What's the best way to handicap erg scores for weight?
hba...@pipeline.com
for handicapping erg scores for differing
weights?
The handicap should attempt to predict
relative performance in an actual boat.
(Clearly, it won't account for differences
in rowing skill, but for my purpose, adjusting
for weight would be a very good first step.)
Ewoud Dronkert
> What's the best formula known today
> for handicapping erg scores for differing
> weights?
http://www.triton.studver.uu.nl/knrbtest.php3
In Dutch, but with lots of numbers, I think you should be able to
figure it out. Let me know if you have any trouble.
Anu Dudhia
Two slightly different questions here
(a) do you want to know how people of different weight should compare on
erg times?
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/physics/weight.html#section4
(b) do you want to know how erg times of people of different weight
would translate to boat speed?
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/physics/weight.html#section8
The KNRB page attempts to answer the second question, although you could
argue that an exponent
of 0.167 is more appropriate than their 0.222 for boats other than
single sculls. To answer the first question,
use the KNRB formula (with the 0.222 exponent) but set the boat weight
m1 to zero.
Rob Collings
> What's the best formula known today
> for handicapping erg scores for differing
> weights?
Anu Dudhia has a good section on ergs and weight on his "Physics of
Rowing" webpage. The conversion factor I use (I think its the same as
Anu's) is (Wa/Wr)^(2/9). Wa is the actual weight (ie of the person
doing the test) and Wr is the reference weight that scores are
normalised to. Mulitply the orignal time by this number and you get
the adjusted score.
Out of interest, when people are looking at erg times for selection of
crews, does anyone use weight adjusted scores? Or does everyone use
the raw times?
Cheers,
Rob.
Neil Wallace
> for handicapping erg scores for differing
> weights?
>
just use a rowperfect - it takes this into account.
BTW - all this talk of indoor rowing - is it nearly winter in the Northern
Hemisphere?
Anna Mahlamäki
The only formula I've come across for handicapping erg (CII) scores
for weights is [(weight/base weight)^(2/9)]*time (=a nice excel
worksheet)
where you need to set a base weight against which to compare
everyone's relative results; the idea is "who'd chieve the best score
if she weighed X kilos". We used this at uni to compare the squad
members' relative fitness, when the squad members' weights ranged from
55kg to 75kg!
I have absolutely no idea where this formula originates.
I'd be interested to learn about any other formulae, and about whether
the RSR community with more experience think the one above actually
does give accurate information!
Anna
Finland
Anu Dudhia
> Hi!
> The only formula I've come across for handicapping erg (CII) scores
> for weights is [(weight/base weight)^(2/9)]*time (=a nice excel
> worksheet)
> I have absolutely no idea where this formula originates.
This answer's question (a) in my earlier post. The formula is based on
two assumptions:
1. that erg speed is proportional to the cube root (1/3 exponent) of the
mechanical power generated
2. that the mechanical power generated is proportional to the 2/3
exponent of the rower's weight
(this assumes that the power is aerobic and therefore scales as surface
area rather than body mass)
(so 2/9 is the cube root of 2/3)
Ewoud Dronkert
> (so 2/9 is the cube root of 2/3)
Well uh, we know what you mean :)
Matt Kaminski
such when comparing people not boat speed.
Having said that, I've used both raw and weight adjusted to get things
started in boat selection. I start with weight adjusted and then see if I
can make the crew faster by moving people around. I've found it at least 75%
accurate for an 8, maybe higher if technique and experience is similar
throughout the crew. I'll always look back at the final crew that made it by
the end of the year and see how they stand with regards to raw score and
weight adjusted. Interesting.
If the erg scores are within 15 seconds between two similar size rowers I
don't feel confortable using erg results as a final boat selection.
Coaching high school rowers I use a number of other factors in choosing
boats (attendence, improvement in all tests, attitude, technique, rowing
results, length, etc.).
Ergs are nice to see improvement in strength and fitness and up to a point
technique, but I'd much rather get an the water and row.
Matt
"Rob Collings" <RPCol...@iee.org> wrote in message
news:771c9d1a.03092...@posting.google.com...
Loose Bananas
penalising the larger gentleman/lady on the ergo.
Unlike on the water, upon the dread ergo you have to change your
momentum every stroke (being a vector property). Are there any tables
to compensate us for this?; I thought not.
Lighter rowers should try erging carrying a rucksack full of lard and
see how they get on with the rating above thirty.
I realise that all this is a bit flippant and heavier rowers have
greater muscle mass with which to generate power etc. but if you are
just carrying a bit of flab getting a good ergo score is hard enough
without skinnies whinging about not being able to put weight on
downgrading it.
sue t
aerobic capacity ...
"Loose Bananas" <looseb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2f2277e3.03093...@posting.google.com...
W.R. Muller
<hba...@pipeline.com> schreef in bericht
news:3f731a35...@news.west.earthlink.net...
Try also http://www.vierzonder.nl/ergogewcalc.html
It has a calculator for both distance as time and uses the 0.222 exponent.
PaulS
Regardless of the arguments, let's face it, the LW category was
created so that people who could not realistically expect to win a
medal would have a chance to participate in a victory ceremony.
Now it's completely out of hand, and if a LW is somehow supposed to
get credit for power that they can not produce on the Erg, it makes
about the same amount of sense to adjust HW's on water time for speed
that they apparently can not produce due to their additional weight.
These LW's seem to be quite a cheeky bunch, wanting to have things
adjusted in their favor in both cases. We won't even go into the
discussion that a HW must move more Mass up and down the slide on the
Erg (I consider it a fairly silly point anyhow).
How about no adjustments, just take your score for what it is and go
with it. Or a more practical approach would be to take a close look at
the Stroke rate that was used to obtain the particular score and make
an adjustment based on that, since in fact, when in team boats it's
quite likely that every team member will have to produce a certain
amount of power for the same number of strokes.
A useful figure I have come up with, is to divide the Avg Watts by the
Avg SR. I call this the Stroke Power index (SPI) and though it is not
a particularly pure figure that can be used across large time
differences, it is very useful in determining the difference between a
6:00 at SR=45 and a 6:00 at SR=34, two very different animals.
- Paul Smith
Tim Granger
> How about no adjustments, just take your score for what it is and go
> with it. Or a more practical approach would be to take a close look at
> the Stroke rate that was used to obtain the particular score and make
> an adjustment based on that, since in fact, when in team boats it's
> quite likely that every team member will have to produce a certain
> amount of power for the same number of strokes.
>
> A useful figure I have come up with, is to divide the Avg Watts by the
> Avg SR. I call this the Stroke Power index (SPI) and though it is not
> a particularly pure figure that can be used across large time
> differences, it is very useful in determining the difference between a
> 6:00 at SR=45 and a 6:00 at SR=34, two very different animals.
Even though your two people here are producing a different power per
stroke, this still doesn't answer the problem of which would make a
boat go faster. Bigger guys have more power, but cause more drag on
the boat surely.
I don't think anyone with brains would say that you weight adjust
scores for any other reason than a very approximate first order method
of comparing two althletes of different sizes. There are too many
variables in place to do anything other than seat racing if you care
(and even there it's very hard to be actually scientific).
Tim
Riggers
having eaten cold spinach soup for the 2 weeks previous....see how
that feels !!
Neil Wallace
"PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c07ac95a.03100...@posting.google.com...
snip
> A useful figure I have come up with, is to divide the Avg Watts by the
> Avg SR. I call this the Stroke Power index (SPI) and though it is not
> a particularly pure figure that can be used across large time
> differences, it is very useful in determining the difference between a
> 6:00 at SR=45 and a 6:00 at SR=34, two very different animals.
>
average Watts = Energy/time
Average Stroke rate = number of strokes/time.
you're talking about average stroke energy, although you have a problem in
using different units for time (minutes for stroke rate, seconds for power).
So nothing new, but agreed, very important.
PaulS
You are right, but even the raw Erg score in the case above does not
mean that these two rowers are in the same category, SPI is a 'better'
first order approximation. Or simply do a timed, fixed rate test.
An even better selection process would be to compare force application
profiles, over both stroke length and drive time, and match your
rowers up based on the quality of that as well as your observed nature
of their technique (hopefully that technique is already fairly
consistent if you are at a high level of competition). Force
application profiles are very difficult to change, but have a very
large effect on how a boat will end up working together, i.e. if a
rower has a matching force profile they will be a better choice for a
boat if the correction of minor technical errors is required than a
technically correct rower has a force profile that does not fit with
the rest of the crew.
- Paul Smith
http://www.ps-sport.net Innovative products for the training and
evaluation of rowers.
Neil Wallace
> application profiles are very difficult to change,
only on a static erg, because they will depend very much on your momentum.
(bangs head against wall knowing Paul doesn't believe that!)
Neil
PaulS
Last time I checked, minutes were made up of seconds, but that darn
metric system is confusing. [;o)
There are many problems with SPI in that it can be manipulated with
very low Stroke rates to appear greater than it should. Fortunately
we don't care too much about that because the result would not be very
good anyway as a raw score (i.e. 2K time), but for comparing a number
of relatively close Raw scores it is quite useful. A very important
quality to a stroke is the "rise time" of the force generation that
the team produces, where I have seen this measured for a successful
team boat (4+) there was just a 0.01 sec difference maximum between
the team members, with two being identical and the third being 0.005
sec away from those (right in the middle of the low [2] and high [1]
values). Now that's "pulling together", All Other Things Being Equal.
Coaches can see the mechanics of what an athlete is doing, but many
seem to be somewhat afraid to admit that a completely objective
mechanical measurement is useful. I've even heard as silly a remark
as, "I wonder if it (software) can see what I can."; How ridiculous!
The more likely scenario is that the software will "see" things that
the coach can't. And in this specific case. I spent 10 minutes with
one of that coaches top athletes and pointed out exactly what that
coach had figured out after 3 years with the athlete, plus convinced
the athlete that they should work on it and quit arguing with their
coach.
Like we always like to say, it's not just THAT you can apply the
power, but HOW you apply it that counts.
Cheers,
Paul Smith
PaulS
Good point, I do believe that "dynamic" (I'll use the term loosely)
Ergos are less penalizing of poor recovery technique and this is
indeed reflected in the differences seen in comparisons between the
respective force profiles. If you want to argue that they MUST be
different, go ahead, but it will require a lot of head banging on both
our parts, and I doubt any minds will be changed anyhow. [;o)
That said, the difficulty of changing a force profile does not depend
on being on a "dynamic" or "static" Ergo, it will be difficult either
way. It is largely due to the fact that it involves coordinating a
series of body movements that take place in the time frame of 0.4 -
0.6 second total, with a "rise time" from 0 to 300+ lbs of pressure
happening in as little as 0.2 second. This won't happen by accident
or by anything other than a persistent training program that creates
the reflexive muscle memory required to do so. Fortunatley or
unfortunately this is not an easy thing to do, but it certainly is
possible for those that want to do it, however it allows zero
tollerance for those that would rather make excuses than get to the
hard work it requires to be the best they can be. (Oops, staying on
topic with the original issue of creating handicaps for those that
think non-equal things should be somehow equalized.)
- Paul Smith
Neil Wallace
"PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c07ac95a.03100...@posting.google.com...
> "Neil Wallace" <rowing.golfer@*NOPSAM*virgin.net> wrote in message
news:<EwXeb.357$kC5.2...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > "PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c07ac95a.03100...@posting.google.com...
> > > Force
> > > application profiles are very difficult to change,
> >
> > only on a static erg, because they will depend very much on your
momentum.
> > (bangs head against wall knowing Paul doesn't believe that!)
> >
> > Neil
>
> Good point, I do believe that "dynamic" (I'll use the term loosely)
> Ergos are less penalizing of poor recovery technique and this is
> indeed reflected in the differences seen in comparisons between the
> respective force profiles. If you want to argue that they MUST be
> different, go ahead, but it will require a lot of head banging on both
> our parts, and I doubt any minds will be changed anyhow. [;o)
>
OK, here goes.
you mention differences in stroke profiles between static and dynamic ergs
with "incorrect technique".
I am inclined to believe that if your stroke profiles remain the same then
you are compensating for the different physics.
My argument is backed up by the fact that some very successful scullers have
different stroke profiles on the 2 systems. Backing up the theoretical model
which is graphed here
http://www.rowperfect.com/images/japan/graph4.gif
On the static case, Your catch is slower, because you are reversing your
bodies momentum as well as the flywheel's. Your finish is stronger because
you are again changing your momentum by hanging on the handle.
You have created a decent piece of software which should have brought you to
the same conclusions, if your immutable ideas weren't so impenetrable to
rational discussion.
Neil
Jon Anderson
> On the static case, Your catch is slower, because you are reversing your
> bodies momentum as well as the flywheel's.
Sorry Neil but I refuse to believe the flywheel is spinning in the
opposite direction just before the catch.
Jon
--
Durge: j...@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
Neil Wallace
"Jon Anderson" <j...@durge.org> wrote in message
news:bljj25$ljb$1...@heisenberg.grid-zero.net...
> Neil Wallace wrote:
> > On the static case, Your catch is slower, because you are reversing your
> > bodies momentum as well as the flywheel's.
>
> Sorry Neil but I refuse to believe the flywheel is spinning in the
> opposite direction just before the catch.
>
doh!
you know what I mean though....
Bill Atkinson
You may be interested in the section "The Ergometer and Rowing
Compared" at <http://www.atkinsopht.com/row/erg/ergorowg.htm>.
It would be possible to compare erg results for rowers of different
weights, but only on the Concept-II - the only erg for which I have
written a computational model.
Best regards,
Bill
PaulS
> "PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c07ac95a.03100...@posting.google.com...
> > "Neil Wallace" <rowing.golfer@*NOPSAM*virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:<EwXeb.357$kC5.2...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> > > "PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:c07ac95a.03100...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Force
> > > > application profiles are very difficult to change,
> > >
> > > only on a static erg, because they will depend very much on your
> momentum.
> > > (bangs head against wall knowing Paul doesn't believe that!)
