
>a function of their lean body mass per rower will be less significant by
>far than the fixed minumum weight of the cox and the equipment.
>If it were a straight four, and the equipment weight were, say, fixed at
>a weight which was a linear function of total crew body mass, [not
>to a single minimum], then I suspect you could indeed level the playing
>field considerably. I rather hope to have some more extensive stats
>worked up by the time USRA or FISA next debate the weight-handicapping
>issue, as it looks suspiciouly as if equipment weight may have more of an
>effect on the relative performance of heavy and light rowers than one
>might think at first glance. [incidentally, the little test run I did on
>the 6km pieces turned up a lot like the 2km pieces, so the old addage
>that lighties fade before heavies looks like it's probably equipment
>weight related, too]
>
>Yes, I expect that if you dropped 5kg and your power and technique
>remained the same, you'd likely go faster. I also suspect that if the
What I suggested was that my erg score stay the same, which may not
necessarily mean power stayed the same. I may have the efficiency
gain from having to supply with blood less muscle mass, allowing me
to average out a better score on the erg, but I may lose the ability
to 'peg the needle' so to speak.
This is important because a rower is not just moving his body
weight, he's moving a hull through water where resistance increases
the faster you go.
>world's best light scullers were in 12kg boats they would have less
>disadvantage against heavy scullers in 15kg boats than they presently
>do, cet. par.
In an optimum boat designed for the heavies and lights respectively,
heavies win the race because of the length of arc they pull. The
big people apply slightly more force an inch or so farther down the
course each stroke. It is for this reason I believe that the
power/weight ratio is only a helpful stat for the individual
trying to improve from year to year.
The optimum training program for rowers develops their ability to
output the most possible power into a long arc for approximately
200-250 strokes. Part of that entails training to capillarize
as much muscle mass as possible. (there are two parts to that line).
A byproduct of sound rowing training is a lean body mass that comes
from the stress of aerobic training to do the capillarization, but
it is not the goal.
>
>I appreciate your response. It's just the kind of water I kind of hoped
>to stir up when I pulled the numbers down and analyzed them. Given the
>realities of rowing rule-making I expect it will be a very blue moon out
>if any of the governing bodies ever actually enact any rules that would
>take away the historical bias of the sport toward big heavy guys, and
>that counts double in the US, where big boats with coxes have been the
>focus for so long. But when that old light vs. heavy arm-waving match,
>with no actual intersubjective facts to discuss, threatened to surface
>again on r.s.r., I kind of shrugged and thought it wasn't really
>technically so hard to get some good data, and that that might put the
>issue on some firmer, less adolescent ground.
Shoot, that leaves me out.
>
>Finally, regarding your question about selecting the fastest eight. If
>we assume they all have technique, and assuming their biomechanics allow
>similar strokes [when Potter pulled his back in college, Tom Hayssen got
>put in at stroke in the Yale heavy 8 for a couple weeks, but he just
>didn't have enough length to mesh with guys as big as Kiesling and
>Stevens, so it didn't work out, plus the light boat really suffered from
>losing him as their stroke], then what you'd want to do in theory would
>be to find the eight guys whose power output total was highest as a
>function of total >boated< weight, including rowers' mass, cox's mass, and
>boat and oar mass. This could be different for a straight 4 and a coxed
>four, for instance, the straight boat would doubtless favor the leanest
>strong guys, while the coxed boat would favor more raw power [i.e., the
>Kenworth hauling timber does better with a Detroit V12 than a Ferrari
>V12, but the Ferrari does better with the Ferrari motor, or something
>like that]. These skews would be bigger in a 4+ than in an 8+, and
>biggest of all in a coxed pair, especially if the big hulking guys are
>also mentally deficient enough to row in one [my Swedish ethnicity
That's not QUITE the case. When you are talking 2+ there's the
additional factor that the race is going to last nearly a minute
to a minute and a half longer than the eights and the straight four.
There is still the same advantage to having the long arc, but at the
longer race, a more aerobic, efficient body is helpful than the raw
powerhouse.
>obliges me to point out that the Norwegians won in the 2+ last year at
>Indy]. Hey, if you use any of that as a coach in picking boatings, I'd
>be grateful if you gave me credit for it [assuming it works], and ten
>percent of all prize money [that'll be easy....]
I'm lobbying heavily for the lightweight women's eight with 200 lb
43 year old cox for the next Olys. I'm ready!
Mike
Sullys Maze
>>obliges me to point out that the Norwegians won in the 2+ last year at
>>Indy]. Hey, if you use any of that as a coach in picking boatings, I'd
Richard just corrected himself by EM, the Norwegians won the 2X.
Mike
Brian Orelli
: Do you think either of these stats have any application to rowing?
: IE, if you knew the power/weight ratio of a crew, you could use it
: to select the fastest eight? Could you design an optimum shell
: for the top eight ratio guys that would beat the fastest heavy
: eight?
Wouldn't you also have to include the weight of the shell in the
calculations. In this case a lighter rower may have a higher power/weight
ratio than a heavier one, but what about power/(body weight +1/8
shell/cox weight). In this case the lighter rowers power/weight ratio
will be affected (lowered) more than the heavier rowers ratio.