> > >
> > > Neil
> >
> > Good point, I do believe that "dynamic" (I'll use the term loosely)
> > Ergos are less penalizing of poor recovery technique and this is
> > indeed reflected in the differences seen in comparisons between the
> > respective force profiles. If you want to argue that they MUST be
> > different, go ahead, but it will require a lot of head banging on both
> > our parts, and I doubt any minds will be changed anyhow. [;o)
> >
>
> OK, here goes.
>
> you mention differences in stroke profiles between static and dynamic ergs
> with "incorrect technique".
> I am inclined to believe that if your stroke profiles remain the same then
> you are compensating for the different physics.
Ah, so I can compensate for the physics, that is exactly what I am
saying should be done.
> My argument is backed up by the fact that some very successful scullers have
> different stroke profiles on the 2 systems. Backing up the theoretical model
> which is graphed here
> http://www.rowperfect.com/images/japan/graph4.gif
>
> On the static case, Your catch is slower, because you are reversing your
> bodies momentum as well as the flywheel's. Your finish is stronger because
> you are again changing your momentum by hanging on the handle.
You must manage your bodies momentum so that this is not causing the
difference. Hanging on the flywheel is independent of being on a
'static' or 'dynamic' Erg. (You have no idea how hard it is for me to
continue to use those terms just to be clear to those that can not
understand why the difference is perceptual rather than actual.)
> You have created a decent piece of software which should have brought you to
> the same conclusions, if your immutable ideas weren't so impenetrable to
> rational discussion.
I would have thought that as long as I can show that there does not
have to be a difference, that would be rational enough for others to
understand, but it does not appear to be the case. It is still
entertaining to discuss it however.
> Neil
- Paul Smith
PS - If you are going to hold to that "higher cost of mometum" notion,
surely we should be looking at ways to handicap in FAVOR of HW's
rather than against them, don't you think? Since they must pay such a
high price in movign their bodies back and forth, those darn LW's have
it easy. [:o) Of course this could be an argument for things kind of
equaling themselves out and no handicapping at all should exist, at
least not based on weight, now height might be something to look at.
Neil Wallace
snip
> PS - If you are going to hold to that "higher cost of mometum" notion,
> surely we should be looking at ways to handicap in FAVOR of HW's
> rather than against them, don't you think? Since they must pay such a
> high price in movign their bodies back and forth, those darn LW's have
> it easy. [:o) Of course this could be an argument for things kind of
> equaling themselves out and no handicapping at all should exist, at
> least not based on weight, now height might be something to look at.
You seem to understand stroke energy, so let's attempt to clear the waters
this way...
As you approach the finish on a static erg, your body's C of G has kinetic
energy. Agreed?
1/2*m* v^2 IIRC.
This energy goes into the flywheel as you come to a halt. Also Agreed?
On a dynamic erg your C of G isn't moving so much, but the flywheel is.
The flywheel has a lower mass, by a factor of approximately 5 or 6
(rowperfect) and maybe 3 C2 slides.
So your finish is different.
If your ergmonitor shows the same whether you are on slides or shaking the
planet then you are compensating for this. Exactly how you do this is an
interesting debate, but you're not ready for it yet are you?
PaulS
> "PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c07ac95a.03100...@posting.google.com...
>
> snip
> > PS - If you are going to hold to that "higher cost of mometum" notion,
> > surely we should be looking at ways to handicap in FAVOR of HW's
> > rather than against them, don't you think? Since they must pay such a
> > high price in movign their bodies back and forth, those darn LW's have
> > it easy. [:o) Of course this could be an argument for things kind of
> > equaling themselves out and no handicapping at all should exist, at
> > least not based on weight, now height might be something to look at.
>
>
> You seem to understand stroke energy, so let's attempt to clear the waters
> this way...
>
> As you approach the finish on a static erg, your body's C of G has kinetic
> energy. Agreed?
Yes.
> 1/2*m* v^2 IIRC.
> This energy goes into the flywheel as you come to a halt. Also Agreed?
Yes.
> On a dynamic erg your C of G isn't moving so much, but the flywheel is.
> The flywheel has a lower mass, by a factor of approximately 5 or 6
> (rowperfect) and maybe 3 C2 slides.
But the total of the Erg (head) moving one direction and my Body
moving the other direction are equal to that of my body Vs the Earth
in the 'static' case.
> So your finish is different.
It doesn't feel any different. And certainly doesn't change the energy
requirements, which is the problem I have with the whole argument in
the first place.
> If your ergmonitor shows the same whether you are on slides or shaking the
> planet then you are compensating for this. Exactly how you do this is an
> interesting debate, but you're not ready for it yet are you?
Sure, debate away...
- Paul Smith
Jeremy Fagan
"PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > So your finish is different.
>
> It doesn't feel any different.
Yes it does.
(That's not an argument, it's just plain contradiction. No it isn't. Yes it
is. No it isn't. etc.)
Jeremy
PaulS
And your point is?
How does the finish (on slides/RP) feel different to you Jeremy?
I'd be far more willing to accept that the catch 'feels' different,
but would explain it as a technique error (that's needs correcting)
rather than a necessary product of the system.
Please don't be another ridiculous person that say's something like,
"Oh, well I haven't tried slides so am not sure, but it must be the
case.", because I'm pretty well bored with subjective speculation
presented as actual knowlege or experience.
- Paul Smith
Jeremy Fagan
news:<3f8147da$0$8765$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
> > "PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > So your finish is different.
> > >
> > > It doesn't feel any different.
> >
> > Yes it does.
> >
> > (That's not an argument, it's just plain contradiction. No it isn't. Yes
it
> > is. No it isn't. etc.)
> >
> > Jeremy
>
> And your point is?
>
> How does the finish (on slides/RP) feel different to you Jeremy?
My actual experience of both says that the Rowperfect feels very different
at the finish to the C2 fixed. Feels like far less effort to change
direction. I'm a theologian, so please don't ask me to explain science (but
I've seen some fairly convincing stuff done here before). But they do feel
different. If they don't for you, that's not my problem. But I know which
one feels like the boat the most.
Jeremy
PaulS
> >
> > How does the finish (on slides/RP) feel different to you Jeremy?
>
> My actual experience of both says that the Rowperfect feels very different
> at the finish to the C2 fixed. Feels like far less effort to change
> direction. I'm a theologian, so please don't ask me to explain science (but
> I've seen some fairly convincing stuff done here before). But they do feel
> different. If they don't for you, that's not my problem. But I know which
> one feels like the boat the most.
>
> Jeremy
Fair enough, now if you want your boat to move faster, figure out how
to make them feel the same. The effort you are using to change
direction when on the C2 needs to be reduced by making a solid finish
and initiating the body recovery with an effort of muscles to pivot at
the hips. It is very easy to cheat this process by pulling on the
foot straps (By flexing at the knee) when on a RP or Slides, and it
can feel easier due to that, however that is detrimental to what you
want to accomplish in the boat, which is to keep the speed up and get
back to the catch with as little disturbance as can be managed.
Apparently it hasn't been any of my "stuff" that has been 'fairly
convincing' for you. [;o) That's quite alright, I don't claim it is
easy to understand, and it is even more difficult to implement so
there is no reason to be secretive regarding what needs to be done,
even when all that seems to happen is that it starts arguments
involving what amounts to name calling or sideways insults about my
ability to understand basic physical properties. It is all so darn
fun though! And eventually it will all get worked out.
- Paul Smith
Jeremy Fagan
"PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote
It is very easy to cheat this process by pulling on the
> foot straps (By flexing at the knee) when on a RP or Slides, and it
> can feel easier due to that, however that is detrimental to what you
> want to accomplish in the boat, which is to keep the speed up and get
> back to the catch with as little disturbance as can be managed.
I only ever row on the rowperfect feet out... Need straps far more on the C2
than the RP.
Jeremy
Neil Wallace
ditto.
Carl Douglas
>> It is very easy to cheat this process by pulling on the
>> > foot straps (By flexing at the knee) when on a RP or Slides, and it
>> > can feel easier due to that, however that is detrimental to what you
>> > want to accomplish in the boat, which is to keep the speed up and get
>> > back to the catch with as little disturbance as can be managed.
>>
>> I only ever row on the rowperfect feet out... Need straps far more on the
>C2
>> than the RP.
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>
>ditto.
>
>
Paul's perceptions are unacceptable to him. By implication, according
to him we are a bunch of ignorant plonkers. And if we persist in
championing Newtonian physics Paul delivers this sort of carefully
reasoned riposte:
>
>Regardless of the arguments, let's face it, the LW category was
>created so that people who could not realistically expect to win a
>medal would have a chance to participate in a victory ceremony.
>
>Now it's completely out of hand, and if a LW is somehow supposed
>makes about the same amount of sense to adjust HW's on water
>time for speed that they apparently can not produce due to their
>additional weight. These LW's seem to be quite a cheeky bunch,
>wanting to have things adjusted in their favor in both cases. We
>won't even go into the discussion that a HW must move more Mass
>up and down the slide on the Erg (I consider it a fairly silly point
>anyhow).
>
contempt with which some heavies regard their lighter competitors. It
would be wiser were they to show rather more respect for the fact that
heavies so often get well beaten by lightweights, & that this is
achieved by the application of superior skill & guts.
But there ain't a lot of point in holding technical discussions where
established science is automatically rubbished by someone who has low
regard for the efforts of a large proportion of the sport (even in the
nation of the Governator), simply can't be arsed to listen to
intelligent science-based argument presented by intelligent people, &
yet has never made a mistake. It is a bit like discussing global
navigation with the Flat Earth Society or Moon Landings with those who
know it was all done in some TV studio.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
PaulS
Okay, so do you blame the machine for this, or on possible
deficiencies your apparently 'flawless' technique? I tend to lean
toward the idea that I'm screwing something up and causing the
problem, this has lead to 'fixing' the situation over the years.
Look at yourself as the engine that moves the boat, does the engine in
a regular boat run differently when the boat is moving across the
water than when it is moored at the dock or sitting in it's trailer
(fixed to the ground)? Should it?
- Paul Smith
PaulS
> You have to learn that those parts of physics which do not fit with
> Paul's perceptions are unacceptable to him. By implication, according
> to him we are a bunch of ignorant plonkers. And if we persist in
> championing Newtonian physics Paul delivers this sort of carefully
> reasoned riposte:
What is an "ignorant plonker"? Must be what you consider me to be
since I have no idea what it means. I'm still in favor of Newtonian
physics, but not just the parts that I pick and chose, the entire
frame must be considered.
> >
> >Regardless of the arguments, let's face it, the LW category was
> >created so that people who could not realistically expect to win a
> >medal would have a chance to participate in a victory ceremony.
> >
> >Now it's completely out of hand, and if a LW is somehow supposed
> >to get credit for power that they can not produce on the Erg, it
> >makes about the same amount of sense to adjust HW's on water
> >time for speed that they apparently can not produce due to their
> >additional weight. These LW's seem to be quite a cheeky bunch,
> >wanting to have things adjusted in their favor in both cases. We
> >won't even go into the discussion that a HW must move more Mass
> >up and down the slide on the Erg (I consider it a fairly silly point
> >anyhow).
> >
> Which is yet another confirmation of the corrosive & misinformed
> contempt with which some heavies regard their lighter competitors. It
> would be wiser were they to show rather more respect for the fact that
> heavies so often get well beaten by lightweights, & that this is
> achieved by the application of superior skill & guts.
Then let's simply do away with the LW category as it seems to have
merely not allowed for the LW's to fully express themselves. I'm all
for superior skill and guts, just not for equalizing things which are
not equal, when the LW's win they deserve 100% credit, just as when
HW's do. I'd agree that when any group is singled out for 'special'
consideration, the end result is corrosive to the entire group since
now they are placed in a position where their performance is made
relative on a lower scale. We see it with affirmative action quotas
in the United States, I'm not sure if you have made the same mistakes
on the other side of the pond.
>
> But there ain't a lot of point in holding technical discussions where
> established science is automatically rubbished by someone who has low
> regard for the efforts of a large proportion of the sport (even in the
> nation of the Governator), simply can't be arsed to listen to
> intelligent science-based argument presented by intelligent people, &
> yet has never made a mistake. It is a bit like discussing global
> navigation with the Flat Earth Society or Moon Landings with those who
> know it was all done in some TV studio.
How do spirit levels work if the earth is not flat? And while it
might be a quite large "TV Studio" that seems only a semantic
argument. Though the lack of stars in the background (through no
atmosphere at all) is a bit troubling.
Sheesh Carl, lighten up.
I was unfamiliar with the term "Governator" but the first link listed
in the results of a search was:
"Guardian Unlimited - The Governator
Presents a profile of Arnold Schwarzenegger that includes his
beginnings in bodybuilding and the question of his father's support
for the Nazi Party."
Obviously a play on "Governor" + "Terminator" that eluded me. Nice to
see such a "reasoned and measured" response, certainly not the riposte
of an "ignorant plonker". Do you have some problem with the
established political process of the State of California? Well, other
than the obvious.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
- Paul Smith
Jeremy Fagan
"PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote
> "Neil Wallace" <rowing...@NOSPAM.virgin.net> wrote
> > "Jeremy Fagan" <fag...@remove.yahoo.com> wrote
> > > "PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > It is very easy to cheat this process by pulling on the
> > > > foot straps (By flexing at the knee) when on a RP or Slides, and it
> > > > can feel easier due to that, however that is detrimental to what you
> > > > want to accomplish in the boat, which is to keep the speed up and
get
> > > > back to the catch with as little disturbance as can be managed.
> > >
> > > I only ever row on the rowperfect feet out... Need straps far more on
the
> > C2
> > > than the RP.
> > >
> > > Jeremy
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ditto.
>
> Okay, so do you blame the machine for this, or on possible
> deficiencies your apparently 'flawless' technique? I tend to lean
> toward the idea that I'm screwing something up and causing the
> problem, this has lead to 'fixing' the situation over the years.
I have never said that my technique is flawless. I'm trying to describe how
what I do feels.
I never even said it was a 'problem'. However, since there is a far greater
mass involved in a fixed ergo, I would expect it to feel different to the
far lighter mass involved in a Rowperfect.
If the RP and C2 are identical, as you claim, why do I (using the same
technique) feel a different response according to which machine I'm on, and
even have to modify my technique for the two?
> Look at yourself as the engine that moves the boat, does the engine in
> a regular boat run differently when the boat is moving across the
> water than when it is moored at the dock or sitting in it's trailer
> (fixed to the ground)? Should it?
Of course it does.
If I'm the engine in the boat, then does it feel different if someone holds
the boat stationary in the water while I row? Of course it does. Does it
feel different if I put the boat on the grass, get in and try sculling in
the air? Of course it does.
Jeremy
PaulS
> > >
> > > ditto.
> >
> > Okay, so do you blame the machine for this, or on possible
> > deficiencies your apparently 'flawless' technique? I tend to lean
> > toward the idea that I'm screwing something up and causing the
> > problem, this has lead to 'fixing' the situation over the years.
>
> I have never said that my technique is flawless. I'm trying to describe how
> what I do feels.
Fair enough.
> I never even said it was a 'problem'. However, since there is a far greater
> mass involved in a fixed ergo, I would expect it to feel different to the
> far lighter mass involved in a Rowperfect.
Expectations can be quite strong in shaping perception. The masses
involved have little to no effect, because they are simply not the
source of resistance we are working against. That is not to say they
can not become a problem, but my take is that we are the source of the
difference, not the Machine.
Before anyone goes off on a physics dissertation, first answer the
following question: If it is going to take more energy to move a
particular mass back and forth on a virtually frictionless surface,
how much mass can not be moved? And if you have to get near the total
mass of the Universe to even be plausible, how does that relate in any
way to a 100Kg rower and a 35Kg Machine?
This reminds me of a rower that hated to be on the shorter end of the
boat because, "If the boat is angled down toward me, I have to carry
more weight!" While somewhat true, within any angle that can be
imagined for height differences of rowers the difference would require
some very precise instrumentation to measure. Great, now I'll
probably be assaulted by a bunch of short rowers saying, "It's True!"
Yeah, and if you were just as tall as that guy who kicks your butt on
the water you would beat him, but if you beat the taller guy it's due
to your superior guts and skill, I understand.
> If the RP and C2 are identical, as you claim, why do I (using the same
> technique) feel a different response according to which machine I'm on, and
> even have to modify my technique for the two?
How do you gauge this 'modification'? From my observations of many
rowers I'd be very surprised if you were that adaptable. Please don't
take that as an insult of any type, I'm certainly not that adaptable,
and I have never seen anyone that is. Technique change takes a lot of
time and practice, simply changing the machine will not cause it, and
if you do happen to do something different on the water tahn you do on
the Erg, that will be another first. Experience has shown me that no
technical flaw on the Ergo has improved when placing the person in a
boat.
>
> > Look at yourself as the engine that moves the boat, does the engine in
> > a regular boat run differently when the boat is moving across the
> > water than when it is moored at the dock or sitting in it's trailer
> > (fixed to the ground)? Should it?
>
> Of course it does.
>
> If I'm the engine in the boat, then does it feel different if someone holds
> the boat stationary in the water while I row? Of course it does. Does it
> feel different if I put the boat on the grass, get in and try sculling in
> the air? Of course it does.
>
> Jeremy
Well, I see the point of that was totally missed. Don't worry, I
don't care that it was missed, and of course there will be those that
will simply dismiss it as not having been a perceptible point in the
first place. Oh well, I'll do what I can to improve the performance
in those that want to, but forcing it upon anyone is way outside this
particular pay rate. As the sprint man would say, "My work is done
here.".
Cheers,
Paul Smith
Jeremy Fagan
"PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> Before anyone goes off on a physics dissertation, first answer the
> following question: If it is going to take more energy to move a
> particular mass back and forth on a virtually frictionless surface,
> how much mass can not be moved? And if you have to get near the total
> mass of the Universe to even be plausible, how does that relate in any
> way to a 100Kg rower and a 35Kg Machine?
>
Paul, please don't take this the wrong way, but I just can't understand what
you're talking about here. This question doesn't seem to make sense. Please
could you explain yourself better?
>
> How do you gauge this 'modification'? From my observations of many
> rowers I'd be very surprised if you were that adaptable. Please don't
> take that as an insult of any type, I'm certainly not that adaptable,
> and I have never seen anyone that is. Technique change takes a lot of
> time and practice, simply changing the machine will not cause it, and
> if you do happen to do something different on the water tahn you do on
> the Erg, that will be another first. Experience has shown me that no
> technical flaw on the Ergo has improved when placing the person in a
> boat.
>
No insult taken. The adaptations that I'm talking about are things as simple
as the difference between rowing by yourself in a quad, to rowing with the
other three rowing as well. There is a difference, perhaps not major
difference in _what_ you do, but quite major in how it feels. That's similar
to the difference in C2 and RP. And I know that I change how I think about
what I do, and perhaps more importantly, I change what I do to achieve the
same technique (bladework, if that makes sense!)
Incidentally, I can modify my technique almost completely, very simply and
easily, and I suspect anyone can. The modifications are wrong. The
difficulty is to modify your technique in the right direction... :)
Jeremy
Neil Wallace
snip
> Before anyone goes off on a physics dissertation, first answer the
> following question: If it is going to take more energy to move a
> particular mass back and forth on a virtually frictionless surface,
> how much mass can not be moved? And if you have to get near the total
> mass of the Universe to even be plausible, how does that relate in any
> way to a 100Kg rower and a 35Kg Machine?
>
Hi Paul,
can we answer that one without "going off on a physics dissertation"?
Elsewhere you say you agree with Newton, but want to consider the whole
picture, now you want a "virtually frictionless surface".
How about considering a billiard ball, oscillating back and forth between
opposite cushions.
think about how the mass of the ball would effect the energy of the system.
Neil
we could talk of a pendulum, and
Neil Wallace
> What is an "ignorant plonker"?
ignorant - adj. - 1.Lacking education or knowledge. 2.Showing or arising
from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake. 3.Unaware or
uninformed.
plonker - noun, slang - The male organ of copulation in higher vertebrates,
homologous with the clitoris. In mammals, it also serves as the male organ
of urinary excretion.
Carl Douglas
>> Paul's perceptions are unacceptable to him. By implication, according
>> to him we are a bunch of ignorant plonkers. And if we persist in
>> championing Newtonian physics Paul delivers this sort of carefully
>> reasoned riposte:
>
>What is an "ignorant plonker"? Must be what you consider me to be
>since I have no idea what it means.
An "ignorant plonker", in that context, is someone unwilling or too slow
to grasp what you seem to regard as the self-evident truth of what you
repeatedly assert. That's how you seem to treat those who trouble to
question your assertions
> I'm still in favor of Newtonian
>physics, but not just the parts that I pick and chose, the entire
>frame must be considered.
In which case, rather than repeatedly assert that what you believe must
be true - by shouting down all other views - you'll stop & take the
trouble to show mathematically that the reactions between the moving
masses on different ergometers are as you claim.
The maths will be simple - the sort some of us did at age 16 or less -
so even now it shouldn't overtax us despite the decrease of our mental
capacities through age. We remain open to, nay welcome, the possibility
that a competent mathematical argument from you might support your
assertions. Who knows, we might have missed a key element.
OTOH, if you can't make that mathematical case then your argument is
without foundation.
Affirmative action, a US policy, is no business of mine. I understand
it was evolved in an attempt to redress the grave injury done to racial
groups by centuries crude racial discrimination & abuse. You may tell
me that no one in the US now suffers from racial discrimination, nor
from the lasting consequences thereof, so affirmative action is nolonger
needed - in which case I'm sure we will all sleep much easier.
However, the murderous evil of the slave trade (in which we British were
so heavily involved), & the cancer of racial discrimination (also no
stranger to these shores), have absolutely no relevance to this
discussion of lightweight rowing & should never have been dragged into
it, even elliptically, as you did.
The justification for lightweight rowing is not dissimilar to that for
weight categories in wrestling, weight-lifting, boxing, etc. In rowing
it is a simple fact of displacement vessel performance that a bigger
boat with a bigger, heavier engine has a higher potential speed. Eights
are faster than fours, etc. What you should be acknowledging is how
brilliantly the performances of some lightweights overcome that physical
hurdle. And perhaps you should be puzzling why the closeness, in some
cases actual superiority, of lightweight performances to those of
heavies is conveniently ignored by heavies when mouthing off against
lightweights.
>>
>> But there ain't a lot of point in holding technical discussions where
>> established science is automatically rubbished by someone who has low
>> regard for the efforts of a large proportion of the sport (even in the
>> nation of the Governator), simply can't be arsed to listen to
>> intelligent science-based argument presented by intelligent people, &
>> yet has never made a mistake. It is a bit like discussing global
>> navigation with the Flat Earth Society or Moon Landings with those who
>> know it was all done in some TV studio.
>
>How do spirit levels work if the earth is not flat? And while it
>might be a quite large "TV Studio" that seems only a semantic
>argument. Though the lack of stars in the background (through no
>atmosphere at all) is a bit troubling.
But only to those who close their ears to the rational explanations
offered.
>
>Sheesh Carl, lighten up.
Which is what people often protest when taken to task for themselves
coming in mob-handed.
>
>I was unfamiliar with the term "Governator" but the first link listed
>in the results of a search was:
>"Guardian Unlimited - The Governator
>Presents a profile of Arnold Schwarzenegger that includes his
>beginnings in bodybuilding and the question of his father's support
>for the Nazi Party."
>
>Obviously a play on "Governor" + "Terminator" that eluded me. Nice to
>see such a "reasoned and measured" response, certainly not the riposte
>of an "ignorant plonker". Do you have some problem with the
>established political process of the State of California? Well, other
>than the obvious.
>
Oh dear! One has to be so careful these days with any play on words! I
made a topical, non-critical allusion to the richest state in your union
- solely in order to gently drew the discussion towards over-weight
issues which increasingly plague your nation (with us not far behind
either). So you rush to impute all kinds of political bias which I
neither possess nor raised. Was it really _you_, Paul, who earlier
advised _me_ to "lighten up"?
As I said before, the internal politics of the US, or any part thereof,
are not my affair. Nor do I necessarily swallow the views of Guardian
Unlimited (never read it), nor of any other news provider. I take a
uniformly dim view of those arrogant enough to promise political
solutions and campaign for election - too often a field for charlatans
of every political complexion - but my view of Arnie is no more critical
than my view of any other candidate. Who knows if Arnie has answers for
the perceived fiscal ills of California. He may, but only time will
tell. Democracy is about the will of the people, the people have
spoken, & I'm more than happy that they have their choice. You're up in
Washington State, so what possible business is it of yours either?
So please drop that utterly irrelevant political stuff. Just give us,
if you can, your mathematical analysis to prove your repeated assertions
that there is no material difference between different types of ergs.
PaulS
> "PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > Before anyone goes off on a physics dissertation, first answer the
> > following question: If it is going to take more energy to move a
> > particular mass back and forth on a virtually frictionless surface,
> > how much mass can not be moved? And if you have to get near the total
> > mass of the Universe to even be plausible, how does that relate in any
> > way to a 100Kg rower and a 35Kg Machine?
> >
>
> Paul, please don't take this the wrong way, but I just can't understand what
> you're talking about here. This question doesn't seem to make sense. Please
> could you explain yourself better?
There are those that want to account for differences in the RP and C2,
saying something like "One is more efficient that the other" (Or
something like that) based on the difference in energy requirements
for ocillating different masses when the ocillation does not result in
any directional movement of the system. Their arguments tend to leave
one with the feeling that a heavier athlete is at somewhat of a
disadvantage, but then the same people will argue for handicaps in
favor of the LW athlete, very confusing.
Anyway, the statement was not particularly for you, and those it is
for are either still formulating a reply or have finally realised the
futility in making the argument. (They have most likely blamed the
futility on my lack of understanding rather than theirs, which I've
learned to live with, though I still appreciate the great lengths
which they go to tollerate someone who is equally baffled by the
mutual misunderstanding that seems to be the case.)
>
> >
> > How do you gauge this 'modification'? From my observations of many
> > rowers I'd be very surprised if you were that adaptable. Please don't
> > take that as an insult of any type, I'm certainly not that adaptable,
> > and I have never seen anyone that is. Technique change takes a lot of
> > time and practice, simply changing the machine will not cause it, and
> > if you do happen to do something different on the water tahn you do on
> > the Erg, that will be another first. Experience has shown me that no
> > technical flaw on the Ergo has improved when placing the person in a
> > boat.
> >
>
> No insult taken. The adaptations that I'm talking about are things as simple
> as the difference between rowing by yourself in a quad, to rowing with the
> other three rowing as well. There is a difference, perhaps not major
> difference in _what_ you do, but quite major in how it feels. That's similar
> to the difference in C2 and RP. And I know that I change how I think about
> what I do, and perhaps more importantly, I change what I do to achieve the
> same technique (bladework, if that makes sense!)
This difference is really just the speed of movements changing, and
should not be mechanically different, and most importantly the ratios
of all movements should remain the same.
> Incidentally, I can modify my technique almost completely, very simply and
> easily, and I suspect anyone can. The modifications are wrong. The
> difficulty is to modify your technique in the right direction... :)
>
> Jeremy
Excellent point! I generally ask my rowers, "Now can you do it
correctly, on purpose?". [;o)
- Paul Smith
PaulS
> >
> >What is an "ignorant plonker"? Must be what you consider me to be
> >since I have no idea what it means.
> Paul-
> An "ignorant plonker", in that context, is someone unwilling or too slow
> to grasp what you seem to regard as the self-evident truth of what you
> repeatedly assert. That's how you seem to treat those who trouble to
> question your assertions
Well it's settled then, you do consider me to be an ingnorant plonker,
whish I suppose it at least partially true. [;o)
>
> > I'm still in favor of Newtonian
> >physics, but not just the parts that I pick and chose, the entire
> >frame must be considered.