--
Brian Orelli UCD Varsity Lightweight Crew
___________ "Pain is temporary; Pride is forever!"
/ \___________________*______________
| U C Davis ___________________ ______________|
\___________/ *
michael roy
: Some days back I made the observation that if weights of the
: rowers were known we could reckon the weight-specific power
: output of rowers from different weight classes and compare
: the distributions of figures in the classes. Well, sitting
: of turning from taxes [phew] to discourse coreference research,
: I pulled the men's heavyweight and lightweight 2000 meter
: scores from the USRA tests off the web and did a little
: figuring. For reasons which satisfy me, and will seem reasonable
: to most of the scientists out there, I trust, I took the fastest
: 36 lightweight times and the fastest 56 heavyweight times for
: comparison [i.e., thee fastest 56 hw times for which weights
: were published]. I converted the rowers' weights to kg mass
: [ok, did anyone row above a gravitational anomaly?], and used the
: algorithm which CII supplied some time back to figure average
: power output from time-to-distance. Then I divided the power
: by the rower's mass. The results are interesting from several
: perspectives. Not too surprisingly, Conal Groom is the overall
: king of power to weight ratio; among all the 2000 m scores, his
: was more than 10% better than the next best, at ca. 6.58 watts
--
What Mr Lungstrum has failed to do is analyze the overall max power
output by each individual rower. If this didnt count for something,
then the lightweights would go faster than the heavy weights. Conal
Groom is something of an abnormality in that his scores are equal to
those of the strongest heavyweights, but on the large scale while
lightweights have the capability of more power per body mass, they
produce far less power.
Assuming that each heavyweight averages 100 kg and each
lightweight is 73 kg (165 pounds) then the difference is clearly shown.
The heavyweights can put an average of 496 watts of power per stroke,
while the lightweights only have approximately 389 watts. This is the
difference in the speed of the two crews. Assuming that the boat
weights do not differ significantly (only 25-30 pounds at most) the
heavies will always win. The bottom line here is that just like tall
people always win at basketball, heavy people will always win at rowing.
Besides if the lightweight were that much stronger, than we would not
have had to make them their own olympic events, they could have rowed
in the heavyweight events right?
WRONG!
Micheal Roy
Northeatern Heavyweight Crew
____________ ____________ ____ ____
/ / / / / / / /
/ ____ / / ____ / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/ /___/ / / / / / / /___/ /
/ / / / / / / /
/ __ __/ / / / / /_______ /
/ / \ \ / / / / / /
/ / \ \ / /___/ / / /
/ / \ \ / / / /
/___/ \___\ /___________/ / /
____________________________________________/ /
/ Life is like a box of chocolates, /
/ You never know what you're gonna get. /
/_______________________________________________/
Michael "MAJIK" Fountain
out of this disscussion.
Heavyweights may row faster because they have BIGGER muscles. This is
important because the most powerful muscles [Type IIb fibers] are highly
glycolytic. Hence the limiting factor on FAST rowing may be the amount of
stored glycogen. Big muscles store more glycogen than little ones by
definition.
The body of evidence shows that FAST rowers are highly glycolytic.
This is not to say that a lightweight cannot achieve the same thing by
having a high ratio of IIb fibers or by being more efficient.
\|/
/|\MAJIK
Sullys Maze
"Michael \"MAJIK\" Fountain" <maj...@homer21.u.washington.edu> writes:
>It seems that one of the most important factors in rowing has been left
>out of this disscussion.
>
>Heavyweights may row faster because they have BIGGER muscles. This is
>important because the most powerful muscles [Type IIb fibers] are highly
>glycolytic. Hence the limiting factor on FAST rowing may be the amount of
>stored glycogen. Big muscles store more glycogen than little ones by
>definition.
>
>The body of evidence shows that FAST rowers are highly glycolytic.
Do you know what the percentages of anaerobic energy vs. aerobic
energy produced in a 6 min race? I always thought it was something
like 20%/80%, no?
Mike
Brian C. Crounse
mi...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (michael roy) writes:
> What Mr Lungstrum has failed to do is analyze the overall max power
> output by each individual rower. If this didnt count for something,
> then the lightweights would go faster than the heavy weights.
I don't think that Mr. Lungstrum was inferring that the fastest rowers
are those with the best power/weight ratios. His study is worthwhile
from a physiology standpoint. It does have implications for boatspeed,
when thoughtfully interpreted.
> Assuming that each heavyweight averages 100 kg and each
> lightweight is 73 kg (165 pounds) then the difference is clearly shown.
> The heavyweights can put an average of 496 watts of power per stroke,
> while the lightweights only have approximately 389 watts. This is the
> difference in the speed of the two crews. Assuming that the boat
> weights do not differ significantly (only 25-30 pounds at most) the
> heavies will always win. The bottom line here is that just like tall
> people always win at basketball, heavy people will always win at rowing.
I don't agree with a couple things here. One, the speed of a boat is
not determined *just* by gross power output. For one, the boat
accelerates and decelerates with each stroke- the dynamics of this
acceleration cycle is affected by the total weight (rowers, shell,
[cox]) of the boat. Second, the drag on the shell is determined in
part by the amount of mass that the shell must keep afloat. For a
given shell design, a boat full of heavyweights has a bit more drag
than a lighter counterpart. In both cases, it's advantageous to keep
the ratio of total power/total boat mass as high as possible. B/c of
the significant amount of deadweight with any shell and maybe a cox,
larger rowers are favored.
I will grant you that while a good heavyweight crew is generally faster
than a good lightweight crew, your assertion that "heavy people will
always win at rowing" is a bit overstated. I've been a part of
lightweight crews which over the past four years have on occasion done
some damage to heavyweight boats with ostensibly more powerful rowers.
And yes, I've also had my ass handed to me by other heavy crews.
Brian Crounse
b...@dartmouth.edu
Of course, I haven't even mentioned a crucial part of the whole
boatspeed game- the *transmission* of power put out by a rower into
boatspeed. This is totally affected by rhythym, technique, etc. The
variability of this factor is what makes it impossible to predict any
lineup's performance from any set of numbers. Hence, seat racing, pair
ladders, etc.