>
> In which case, rather than repeatedly assert that what you believe must
> be true - by shouting down all other views - you'll stop & take the
> trouble to show mathematically that the reactions between the moving
> masses on different ergometers are as you claim.
>
> The maths will be simple - the sort some of us did at age 16 or less -
> so even now it shouldn't overtax us despite the decrease of our mental
> capacities through age. We remain open to, nay welcome, the possibility
> that a competent mathematical argument from you might support your
> assertions. Who knows, we might have missed a key element.
>
> OTOH, if you can't make that mathematical case then your argument is
> without foundation.
I hope that my ability (or lack thereof) to make the mathematical case
regarding my argument is not the sole measure of it's validity. If
that is the case, many things we agree on have "no foundation".
>
> The justification for lightweight rowing is not dissimilar to that for
> weight categories in wrestling, weight-lifting, boxing, etc. In rowing
> it is a simple fact of displacement vessel performance that a bigger
> boat with a bigger, heavier engine has a higher potential speed. Eights
> are faster than fours, etc. What you should be acknowledging is how
> brilliantly the performances of some lightweights overcome that physical
> hurdle. And perhaps you should be puzzling why the closeness, in some
> cases actual superiority, of lightweight performances to those of
> heavies is conveniently ignored by heavies when mouthing off against
> lightweights.
I would not think it would be similar to the sports you mention, but
if you argued for weight classifications in cycling, then we might be
a bit closer. The two sports both use equipment to support the
athletes bodyweight. Of course then you would have to admit that the
LW's are at an advantage due the the results of cycling events and
this would be contrary to the rowing argument. I don't puzzle too
much over the closeness, because I think they should compete on equal
scales since naval engineers like yourself take such things as total
weight into account when designing hulls for maximum efficiency. I
will continue to puzzle over the apparent fact that a hull can be
"over" or "under" loaded for optimal wetted surface and waterline.
intuitively it seems that overloading is obvious, but the less load
should not be a problem. Probably has to do with certain "fixed
costs" in the surface area, but I'll take your word for it rather than
making you attempt and explanation. (I probably couldn't understand it
anyway.)
> >
> >Sheesh Carl, lighten up.
>
> Which is what people often protest when taken to task for themselves
> coming in mob-handed.
"Guilty as charged", I am a bit provocative, but that's what makes
this so fun. (You brought up the Flat Earth Society and the Anti-moon
visit groups, so your assertions that I am being any more ridiculous
by inserting a tiny bit of politics [Oh wait, it was you who did the
inserting.] into the discussion is a tad bit disingenuous.)
> You're up in
> Washington State, so what possible business is it of yours either?
None, it's just good political theatre.
>
> So please drop that utterly irrelevant political stuff. Just give us,
> if you can, your mathematical analysis to prove your repeated assertions
> that there is no material difference between different types of ergs.
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
Fair enough. I'll enlist the help of some smart folks like yourself
(I have an actual "rocket scientist" in a sculling class that seems to
understand the problem as I am approaching it, and he probably
possesses the mathematical skill that I do not). If I do manage to
shore up my "foundation", is it really going to make some difference
in the world, or even to you for that matter, or most importantly,
what does it get me that I do not already have? It seems that others
have more to gain, if I can manage to break it down into small enough
bits to be understood, than I do. I already can use it to coach my
rowers to higher performance levels.
What is your opinion regarding Fixed Vs Sliding Riggers anyway, I
think I recall that you do not think there is any particular advantage
one way or another, but how can that be any different (Except in
reverse [1=1=1 I think is the proper mathematical representation])
than the "Floating" Vs "Fixed" Ergo problem. (Apologies if I
misremembered your position on that.)
- Paul Smith
PaulS
> "PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c07ac95a.03101...@posting.google.com...
> snip
> > Before anyone goes off on a physics dissertation, first answer the
> > following question: If it is going to take more energy to move a
> > particular mass back and forth on a virtually frictionless surface,
> > how much mass can not be moved? And if you have to get near the total
> > mass of the Universe to even be plausible, how does that relate in any
> > way to a 100Kg rower and a 35Kg Machine?
> >
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> can we answer that one without "going off on a physics dissertation"?
>
> Elsewhere you say you agree with Newton, but want to consider the whole
> picture, now you want a "virtually frictionless surface".
What's the problem with that? The Hammer and feather fell at the same
rate on the Moon, or hollywood sound stage if you prefer. [;o)
> How about considering a billiard ball, oscillating back and forth between
> opposite cushions.
> think about how the mass of the ball would effect the energy of the system.
>
> Neil
>
>
> we could talk of a pendulum, and
YES! Now this is quite a brilliant analogy, while the mass of the
pendulum could be different, the cycle is determined by gravity and is
constant for an intial arc. The initial arc will take different
amounts of energy to establish, but only for a single application.
(Just so long as there are no losses to friction)
I think the billiard ball dissipates energy into the rails too quickly
to be a clear representation of the principle.
One of my favorite desktop novelties is a pendulum that is a magnet
and the base has several magnets on it so that as the end of the
pendulum comes close it is either attracted or repelled (based on
polarity) producing a very interesting pattern of behaviors. I find
it quite fascinating, probably due to the "simple things for simple
minds" truism. [;o)
Now I'm not sure how we are going to apply that to our rowing problem
at hand, but now that we are clear on pendulum behavior, you can
probably help me out with that part. It has given me a good idea for
a model though. Thank you!
- Paul Smith
Andrew Trimble
this question, but as someone who used a C2 on slides for the first
time the other day, I'd be interested in an explanation of the
following (I'm sure it's been in the previous physics, but I'm a
philosopher so not good with mumbers)
When I tried a quick max burst on the slides I experienced two things
for the first time ever
1) A split of 1:29 (I'm small)
2) A rating of 56 spm
Neither of which I have been able to reproduce on a static erg.
Is this an adaptation of my technique, or merely that the overall work
done is the same but at a higher rate or some such?
Humour the non-physicist please!
A
(andrew [at]intouchdesign dot net)
David Gillbe
> if you argued for weight classifications in cycling, then we might be
> a bit closer.
Rubbish. (IMHO)
People who've won the Tour de France (which most people would accept as
being the peak of the sport) over the last few years:
5'10" 170 lbs
5'8" 123 lbs
5'8" 159 lbs
6'2" 176 lbs
6'0" 157 lbs
(Disclaimer - Weights are all randomly looked up from Google, and may not be
the weight when they won the tour, but they have at least raced at some time
as a top pro at that weight)
This doesn't prove quite as well as I'd hope that people of all heights and
builds can succeed in cycling, but I think it gives a pretty good picture. I
imagine that very few (any? - anyone know) people below 6'0 or 170 lbs has
won a heavyweight rowing Olympic or world champs medal in the last 15 years
or so? I'm no expert on the maths, and I don't claim to be, but I do think
that cyclists of all shapes and sizes can win races (and I speak on that
from personal experience as well, I've been thrashed by the tall and the
small alike).
I'm afraid I can't back up my slightly loose evidence with a solid theory as
to why this might be - I don't have the time at the moment, but I'm sure
there must be a reason - anyone got any thoughts - perhaps relating to
weight power ratios on a bike being affected less be rolling resistance and
more by air resistance? Not really sure other here!
Perhaps the extremes in height may struggle on a bike (below 5'5" or above
6'4"). On the other hand, the extremes in height are likely to thrive in
rowing (as coxes below 5'5" and as rowers above 6'2"). I think any sport
that excludes the "average" (obviously only in terms of physical stature,
rather than mental abilities) citizen of the world from real Gold medal
prospects (heavyweight boxing/weightlifting etc. etc.) deserves a system
which allows those of more average proportions to compete. This comes to the
question of whether sporting success is a question of how technically good
you are, how hard you've trained, how determined you are etc. or does it
become a question of how "big" your genes are?
felipe
> > I would not think it would be similar to the sports you mention, but
> > if you argued for weight classifications in cycling, then we might be
> > a bit closer.
>
> Rubbish. (IMHO)
> People who've won the Tour de France (which most people would accept as
> being the peak of the sport) over the last few years:
> 5'10" 170 lbs
> 5'8" 123 lbs
> 5'8" 159 lbs
> 6'2" 176 lbs
> 6'0" 157 lbs
Wasn't Induran (yeah I know I mispelled that) 6'5" and around 180?
In your defense, many people (including himself) attribute Lance's
improvement post-chemo to the loss of 15 or 20 lbs. I think he went
about 6', 183 before chemo. I think I read someone analyzing his
improvement and being able to explain *all* of it by the loss of those
15 lbs. Don't know if I believe that ...
Tour biking and running both have a vertical component, which makes
being light especially useful. Cyclists who do velodrome events tend
to be a little bulkier, if memory serves; less up-and-down. If I
recall, there's an abstract of a study comparing Kenyan and European
long distance runners to see why Kenyans are so good (summary is on
that UK Pipeline site). They found no differenece in diet,
muscle-fiber, VO2, etc. They did find that Kenyans started "training"
much earlier (by running to school as kids, running to market, etc.).
But the biggest difference is that elite Kenyan runners were 10 or 15
lbs lighter than elite European runners. And that explained most of
the difference in performance.
Anyway, my point is that weight is a disadvantage if you're biking up
hills or have to constantly jump from one foot to the next for 10k or
26 mi. Rowing by its nature is on perfectly flat water.
Carl Douglas
>> >since I have no idea what it means.
>> Paul-
>> An "ignorant plonker", in that context, is someone unwilling or too slow
>> to grasp what you seem to regard as the self-evident truth of what you
>> repeatedly assert. That's how you seem to treat those who trouble to
>> question your assertions
>
>Well it's settled then, you do consider me to be an ingnorant plonker,
>whish I suppose it at least partially true. [;o)
Oh dear, such a willing martyr! Paul, it's simple English, our common
tongue. Don't go inverting the sense of my sentence just to punish
yourself. I was stating that you tend to treat your technical critics
as if they were less than competent. Didn't anyone tell you it was a
mistake to underestimate the intelligence of others?
>
>>
>> > I'm still in favor of Newtonian
>> >physics, but not just the parts that I pick and chose, the entire
>> >frame must be considered.
>>
>> In which case, rather than repeatedly assert that what you believe must
>> be true - by shouting down all other views - you'll stop & take the
>> trouble to show mathematically that the reactions between the moving
>> masses on different ergometers are as you claim.
>>
>> The maths will be simple - the sort some of us did at age 16 or less -
>> so even now it shouldn't overtax us despite the decrease of our mental
>> capacities through age. We remain open to, nay welcome, the possibility
>> that a competent mathematical argument from you might support your
>> assertions. Who knows, we might have missed a key element.
>>
>> OTOH, if you can't make that mathematical case then your argument is
>> without foundation.
>
>I hope that my ability (or lack thereof) to make the mathematical case
>regarding my argument is not the sole measure of it's validity. If
>that is the case, many things we agree on have "no foundation".
In a technical argument such as this, where you have already simply
ignored the simple maths some of us have offered, I'm afraid inability
to counter our maths will invalidate your case. But were we discussing
artistic merit, cookery or what a fine guy the new Governator might be
(& he might), then maths probably has no relevance.
>
>>
>> The justification for lightweight rowing is not dissimilar to that for
>> weight categories in wrestling, weight-lifting, boxing, etc. In rowing
>> it is a simple fact of displacement vessel performance that a bigger
>> boat with a bigger, heavier engine has a higher potential speed. Eights
>> are faster than fours, etc. What you should be acknowledging is how
>> brilliantly the performances of some lightweights overcome that physical
>> hurdle. And perhaps you should be puzzling why the closeness, in some
>> cases actual superiority, of lightweight performances to those of
>> heavies is conveniently ignored by heavies when mouthing off against
>> lightweights.
>
>I would not think it would be similar to the sports you mention, but
>if you argued for weight classifications in cycling, then we might be
>a bit closer. The two sports both use equipment to support the
>athletes bodyweight. Of course then you would have to admit that the
>LW's are at an advantage due the the results of cycling events and
>this would be contrary to the rowing argument.
No, I would argue no such thing. David has already provided the sort of
data I'd offer against that argument. I'd simply add that, due to its
concentration on the lower body, the endurance nature of much cycling
(rowing is middle distance) & the particularly adverse consequences of
wind resistance, fast cyclists come that smaller than heavyweight rowers
like you, Paul.
> I don't puzzle too
>much over the closeness, because I think they should compete on equal
>scales since naval engineers like yourself take such things as total
>weight into account when designing hulls for maximum efficiency. I
>will continue to puzzle over the apparent fact that a hull can be
>"over" or "under" loaded for optimal wetted surface and waterline.
>intuitively it seems that overloading is obvious, but the less load
>should not be a problem. Probably has to do with certain "fixed
>costs" in the surface area, but I'll take your word for it rather than
>making you attempt and explanation. (I probably couldn't understand it
>anyway.)
We could cover such issues in another thread at another time, if you so
wish. Suffice to say I tell no lies. The evidence before us all of the
superior speed of eights over smaller boats rams that message home.
>
>> >
>> >Sheesh Carl, lighten up.
>>
>> Which is what people often protest when taken to task for themselves
>> coming in mob-handed.
>
>"Guilty as charged", I am a bit provocative, but that's what makes
>this so fun. (You brought up the Flat Earth Society and the Anti-moon
>visit groups, so your assertions that I am being any more ridiculous
>by inserting a tiny bit of politics [Oh wait, it was you who did the
>inserting.] into the discussion is a tad bit disingenuous.)
I find Limbaugh politics as indigestible as Marxist-Leninist. I detest
persecution of individuals or masses & discrimination on skin colour
(either way) or any other identifiable attribute. So I'm glad we are
quickly out of that particular wood in this discussion.
>
>> You're up in
>> Washington State, so what possible business is it of yours either?
>
>None, it's just good political theatre.
>
>>
>> So please drop that utterly irrelevant political stuff. Just give us,
>> if you can, your mathematical analysis to prove your repeated assertions
>> that there is no material difference between different types of ergs.
>>
>> Cheers -
>> Carl
>
>Fair enough. I'll enlist the help of some smart folks like yourself
>(I have an actual "rocket scientist" in a sculling class that seems to
>understand the problem as I am approaching it, and he probably
>possesses the mathematical skill that I do not). If I do manage to
>shore up my "foundation", is it really going to make some difference
>in the world, or even to you for that matter, or most importantly,
>what does it get me that I do not already have? It seems that others
>have more to gain, if I can manage to break it down into small enough
>bits to be understood, than I do. I already can use it to coach my
>rowers to higher performance levels.
That's exactly what this discussion (& earlier ones on rowing's inertial
dynamics, or whatever we choose to call it) ought to be about - getting
closer to understanding the complex interactions between boat & crew on
water.
The resulting insights should indeed help us to break down what we do
into its meaningful components while at the same time stripping away
>150 years of accumulated unscientific mumbo-jumbo, the mindless
spouting of which presently incommodes our sport.
>
>What is your opinion regarding Fixed Vs Sliding Riggers anyway, I
>think I recall that you do not think there is any particular advantage
>one way or another, but how can that be any different (Except in
>reverse [1=1=1 I think is the proper mathematical representation])
>than the "Floating" Vs "Fixed" Ergo problem. (Apologies if I
>misremembered your position on that.)
The evidence is that the sliding rigger gave no discernible superiority
in performance at the expense of significant mechanical complication of
a simple sport. No tears were shed at its passing, contrary to the
urban myths which have since evolved.
Of late there have been ludicrous attempts by some coaches close to a
certain erg maker to persuade a gullible public that fixed-head ergs
(e.g. C-II) resemble conventional rowing & sliding head (Rowperfect)
ergs resemble sliding riggers. That is such a load of what Nick terms
"bollocks" that those who advanced it should hang their heads in shame.
But such is the mechanistic ignorance within our sport that such
utterances made without shame & swallowed as gospel.
Sad, isn't it?
PaulS
> > if you argued for weight classifications in cycling, then we might be
> > a bit closer.
>
> Rubbish. (IMHO)
Wow! You like contention almost as much as I do, however you are not
disagreeing with the point I was making, but confirming it. [;o)
I raced cycles at 6'1.5"/240lbs and could perform respectably but not
really quite at the top of the pack, downhill and levelw were fine, it
was just the hauling the weight up the hills that seemed where I would
get lost and have to play catch-up.
The idea of "average" folks being able to achieve an award for the
pinacle of performance, is pretty silly on it's face, isn't it? There
have been some super performers that did not possess what would have
appeared to be the "optimal" genotype for their chosen sport, but they
competed right along with the ones that were more genetically endowed,
this is what made their performances so great. If we decide that they
must compete in their own class then we would be guilty of devaluing
their performance. i.e. "That was a great performance, for a LW." (Or
is the "for a LW" just supposed to remain unspoken? I'd much rather
just say "That was a great performance!", but since the class was
created it becomes qualified whether spoken or not.) It's too bad this
is not so obvious to everyone.
- Paul Smith (Too short to be HW, too heavy to be LW, but what the
heck I'll give it a go anyway.) This is not a complaint or an excuse,
we are what we are, now get to work if you want to achieve more, and
don't wait for someone to create a class that assists in your
"success".
PaulS
> Not sure that this is entirely the right thread to jump into and post
> this question, but as someone who used a C2 on slides for the first
> time the other day, I'd be interested in an explanation of the
> following (I'm sure it's been in the previous physics, but I'm a
> philosopher so not good with mumbers)
>
> When I tried a quick max burst on the slides I experienced two things
> for the first time ever
> 1) A split of 1:29 (I'm small)
The split is a conversion from Avg Watt ouput for the stroke, to "boat
speed".
Watts are being absorbed by the flywheel during the drive and the
recovery.
You can not pull any harder when on slides, but can generally rush the
recovery better (as indicated by the SR=56).
This reduces the overall time of the stroke and since watts =
joules/sec, you have effectively made the divisor smaller, which by
definition will make the result larger)
> 2) A rating of 56 spm
You most likely do not have a very good body recovery and this is
being covered up by the use of the slides. Keep the SR the same, on
and off the slides, and you will see that there is no magic there.
If you want to cheat the PM even more, increase the DF a lot and rush
the recovery even more on the slides, you may surpass your earlier
result. [;o)
> Neither of which I have been able to reproduce on a static erg.
>
> Is this an adaptation of my technique, or merely that the overall work
> done is the same but at a higher rate or some such?
The work done on the drive may be the same (it could even be less),
but it is just being done more frequently. Getting caught up in this
is the downfall of many ergers, they start to trade rate for pace for
minor gains in "performance" and then run out of rate to trade.
- Paul Smith
Neil Wallace
snip
>. But were we discussing
> artistic merit, cookery or what a fine guy the new Governator might be
> (& he might),
steroid abuse and gang banging not qualities I admire in a chap... but I
suppose as politicians go...
Neil Wallace
snip
> - Paul Smith (Too short to be HW, too heavy to be LW, but what the
> heck I'll give it a go anyway.)
I'm the same Paul.
I'm not carping on about it..
I have incorrect limb proportions for rowing also, I suppose.
Perhaps I should consider gender reassignment surgery.. might help me be
slightly less mediocre.
Seriously though, I personally share your distaste for the LW category in
rowing, although, unlike you, I would like to press for a more generous
handicapping system to be introduced such that our sport attracted all
shapes and sizes, at least at club level.
Height-weight-sex-power.
Quite a good boat name that eh?
m...@my.net
>The evidence is that the sliding rigger gave no discernible superiority
>in performance at the expense of significant mechanical complication of
>a simple sport. No tears were shed at its passing, contrary to the
>urban myths which have since evolved.
from http://www.rowinghistory.net/Equipment.htm
"The boat speed can be significantly improved by trading the sliding
seat for a sliding rigger. This increases boat efficiency because body
mass remains still on the fixed seat while the rigger/footstretcher unit
slides. With body mass stationary, the boat doesn't pitch bow to stern
nearly as much, thus, less hull resistance is incurred.
<snip>
Around 1981 Empacher Bootswerft (GER) perfected the device using modern
materials and hardware. Germany's outstanding sculler, P. Kolbe, won the
FISA World Championship in it and everyone rushed to get a new boat with
the mechanism. At the 1982 World Championships 1st through 5th place
used sliding-rigger boats while the only sliding-seat boat in the finals
placed 6th."
Ewoud Dronkert
> - Paul Smith (Too short to be HW, too heavy to be LW
The reason you cannot be either is your lack of X chromosomes. "LW"
stands for Lightweight Women, HW is not an official abbreviation but
can be explained as Heavyweight Women. In your sentence, use hwt./lwt.
m...@my.net
>If you want to cheat the PM even more, increase the DF a lot and rush
>the recovery even more on the slides, you may surpass your earlier
>result. [;o)
How is it cheating? Isn't the PM just reporting the amount of power
produced?
Also what's wrong with rating higher? I remember in a previous thread
you compared a 2k test rating 38 and 2k test rating 22 (ish). You
implied that the person with the lower rating was a better athlete. But
who races rating 22 in a boat? Where as I've read that the Oxford spare
pair raced a mile rating roughly 40.
Sorry I don't mean to be rude. I'm very new to rowing and would like to
know what you think.
David Gillbe
> disagreeing with the point I was making, but confirming it. [;o)
> I raced cycles at 6'1.5"/240lbs and could perform respectably but not
> really quite at the top of the pack, downhill and levelw were fine, it
> was just the hauling the weight up the hills that seemed where I would
> get lost and have to play catch-up.
My point exactly (though I didn't say this earlier, I'd hoped I wouldn't
need to).
In cycling there is enough room for people of different heights and weights
to perform. Therefore, they *can* play "catch-up".
In rowing, someone 5'8" has no chance of winning an Olympic heavyweight Gold
medal, whereas people from a large spread of builds can win cycling medals.
Following this argument to its (I hope) logical conclusion suggests that
having different weight categories for rowing is no difference to having the
difference between a 100k road race and a 500m sprint for cyclists at the
Olympics - people of different stature win medals at each event.
I'd be interested to see how you disagree with this? Do other people agree
or disagree?
Neil Wallace
<m...@my.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.58.03...@texel19.doc.ic.ac.uk...
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, PaulS wrote:
>
> >If you want to cheat the PM even more, increase the DF a lot and rush
> >the recovery even more on the slides, you may surpass your earlier
> >result. [;o)
>
> How is it cheating? Isn't the PM just reporting the amount of power
> produced?
>
you are correct, it isn't cheating.
Ratios for rowing aren't set in stone. You have to find your own cadence,
and optimise the DF for yourself, in the same way we all struggle to
individualise our rigging.
> Also what's wrong with rating higher? I remember in a previous thread
> you compared a 2k test rating 38 and 2k test rating 22 (ish). You
> implied that the person with the lower rating was a better athlete.
The ability to score well at low ratings implies great strength.
There is nothing wrong with high ratings.
If the PM maths is correct, then power is power.
If the PM maths is correct then, at all flywheel velocities, ratings and
drag factors then
stroke energy = force x distance of handle
and power = stroke energy / time to complete a stroke.
if Paul is implying otherwise, then let's hear his reasoning. He may well
have found a flaw in the algorithms used whilst developing his (rowperfect
like) software... let's hope he has the balls to divulge it!
I'll divulge 2 things I have heard about the concept system of power
management.
1. it adds a value per stroke to account for work on the slide.
2. power dissipation (on model C) is not proportional to the angular
velocity cubed across all range of flywheel speeds - due to poor design of
crescent shaped air intake.
Carl Douglas
And the same "noted authority" wrote:
"The traditional wooden boat builders had to either transform
themselves from craftsmen to materials engineers or close
their doors. Many didn't make the transition. Besides
Empacher, new company names appeared: Carbocraft
(England), Schoenbrod (USA), Van Dusen (USA), Hudson
(Canada), Carbocraft-USA now known as Vespoli USA.
Some builders did make the transition: Pocock (USA),
Stampfli (Switzerland), Kaschper (Canada) to name a few.
"The result of this transformation from wood to carbon
fiber/honeycomb/epoxy is that boats weigh less. Wooden
eights in the 1950s were 300 pounds while eights in 2000
are a little over 200 pounds. They don't glow with the same
beauty, heart and soul as the wooden craft, but they're much
stiffer, stronger, more durable, can be more easily repaired
and require less maintenance than their predecessors."
There is so much that is technically wrong with those 2 paragraphs I
hardly know where to begin. To be frank, the author may be an assiduous
historian but he simply hasn't a clue what he's talking about as regards
the supposed (but illusory) merits of the sliding rigger or the weights,
stiffness or durability of boats made of, or with, wood.
1. There is no evidence of a sudden fall in times over 2k during the era
of the sliding rigger, or of a subsequent rise in those times once it
was dropped. P-M Kolbe was going to win & he did. He was winning
before the sliding rigger, & he won plenty after. Women were much less
taken in by the sliding rigger's supposed merits & in its last year only
one used it in the Worlds - with no success.
2. My firm, Graeme King's firm & some others still build totally
competitive shells of wooden or largely wooden construction, & feel no
need to switch materials in pursuit of the herd.
3. Eights in the 1950's did not weigh much, or any, more than eights
weigh now. The suggestion of 300lb for a typical wooden shell eight is
ludicrous.
4. When I challenged the crazy Carbocraft hype in the late '70s (they
were promoting boats "so light that they are unfair to the opposition",
& claiming their eights weighed under 60kg/133lb), their prime
journalistic exponent - to his lasting credit - arranged weight tests of
a range of boats.
To his astonishment, Richard Burnell discovered by these tests that the
hulls of Karlisch (wooden) & Carbocraft (carbon/glass/epoxy) eights were
identical in weight, any differences being due to the clunky Karlisch
fittings versus the insubstantial Carbocraft kit.
He also learned that the lightest - by far - of all the singles then
accessible to him for testing was a "Carl Douglas" (wooden).
5. As for stiffness, strength & durability of modern wood-based
construction - just ask owners of our boats.
6. Finally, do please remember that one of these so-called materials
engineers (my hat!) recently advised one of his clients not to use one
of his boats for the recent crossing of the Straits of Dover in single
sculls. And I've heard makers of modern carbon/Kevlar/epoxy boats
specifically advise would-be clients that their boats were "strictly
racing machines, good for only a couple of seasons"! But my fairly
veteran client, Bob Gullett, took his rather elderly "Carl Douglas"
across the Straits with never a qualm or problem. And, to their credit,
my friends at Resolute were just as happy for Guin Batten to borrow one
of their carbon singles for the same trip.
So, me@my, I think you should take what you hear from rowing historians,
especially its technical content, with more than a pinch of salt. Some
people will write almost anything to fill up a good story, & you'd do
better to learn about technology from the technical experts than from
the wordsmiths out to write an interesting yarn.
HTH
Henry Braun
> In cycling there is enough room for people of different heights and weights
> to perform. Therefore, they *can* play "catch-up".
> In rowing, someone 5'8" has no chance of winning an Olympic heavyweight Gold
> medal, whereas people from a large spread of builds can win cycling medals.
> Following this argument to its (I hope) logical conclusion suggests that
> having different weight categories for rowing is no difference to having the
> difference between a 100k road race and a 500m sprint for cyclists at the
> Olympics - people of different stature win medals at each event.
> I'd be interested to see how you disagree with this? Do other people agree
> or disagree?
I disagree. In any sport you can only use what you've been given, and
almost all the population are the wrong shape to be world-class in any
particular event. In most athletic disciplines, like running, cycling,
swimming, and so forth, the different events seem to have evolved
principally to provide some variation for the participants, with
qualitative difference between the events. People specialise in what they
are best at, but there's no theoretical reason why a sprinter can't
compete against a distance cyclist, or a rower switch to sculls, or what
have you. Not only athletics, but other sports and games follow this
model, where different events develop reflecting the different resources
that participants can bring to the sport, whether time, equipment, or
number of friends. Different classes of sailing boats, first-class and
one-day cricket, fifteen-a-side rugby and rugby sevens: the plurality of
events is not about opening top-level competition up to people who'd
otherwise be second class.
The special case is that of boxing and wrestling sports, where without a
matched opponent you can't really train or compete at all. From your first
day in a boxing club you'll be paired with and spar against people in your
weight class. So any competition, however informal, or at the most novice
level, has a lightweight division or the sport must turn people away.
This is emphatically not the case for oar sports. Rowers and scullers
learn their skills together in mixed weight boats, and any two crews can
row against each other meaningfully without worrying about their
respective sizes. Lightweight rowing only exists at the elite level, where
clubs are large enough to sort crews by size and rowers are sufficiently
committed to their sport to make maintaining a lightweight physique a
full-time occupation. And there is no difference in technique or necessary
aptitudes, or variation in the experience for the rowers, to make
lightweight rowing a separate event within the sport.
Maybe, if a good big 'un will always beat a good little 'un, there is a
case for somebody to offer handicapped races, with heavyweight crews
carrying sand. But the better way to go is to offer genuinely different
competition, over sprint and distance courses, so that the good people can
find their own specialities. Artificially hiving off the ten percent or so
of rowers who can force themselves to the arbitrary weight required, and
investing in them rather than those marginally heavier or lighter, really
adds nothing to our sport at all.
Marc Gwadz
large, powerful cyclists have an advantage on the flats, or downhill. small cyclists with high strength to weight ratios do MUCH better climbing hills (of greater than 1km). so, it depends entirely on what type of event you are comparing in addtion to body types.
assume 2 athletes, skilled at rowing and biking and both super-fit : a 6'4", 205 hwt, and a 6', 160 lb lwt.
the difference in speed between the 2 in rowing would be likely be slight, a couple of percent in a sprint depending on wind direction, and even less in a headrace (witness 155 lb steve tucker vs. olympic heavyweight scullers at the head of the charles- even considering homefield advantage- 0.4% behind duncan free over 3 miles, 2002)
if these same atheletes competed on a hill climb bike race, the lwt would have a huge adavantage. as the atheltes scale up, mass increases with the cube of the linear dimension, and strength by only the square. so, the bigger athlete suffers from a decreased strength to weight ratio.
if you watch the US tour de france coverage, paul sherwin will repeatedly refer to american goerge hinacappie as "huge" and "dragging his big carcass over the mountains". george is a solid climber at 185 lbs, but he will never "catch-up" to the real climbers on a hill race. marco pantani, a pure climber, weighs 125 lbs. and typically fares poorly in the power event, the TT.
tour de france winners are more all-rounders- they must survive the flats, hills, and the time trial. they need not be the best at any particular type of stage.
according to joe friel, author of several "bibles" of training road cyclists, mtn bikers, and triathletes, an elite climber will weigh no more than 2 lbs per inch of height. larger rowers can exploit extra mass without a debilitating penalty, since it is a non-weigth bearing sport and don't have to combat gravity. cyclists, on the other hand, pay a big penalty for excess weight in climbing. and our large model rower will likely never compete successfully in an elite hill climbing event.
in 2002, armstrong said he knew ulrich was oput of shape because he was carrying an extra 2 kilos. those guys obsess over weight, knowing that every ounce makes a difference.
i'm not saying that lwts aren't at a disadvantage in rowing, just that in cycling events involving significant climbing. the penalty is worse for large athletes in cycling.
this phenomenon is well-recognized. there are clydesdale classes for larger folk in mountain biking, running, and triathlon. you just don't see them at the olympics.
marc gwadz
PaulS
> PaulS <paul_v...@hotmail.com> writes
> >Carl Douglas <Ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >What is an "ignorant plonker"? Must be what you consider me to be
> >> >since I have no idea what it means.
> >> Paul-
> >> An "ignorant plonker", in that context, is someone unwilling or too slow
> >> to grasp what you seem to regard as the self-evident truth of what you
> >> repeatedly assert. That's how you seem to treat those who trouble to
> >> question your assertions
> >
> >Well it's settled then, you do consider me to be an ingnorant plonker,
> >whish I suppose it at least partially true. [;o)
>
> Oh dear, such a willing martyr! Paul, it's simple English, our common
> tongue. Don't go inverting the sense of my sentence just to punish
> yourself. I was stating that you tend to treat your technical critics
> as if they were less than competent.
No martyrdom intended, I'm just secure in my position even in the face
of being called (or implied) an "ignorant plonker" (not common English
over here).
Truly, I've been called far worse and just the sound of "plonker" is
rather pleasant to my ear.
> Didn't anyone tell you it was a
> mistake to underestimate the intelligence of others?
> >
Only those that mistakenly think I am underestimating their
intelligence.
[Big snip]
> >
> >What is your opinion regarding Fixed Vs Sliding Riggers anyway, I
> >think I recall that you do not think there is any particular advantage
> >one way or another, but how can that be any different (Except in
> >reverse [1=1=1 I think is the proper mathematical representation])
> >than the "Floating" Vs "Fixed" Ergo problem. (Apologies if I
> >misremembered your position on that.)
>
> The evidence is that the sliding rigger gave no discernible superiority
> in performance at the expense of significant mechanical complication of
> a simple sport. No tears were shed at its passing, contrary to the
> urban myths which have since evolved.
Seriously now, given the choice between a boat that pitches fore and
aft and one that remains evenly trim, the evenly trim boat must
produce less resistance. Once again, maybe we are seeing the same
type of difference as with 'fixed' and 'dynamic' Ergos, there is no
advantage of one to the other, but individuals may see performance
differences based on their particular set of technical flaws being
forgiven more on one than the other.
> Of late there have been ludicrous attempts by some coaches close to a
> certain erg maker to persuade a gullible public that fixed-head ergs
> (e.g. C-II) resemble conventional rowing & sliding head (Rowperfect)
> ergs resemble sliding riggers. That is such a load of what Nick terms
> "bollocks" that those who advanced it should hang their heads in shame.
> But such is the mechanistic ignorance within our sport that such
> utterances made without shame & swallowed as gospel.
>
> Sad, isn't it?
I haven't actually heard of anyone making that comparison of the
machines, but it is a marketing tact that makes a lot of sense, given
the ease of "selling" the idea. Very similar to saying something like
the RP is a far superior boat simulator because it's floating head is
the same mass as a rowers share of true boat weight. But that's how
all of this got started now isn't it?
I don't lie either, and have gone from rowing a C2 on the ground to a
C2 on Slides to a Pair of C2's on Slides (the second merely along for
the ride) to a Row Perfect, and aside from the visual differences,
there is no difference in the energy requirements at the same stroke
rate and power level. (Actually the RP is a little different due to
the nature of the software, but that is truly a difference in
software, not hardware.)
Indeed, now if a RowPerfect were to be placed on C2 Slides, would the
balance of the universe be maintained? Hmmm..... [;o)
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
- Paul Smith
PaulS
Ha! Pretty funny! Seems you understood quite well.
"Heavyweight Women" aye?, good luck when you try to pull that one.
So are you really saying that M = "Men" and LM != "Men"? Exactly why
there should not be a distinction.
Maybe the "official" abbreviations should be more clear:
HW = Heavy Weight, I suppose simply "H" would work
LW = Light Weight, I suppose simply "L" would work
M = Men
W = Women
Now combine as you like.
HWM (HM or M) > LWM (LM) > HWW (HW or W) > LWW (LW), maybe. [;o)
- Paul Smith
Ewoud Dronkert
> Maybe the "official" abbreviations should be more clear:
They are what they are:
M = Men, open class;
LM = Lightweight Men;
W = Women, open class;
LW = Lightweight Women.
See FISA results.
PaulS
What was I disagreeing with? You making my point? I think not, I'll
accept it as being made.
All of the Olympic Rowing races are 2K. Why should there be any
special class so that a person 5'8" can have a better chance of
winning a gold medal? They won't get to play in the NBA either.
All people are NOT equally qualified to be athletic, we should stop
trying to make unequal things equal by manipulating the math, just
accept them as they are. Everything else is just an excuse and
frankly is insulting to the top performers, as if they have not really
achieved something special through their efforts but merely because
they had particularly good genetics. What a bunch of crap, look at
Lance Armstrong, he went from nothing to the top cyclist in the world
AFTER surviving cancer that ravaged his body, he rebuilt himself in an
optimal way for his chosen sport and there are probably people that
will claim "I'd be as good as him if only I survived cancer.", more
crap of course, how about he works harder than you, that's why he is
faster.
One of the problems is that we generally get to only see the end
performance, not the work that goes into getting there, and in many
cases that work is so unbelievably hard that very few ever do it, the
ones that do it make no excuses. The excuse makers think that they
worked harder than anyone else.
Maybe there should be rowing events of different lengths if that is
your concern.
- Paul Smith
PaulS
> <m...@my.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.58.03...@texel19.doc.ic.ac.uk...
> > On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, PaulS wrote:
> >
> > >If you want to cheat the PM even more, increase the DF a lot and rush
> > >the recovery even more on the slides, you may surpass your earlier
> > >result. [;o)
> >
> > How is it cheating? Isn't the PM just reporting the amount of power
> > produced?
> >
>
> you are correct, it isn't cheating.
> Ratios for rowing aren't set in stone. You have to find your own cadence,
> and optimise the DF for yourself, in the same way we all struggle to
> individualise our rigging.
Sorry, the physics will not conform to us, so we must conform to it,
and it has nothing to do with feeling comfortable, not if performance
is the goal.
> > Also what's wrong with rating higher? I remember in a previous thread
> > you compared a 2k test rating 38 and 2k test rating 22 (ish). You
> > implied that the person with the lower rating was a better athlete.
>
>
> The ability to score well at low ratings implies great strength.
> There is nothing wrong with high ratings.
>
> If the PM maths is correct, then power is power.
> If the PM maths is correct then, at all flywheel velocities, ratings and
> drag factors then
> stroke energy = force x distance of handle
> and power = stroke energy / time to complete a stroke.
>
> if Paul is implying otherwise, then let's hear his reasoning. He may well
> have found a flaw in the algorithms used whilst developing his (rowperfect
> like) software... let's hope he has the balls to divulge it!
Everyone seems to take this "cheating" term so personally, why is
that? By reducing the time of the stroke by rushingthe slide is
completely valid for the erg, however if you try that in a boat,
although you may feel like you are going like the wind, you will not
be, simple as that.
> I'll divulge 2 things I have heard about the concept system of power
> management.
> 1. it adds a value per stroke to account for work on the slide.
It does? I've never heard that.
> 2. power dissipation (on model C) is not proportional to the angular
> velocity cubed across all range of flywheel speeds - due to poor design of
> crescent shaped air intake.
This is merely speculation. There is something with regards to drag
factor calculation however, we found that it must have some element of
averaging in the equation, however C2 would not share the exact
formula with us, so we had to make our best guess and that is the
source of our minor error. The DF is not really a constant, as might
be suggested by being able to display a relatively stable number on
the PM2(+) and PM3.
- Paul Smith
Andrew Trimble
> > following (I'm sure it's been in the previous physics, but I'm a
> > philosopher so not good with mumbers)
> >
> > When I tried a quick max burst on the slides I experienced two things
> > for the first time ever
> > 1) A split of 1:29 (I'm small)
>
> The split is a conversion from Avg Watt ouput for the stroke, to "boat
> speed".
> Watts are being absorbed by the flywheel during the drive and the
> recovery.
> You can not pull any harder when on slides, but can generally rush the
> recovery better (as indicated by the SR=56).
Yes, I spotted the fact that I can't pull harder and recognised the
fact that the stroke rate was much higher.
> This reduces the overall time of the stroke and since watts =
> joules/sec, you have effectively made the divisor smaller, which by
> definition will make the result larger)
>
> > 2) A rating of 56 spm
>
> You most likely do not have a very good body recovery and this is
> being covered up by the use of the slides. Keep the SR the same, on
> and off the slides, and you will see that there is no magic there.
Yes I would probably have guessed that, what I was interested in was
the fact that the slides did indeed make it POSSIBLE to hit such a
ludicrously high rating, which I know I could never have achieved on a
static erg. At least not without dramatically shortening up, which
(thanks to the lovely "brutally honest" mirrors in our boathouse) I
know I wasn't doing. -At least not dramatically anyway.
>
> If you want to cheat the PM even more, increase the DF a lot and rush
> the recovery even more on the slides, you may surpass your earlier
> result. [;o)
>
Don't you just hate the way that the erg stern-checks every time that
you hit frontstops too hard? Oh no, hang on...
When it comes to doing flat out pieces on the erg I suspect that all
of us arre guilty of rushing the recovery on the erg, in fact I'm
fairly sure you could sit at backstops for a very long time waiting
for a static erg to move underneath you and let you roll back
gracefully to frontstops.
Whether you want to call it cheating or not, I find it interesting
that the slides permitted the achievement of
a) a higher rate (achieved by rushing or cheating if you like, but the
numbers were there)
b) a lower split (ditto the previous comment)
What I was also interested in (perhaps not made very clear due to
posting when exhausted, was whether the fact that using the slides is
supposed to make no difference to erg times is due to the fact that
the overall efficiency of the system is the same, and so the
achievement of the higher split is simply a change to max possible
split and as one will tire faster the overall time is likely to be the
same.
Apologies for any physics terms thoroughly abused in that last
paragraph.
Andrew
-Painting all the blades in the world at the moment
David Gillbe
> your concern.
I think Henry makes that point as well, and perhaps, that would be another
way to solve "the problem".
I put "the problem" in inverted commas since some of us clearly believe it's
a problem, while others don't. While you believe that an athlete is born, as
much as made, I'd like to think one can rely almost solely on technique,
mental toughness and lots of training to win medals. I can see where you are
coming from on that, but I expect that I am as unlikely to change your
opinion, as you are to change mine.
Perhaps which opinion you have depends on what size you are ;)
Neil Wallace
> that? By reducing the time of the stroke by rushingthe slide is
> completely valid for the erg, however if you try that in a boat,
> although you may feel like you are going like the wind, you will not
> be, simple as that.
>
Because I think we should all adhere to the mantra that you can't "Cheat a
C2". Your score is your score, irrelevant of style and rate. That is the
company line, and one which has enabled countless sucessful indoor rowing
competitions across the world.
As a boat simulator, there are problems, and for training purposes you have
to accept that (due to the physics!) using a C2 (or any ergo to a greater or
lesser extent) is very likely to induce some boat-stopping tendencies, and
you have to be very wary of letting bad habits slip in. That is the point
you keep trying to make Paul, am I right?
PaulS
Well, it all depends on why you use the Erg. Practicing bad habits
that get you a better Erg score is something that I recognize happens.
I even left Mike Spracklen nearly speechless when I asked him, "Why
do you let your rowers get away with such crappy form on the Erg?", he
did reply, "Because they score better that way".
So what you are saying is completely true, since the "cheat" is
available to everyone the eventual scores can be considered relatively
standardized.
If a coach is to simply accept the raw erg score and not account for
style, rate, and most importantly 'force profile', now that it is so
readily accessible, they are quite foolish. IMO
To carry this even one step further in our discussion, the RP and C2
on Slides are better at cleaning up the stroke around the Catch, but
the Standard C2 is better at cleaning up the finish. Subsequently,
they allow for sloppiness to creep in at different parts of the
stroke. The benefit of the RP, quoted by many, is due to the type of
bio-feedback, that up until recently, was only available there, rather
than the "dynamism" of the machine.
- Paul Smith
Charles Carroll
> on Slides are better at cleaning up the stroke around the Catch, but
> the Standard C2 is better at cleaning up the finish. Subsequently,
Paul,
Normally because my time is so constrained I avoid all discussions on RP vs.
C2. In fact I try not even to skim them.
But your comment that "the Standard C2 is better at cleaning up the finish"
is very arresting to me. Could you elaborate?
I have not used a Standard C2 since C2 started selling slides. I have also
spent the last two months focusing on my Finish -- where my pelvis should
be, the shape of my back, if my knees are hyperextended, if my abdominal
corset is braced, etc. etc. etc. I am sure you know the drill.
Cordially,
charles
PaulS
Quite likely that your normal approach is a very wise one; but onward
we go.
I found it appropriate that you used the word "arresting" to describe
my comment, here's why: While the finish sounds quite final, and
possibly a time to relax, it is far from that as you are finding with
your current focus. The first thing that must be attended to is the
arresting of the rearward momentum of our body, utilizing the pressure
against the oar handles and NOT the footstraps. (Strapless Erging)
This involves the coordination of muscles that have done their best to
support the pressure established by the legs early in the Drive, but
since the drive must come to an end, have to smoothly transition this
pressure to zero so the blade can be extracted cleanly.
Since the mass of the Erg is generally far less than our body, it is
far easier to bring it to a stop even if we do not have a solid
finish, i.e. you can bail out of the finish and not even notice when
on slides. As an experiment, try rowing at the same rate and split
while on and off the slides and also without using the straps to hold
your feet to the foot plates. If you are inclined to try this at race
pressure all the better.
After the finish has been made solid (Head and shoulders remaining
stationary for the last half of the arms draw and first half of the
arm extension), the next order of business is to pivot at the hips to
provide the initial directional change that will carry you all the way
to the catch. This is done by using some very deep "core" muscles
called the illiacus and psoas, which are attached to the femur and
illiac crest (illiacus) and Spine (psoas). These are the muscles that
we all use to initiate the movement to go from sitting to standing
every day, but are not used to very repetitive use. The best way I
have found to get rowers to do this properly is to ask them to "Lead
out of bow with your sternum", this seems to elicit the right posture
while making the usual "shoulder hunching move out of bow" nearly
impossible.
When this is done right, you will see your heels become light against
the foot plates with no bending of the knees whatsoever. Once this
has been done, there is nothing left to do but coast up to the catch
and take it at full reach.
Whether on slides, in a boat, or on a standard C2 these muscles need
to be used for the early recovery of the body, but the C2 on the
Ground is the most strenuous, especially while trying to get it right.
Once you have it down, you will be able to Erg at any normal
rate/pace without a reliance on straps to keep things from getting out
of hand (or foot as the case may be).
When you think you have the feel for keeping your body under control
throughout the stroke, take a session on the slides and then on the
ground, when these feel no different, you've got it.
The catch is a bit more tricky to work with, because you need a way to
measure force on the handle in real-time.
i.e. See ErgMonitor at http://www.ps-sport.net
When viewing a stroke profile there will generally be a notable
difference between On-Slide and On-Ground curves, this represents the
difference in how well the Althlete is controlling their body into the
catch. As control increases the early part of the drive will begin to
match more closely.
Hope that helps,
Paul Smith
PaulS
Other than the fact that we are all born, the choice of our parents
generally is not made by us, it's what we do with whatever we have
after that which will make the difference. Seems we are in the same
camp on that. This is why I go for the "no-classification" approach,
to allow for the proper recognition of achievement, without
qualifications. Isn't that what we are all about in rowing, we
congratulate the winner of the race sincerely, after all, didn't we do
everything we could to beat them and would surely appreciate the same
recognition if we were victorious?
>
> Perhaps which opinion you have depends on what size you are ;)
I think it's more due to personality type, if you are prone to think
you are the best, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
then the excuses start to fly, i.e. "Well if only I were a bit taller,
heavier, etc... I would have won." Of course the majority of the
excuses tend to be beyond control to make safe haven for the whiner.
What they need, is someone to say "stop whining and get to work!"
rather than agreeing with them and letting the perpetuate itself.
I was (am) and undertall hwt that basically worked as hard as I could
to get into the boats that I wanted to. This meant beating other
athletes that were taller, heavier, shorter, lighter, etc... (I don't
think any were Uglier. [;o)
There were many times where team mates would tell me what they had
been doing for a workout, and if they had been doing that, they were
far beyond my fitness level, however it never seemed to pan out for
them when it was time for an erg test, seat race, etc... I was one of
the heavier oarsmen on the team so had to put up with hearing "It's
not the meat, it's the motion." excuses coming from the losers. As
if, being heavier made it impossible to row technically well. Well I
went straight to the Varsity boat and remained there throughout
University, so either "meat" does in fact rule, or it's just possible
that meat and motion are not mutually exclusive. Sure I would have
liked to have been a coupel inches taller, but we all get to work with
what we have, hoping that the strengths and weaknesses end up
cancelling each other out in the end.
My main point is that if being an Olympic/World champion is to retain
any value, then the less qualified the criteria the better. "Fastest
100M sprinter in the World" means something like "Fastest 100M
sprinter in the World" rather than "Fastest 100M sprinter in the world
weighing less than 180lb, under 6' tall, born into poverty, bowlegged,
and with poor eyesight but made something of themselves anyway."
Does Xeno Muller complain that Rob Waddell is taller? No, he get's
himself motivated and gets to work.
- Paul Smith
Charles Carroll
Your comments have indeed been very helpful.
After I read your note I took the C2 off its slide and did 2500m, feet out,
technical focus on stopping at the Finish.
I know that here there may arise the question of how to define the Finish.
Arbitrarily I chose to define it as that point when the elbows are fully
drawn past the body, before the hands are tapped down. For the moment I am
less worried about bad habits I may be developing, than I am about keeping
my head and shoulders stationary, my abdominal corset braced, and my pelvis
in the correct position.
Could it be that all my recent focus on technique is paying off? Rowing feet
out on a static erg was not as difficult as I had anticipated it might be.
I think I may even have done better than I expected with using core muscles
to pivot at the hips, although this is still something that I need to do a
lot of work on.
I have to admit that I am not quite sure about what you mean by “lead out of
the bow with the sternum.”
Truth to tell I am not at all sure about body angle. I have heard it argued
that the ideal is to achieve the correct body angle before you break the
knees to slide. As I understand it the reasoning behind this is that the
weight of the body should interfere as minimally as possible as you pull the
shell underneath you.
But to me this seems awkward. Currently I find myself starting to pivot
slightly about the point when my arms are roughly two thirds of the way to
my knees. I will achieve most of my body angle around the Quarter Slide. But
I really do not completely achieve body angle until I reach the Catch.
Oh well, I guess this is just one more thing I will have to work on.
Thanks again.
Cordially,
charles
Tim Granger
> Truth to tell I am not at all sure about body angle. I have heard it argued
> that the ideal is to achieve the correct body angle before you break the
> knees to slide. As I understand it the reasoning behind this is that the
> weight of the body should interfere as minimally as possible as you pull the
> shell underneath you.
>
> But to me this seems awkward. Currently I find myself starting to pivot
> slightly about the point when my arms are roughly two thirds of the way to
> my knees. I will achieve most of my body angle around the Quarter Slide. But
> I really do not completely achieve body angle until I reach the Catch.
Interesting to look at videos of top class rowers. Now I know that
they may not embody the perfect technique, but in almost all cases
their seats start to move a long time before they reach their catch
body angle. Most people seem to reach this body angle fairly close to
the catch.
I think that teaching people 'hands-body-slide' separation is due to
it being easier to correct (since it's obvious if it's wrong), and a
good basis for learning to control the movements. As people get
better the more and more integrating these movements become, since
it's more efficient.
What do others think?
Tim
PaulS
>
> you hit frontstops too hard? Oh no, hang on...
Yes, it's only too bad that most people do not see it.
> When it comes to doing flat out pieces on the erg I suspect that all
> of us are guilty of rushing the recovery on the erg, in fact I'm
> fairly sure you could sit at backstops for a very long time waiting
> for a static erg to move underneath you and let you roll back
> gracefully to frontstops.
You are quite correct, as it takes only 0.4-0.6 seconds to move the
'static' erg to the 'stern', expecting it to come back in 1.2-1.8
seconds is not too unreasonable. Doesn't seem that "very long" to me.
It all has to do with how you go about recovering your body, we do
sit at the backstops for quite some time.
> Whether you want to call it cheating or not, I find it interesting
> that the slides permitted the achievement of
> a) a higher rate (achieved by rushing or cheating if you like, but the
> numbers were there)
> b) a lower split (ditto the previous comment)
Of course, all the while requiring greater output, no surprise there,
right?
> What I was also interested in (perhaps not made very clear due to
> posting when exhausted, was whether the fact that using the slides is
> supposed to make no difference to erg times is due to the fact that
> the overall efficiency of the system is the same, and so the
> achievement of the higher split is simply a change to max possible
> split and as one will tire faster the overall time is likely to be the
> same.
There really is "no free lunch". [;o)
>
> Apologies for any physics terms thoroughly abused in that last
> paragraph.
>
> Andrew
> -Painting all the blades in the world at the moment
Good luck, a thankless job that goes largely unappreciated. They are
quite a sight for the first day though. [:o)
- Paul Smith
PaulS
> Paul,
>
> Your comments have indeed been very helpful.
>
> After I read your note I took the C2 off its slide and did 2500m, feet out,
> technical focus on stopping at the Finish.
>
> I know that here there may arise the question of how to define the Finish.
> Arbitrarily I chose to define it as that point when the elbows are fully
> drawn past the body, before the hands are tapped down. For the moment I am
> less worried about bad habits I may be developing, than I am about keeping
> my head and shoulders stationary, my abdominal corset braced, and my pelvis
> in the correct position.
It depends on how many parts you want to break the stroke down into,
your 'finish' above, is fine as long as you make sure to include the
recovery of the hands, then the recovery of the body. I don't care
for any thinking that leaves the handle at the body for more than an
instant, a good stroke realy has no beginning or end, it must be
continuous in spite of the cyclic nature to which we are constrained.
> Could it be that all my recent focus on technique is paying off? Rowing feet
> out on a static erg was not as difficult as I had anticipated it might be.
Yes.
> I think I may even have done better than I expected with using core muscles
> to pivot at the hips, although this is still something that I need to do a
> lot of work on.
>
> I have to admit that I am not quite sure about what you mean by ?lead out of
> the bow with the sternum.?
The other option would be to lead out of bow with your shoulders, and
you can do this without getting the reaction from the slides that you
want, no movement of the Erg at all in fact, which is not a good
thing. Go through the rowing motion without holding the handle of the
Erg and you can experiment a little with this, it's quite revealing.
I've changed the terminology of the very common
"Legs-body-arms-arms-body-legs" to
"Knees-Sternum-Elbows-Elbows--Sternum--Knees", Mike Spracklen like
that quite a bit from his reaction. Think about it a bit while doing
the 'no-handle' exercise and see what you find.
> Truth to tell I am not at all sure about body angle. I have heard it argued
> that the ideal is to achieve the correct body angle before you break the
> knees to slide. As I understand it the reasoning behind this is that the
> weight of the body should interfere as minimally as possible as you pull the
> shell underneath you.
That is quite a bit too late, IMO. Look at the three segments of the
stroke as overlapping by half. This will mean that the neighboring
segments will each work together, but all three will never cross.
Another thing I've found useful is to look at the drive and recovery
as mirror images of eachother, we go through exactly the opposite
motions, keeping everything in ratio. i.e. The entire recovery takes
much longer than the entire drive.
> But to me this seems awkward. Currently I find myself starting to pivot
> slightly about the point when my arms are roughly two thirds of the way to
> my knees. I will achieve most of my body angle around the Quarter Slide. But
> I really do not completely achieve body angle until I reach the Catch.
Do you open your body after 1/3 leg drive? Getting that last bit of
body angle just prior to the catch would be called "lunging into the
catch" by me, and is not good since it slows the time you will take to
reverse direction and cause excessive check with a weak connection to
the water.
> Oh well, I guess this is just one more thing I will have to work on.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Cordially,
>
> charles
- Paul Smith
felipe
> "PaulS" <paul_v...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c07ac95a.03101...@posting.google.com...
> snip
> > - Paul Smith (Too short to be HW, too heavy to be LW, but what the
> > heck I'll give it a go anyway.)
>
> I'm the same Paul.
> I'm not carping on about it..
> I have incorrect limb proportions for rowing also, I suppose.
Just wanted to point out that the winner of the Charles this year in
the single is a lighty. Second place is a 6'1", 185 lb midweight.
More evidence that a long distance time-trial like event at the
Olympics might be a fair way to get more lighties rowing without the
sort of circular arguments about whether light events are fair. (And
think how prestigious rowing and winning both the Olympic head race
and 2k would be.)
PaulS
You just have to realise that the split is a representation of Avg
Watt absorbtion and not really a "boat" speed.
Next, once Drag Factor has been established, you basically get a
certain number of meters for each flywheel revolution, with more
credit going to the higher DF. Since your stroke length is not going
to change very much this means that you have the opportunity to go
more meters under power than on a low DF. While this seems like it
might be a good thing to do, there is payback in that the RPMs are
lower and the flywheel slows more quickly than when under a low DF.
The bottom line is that the same avg power must be input to get the
same split, but this is for the whole stroke, not just the drive, so
we end up discussing ratios of drive to recovery.
Now while I don't think I would make quite as large an exaggeration as
comparing a 22 to a 38 stroke rating, even that example is fine, but
since you want it to be closer to reality let's make it the same
Ergometer score while one rates 38 and the other rates 45. These can
not be considered equal because the athlete requiring the 45 does not
have the drive power of the other athlete and will not be able to
support his boat at a SR of 38 or 40. And one thing we can be quite
certain of, each athlete in the 8+ will very likely be required to
take the same number of strokes over the course of a race. [;o)
If you begin to watch a great number of races you will start to see
that the vast majority of racing is done between 36 and 40 strokes per
minute, this has a lot to do with boat speed and the required ratios
to be efficient. I can't explain exactly why this is, but it has been
tackled by some engineering types that seem quite certain of their
numbers. i.e. the time ratio between drive and recovery is 1:3 but
the distance ratio between drive and recovery is 1:1.5 showing quite
precisely that the system is slowing quite quickly once the blades are
removed from the water.
- Paul Smith
Jeremy Fagan
"Carl Douglas" <Ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote
> 6. Finally, do please remember that one of these so-called materials
> engineers (my hat!) recently advised one of his clients not to use one
> of his boats for the recent crossing of the Straits of Dover in single
> sculls. And I've heard makers of modern carbon/Kevlar/epoxy boats
> specifically advise would-be clients that their boats were "strictly
> racing machines, good for only a couple of seasons"! But my fairly
> veteran client, Bob Gullett, took his rather elderly "Carl Douglas"
> across the Straits with never a qualm or problem. And, to their credit,
> my friends at Resolute were just as happy for Guin Batten to borrow one
> of their carbon singles for the same trip.
Was it just me, or did Regatta magazine strangely seem to miss out of their
version of the article about this the mention of Bob's CD? I seem to
remember reading it online, and then read the same article in Regatta, but
no mention of CD.
Jeremy
Neil Wallace
"Tim Granger" <tj...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:o51k773...@donkeykong.cl.cam.ac.uk...
> "Charles Carroll" <ch_...@pacbell.net> writes:
> > Truth to tell I am not at all sure about body angle. I have heard it
argued
> > that the ideal is to achieve the correct body angle before you break the
> > knees to slide.
snip
> What do others think?
>
British rowing technique states
"body into catch angle by half slide on the recovery".
As for rationale behind it, here's my understanding, 3 reasons.
1. moving your bodies C-of-G sternward (sliding) slightly increases the
shell speed, so better to do this later in the cycle, when the whole system
is moving slower (thus minimising the cyclic fluid drag which is related to
hull speed^2).
2. early setting of the core muscles helps with balance.
3. body still swinging forward once your legs are compressed fully will
apply a checking force to the stretcher.
Flib
5'8 or somewhere round there wasn't he?
F
Neil Wallace
"Flib" <mg...@ukc.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bn0r7b$dfv$1...@athena.ukc.ac.uk...
> can i throw Ned Hanlan in here..?
>
> 5'8 or somewhere round there wasn't he?
>
> F
Dwarf throwing is not an acceptable practice in the 21st century.
;o)
Charles Carroll
> "body into catch angle by half slide on the recovery".
Neil,
Do you know where I can find the complete text describing this technique?
One of the descriptions of Rowing Technique that has influenced me was put
out by the University of Warwick Boat Club. Jamie Grant is credited with
submitting the text, Simon Creasey with providing updates and pictures, and
Alex Sweeney with providing animation.
The University of Warwick Boat Club document is in HTLM form, and there is
an animation that goes with it. From the animation it looks to me as if the
oarsman gets most of his catch angle by the time the legs are about one
third slide on the recovery. But he does not achieve one hundred percent of
catch angle until he has reached the Catch.
Also seemingly to support the argument are the photographs of sculling
technique that John McArthur provides in "High Performance Rowing" (pp.
28-29). In these photographs the sculler seems to have most of his "catch
angle by half slide on the recovery." But again, he does not appear to
achieve complete catch angle until he is at the Catch, or so it seems to me.
Cordially,
charles
PaulS
> British rowing technique states
> "body into catch angle by half slide on the recovery".
>
> As for rationale behind it, here's my understanding, 3 reasons.
>
> 1. moving your bodies C-of-G sternward (sliding) slightly increases the
> shell speed, so better to do this later in the cycle, when the whole system
> is moving slower (thus minimising the cyclic fluid drag which is related to
> hull speed^2).
You forgot the best option, that it may simply maintain hull speed in
an equal exchange of momentum for drag. Some will interpret this
wrongly, because they don't like it and I've been making the same
point for quite some time with their unceasing opposition. Yes, I
know the entire system is slowing due to fluid drag, but the hull
speed can be held quite close to it's velocity at the finish, any
faster (by rushing the recovery) and you are going to be creating more
work for yourself due to the unecessary slowing of your bodies
momentum toward the finish line. Now if you really think that the
hull should shoot forward with greater speed (relative to the water)
during the recovery, as has been indicated by those same opposers
referred to above, by their descriptions of using the toe straps to
what I would call and "excessive degree". (unless I have wildly
misinterpretted their arguments, which may be possible, but since they
are self-defined as being extrememly clear, I doubt that's the case.)
Look at the water sloshing about in the cockpit with you one day and
really put some thought into the difference between what it is doing
and what you would like it to be doing for optimal results.
Hint: Bailers are installed to be reached by the rower, NOT where they
will do the best job of evacuating water from the cockpit. (Unless you
are rowing poorly)
>
> 2. early setting of the core muscles helps with balance.
And the subsequent connection that must be prepared to transmit the
load on the foot stretchers as effectively as possible to the handles.
> 3. body still swinging forward once your legs are compressed fully will
> apply a checking force to the stretcher.
The act of swinging the body as you describe will not apply a checking
force to the stretchers, but you certainly have missed the catch if
that is going on, and THAT will produce check.
- Paul Smith
felipe
>
> >The evidence is that the sliding rigger gave no discernible superiority
> >in performance at the expense of significant mechanical complication of
> >a simple sport. No tears were shed at its passing, contrary to the
> >urban myths which have since evolved.
There's an epistemological problem with this statement, though, Carl,
and I bet you're aware of it.
Saying that "the sliding rigger gave no discernible superiority in
performance" is not the same as saying, the sliding rigger is not
faster.
I don't have access to the times among finalists with and without the
sliding riggers, or preferably the paired samples of their best 2k's
in sliding rigger vs. sliding seats. But my guess is that the data
are fairly scant. (And not having access to the data I cannot do the
stat myself.)
If there were only, say, a dozen rowers using sliding riggers in
Worlds, and half of them made it to finals, that allows very little
statistical power to actually distinguish whether sliding seats were
or were not faster -- especially if, as with other bits of rowing
technology, the difference in performance were on the order of a
couple percent or less. And especially controlling for variation
among individual rowers, which is often large.
(If there were, say, a half-dozen scullers at Worlds using the sliding
rigger, and five of them made it into the finals, that might argue
strongly in their favor, though. Or if a dozen using sliding riggers,
and they constituted 11 of the 12 spots in the A and B finals, etc.)
Saying we lack the evidence for that conclusion is different than
saying the conclusion is faulty. Your own discussion of oscillating
hull velocity and drag makes it at least a topic worthy of real
testing, were sliding rigger boats faster?
A safer and more accurate answer might be, we just don't know. There
is good reason to think they should be, but without getting a score of
scullers willing to do some kind of randomized repeated peices with
and without sliding riggers, we won't know.
PaulS
>
> 5'8 or somewhere round there wasn't he?
>
> F
>
Excellent point for doing away with the Lwt Classification entirely,
or were you just lipping off? [;o)
Sounds like there should be no excuses for weight or height, any other
whiney excuses that you want me to go after?
Having Men and Women compete seperately is tough enough. Heck, Hurnet
Dekkers would kick the butt of many guys, but nonetheless I agree with
seperate events based on gender, it lets Lwt guys have someone to be
faster than. (That's a joke, okay! Just kidding with you
Lwt's........ gheese!)
Dang, don't you just hate it when someone truly think folks should all
be given an equal shot at unqualified success (and failure)?
- Paul Smith
Carl Douglas
>> "body into catch angle by half slide on the recovery".
>>
>> As for rationale behind it, here's my understanding, 3 reasons.
>>
>> 1. moving your bodies C-of-G sternward (sliding) slightly increases the
>> shell speed, so better to do this later in the cycle, when the whole system
>> is moving slower (thus minimising the cyclic fluid drag which is related to
>> hull speed^2).
>
>You forgot the best option, that it may simply maintain hull speed in
>an equal exchange of momentum for drag. Some will interpret this
>wrongly, because they don't like it and I've been making the same
>point for quite some time with their unceasing opposition. Yes, I
>know the entire system is slowing due to fluid drag, but the hull
>speed can be held quite close to it's velocity at the finish, any
>faster (by rushing the recovery) and you are going to be creating more
>work for yourself due to the unecessary slowing of your bodies
>momentum toward the finish line. Now if you really think that the
>hull should shoot forward with greater speed (relative to the water)
>during the recovery, as has been indicated by those same opposers
>referred to above, by their descriptions of using the toe straps to
>what I would call and "excessive degree". (unless I have wildly
>misinterpretted their arguments, which may be possible, but since they
>are self-defined as being extrememly clear, I doubt that's the case.)
What is self-defining is your own careful "repositioning", Paul.
You castigate un-named "opposers" for stating the fact that during
recovery the principal force sustaining the run on the boat (against the
drag forces on the hull) is the tension (=draw) of the feet on the
stretcher. Having fervently denied that rowers do draw the stretcher
towards themselves - as that conflicts with your view & classical rowing
mantras - you remain incapable of explaining how the necessary
run-sustaining bow-wards force is applied to the boat. Yet you
correctly accept that moving your body & the boat's stern towards each
other is what sustains the motion of the boat, & that doing this
smoothly avoids creating undesirable peaks & troughs in boat velocity.
Hmmm.
We still keenly await your promised mathematical explanation of why the
Smithian mechanics of the rowing recovery beats all comers including
Newton. But - please! - don't again serve up the old & invalid
slide-slope explanation: the horizontal reaction due to slide slope is
far too small to bring a rower sternwards in a decelerating boat, &
eliminating slide slope has no significant effect on a rower's recovery.
<Snip>
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Neil Wallace
> > British rowing technique states
> > "body into catch angle by half slide on the recovery".
>
> Neil,
>
> Do you know where I can find the complete text describing this technique?
>
Regatta Magazine.
number 156
Feb/Mar 2003
exact quote is
"All body swing by half way up the slide"
PaulS
Well, my "position" has not changed since we began this discussion so
that is difficult to accept, but it was a nice jab. [;o)
> You castigate un-named "opposers" for stating the fact that during
> recovery the principal force sustaining the run on the boat (against the
> drag forces on the hull) is the tension (=draw) of the feet on the
> stretcher. Having fervently denied that rowers do draw the stretcher
> towards themselves - as that conflicts with your view & classical rowing
See, not true, maybe you missed that part. I accept that there is
some draw on the stretchers, but that doing it in a perceptible way
for more than a very short time during the recovery of the body is
"overdoing" it. What I do know for certain is that while on the
water, rowing with feet out, that I have made a poor finish leaving my
feet off the stretchers completely and somehow they eventually
reuinited with the soles of my feet. Maybe this was by purely
magnetic attraction, but I doubt it, so must have something to do with
the "old and invalid" slide slope explanation. Please offer an
alternate theory or explanation.
> mantras - you remain incapable of explaining how the necessary
> run-sustaining bow-wards force is applied to the boat. Yet you
> correctly accept that moving your body & the boat's stern towards each
> other is what sustains the motion of the boat, & that doing this
> smoothly avoids creating undesirable peaks & troughs in boat velocity.
> Hmmm.
"Smoothly" has something to do with it, but the sequencing and
velocities of the various moving components is most important. i.e.
smallest masses moving quickly and as the total mass under motion
increases the velocity of that mass slows. The troughs aren't going
to happen during the time while the rower and stern are coming
together, but they are the reaction to the "undesireable peaks"
created during that time.
Ideally, the drag on the hull could be viewed as a constant for the
peak hull speed couldn't it?
> We still keenly await your promised mathematical explanation of why the
> Smithian mechanics of the rowing recovery beats all comers including
> Newton. But - please! - don't again serve up the old & invalid
> slide-slope explanation: the horizontal reaction due to slide slope is
> far too small to bring a rower sternwards in a decelerating boat, &
> eliminating slide slope has no significant effect on a rower's recovery.
"Smithian Mechanics", I like that, you shall be creditted when it all
comes together in a form that is understandable to more than I. Was
Newton an oarsman? Not that it would matter, there is nothing we are
going to be at odds with.
Surely you could easily retrofit a shell with a level slide, and even
a slide that is reversed for slope. (for some real world experiments)
I think you will find that with your model of "drawing on the foot
stretchers" that the reversed slope will give quite good results.
This will be due to the dampening effect it will provide on an
otherwise too aggressive approach toward the front stops. There will
also be a secondary effect for the return of potential energy gained
during the slide forward when the direction is turned to the drive.
> <Snip>
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
- Paul Smith