hands pause

[usbrit]

I'm curious as what this group thinks of the current fashion of a very specific hand pause at the finish followed by slow hands out away from the body.

A good example is the women's 'Great 8' (stroke Heather Stanning in particular here) out for a steady state row a few days before the Head of the Charles this year;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig6tYRly940&t=607s

My thinking is that for 'elite' athletes this is a workable technique as they are generating oodles of power right through the stroke but for lesser lights (think masters, regular club rowers) its not so effective as my notion is that there's a lot less being applied at the finish and the result is that boat will slow significantly as the body weight of the crew/sculler stays too long at the 'back end'

Anyone got some thoughts?

[carl]

A few:

1. It was their first outing together, & they are paddling light, so
the marginal pause at the finish helps them to even up their stroke
lengths/durations.

2.At the finish you have just completed an intense muscular contraction.
These tight muscles take a brief time to relax, & to push away while
the pulling set is still tight requires extra & wholly unproductive
work. In too many cases what actually happens when rowers are urged to
get hands away faster is that they start pushing even before reaching
the finish, which involves 2 equal lots of wasted work, all of which is
therefore unavailable for pulling on the oar.

3. At the finish the boat is moving significantly faster than its
average speed, so if you try urgently to move towards the stern you will
be trying also to accelerate it when it's already moving at a speed at
which it consumes >70% more power, through fluid drag, than it when
moving at it's average speed. Better to delay applying energy to bring
crew & frontstops closer together until a tad later (the ideal being to
pull on the stretcher in a manner which keeps the boat running at
constant velocity).

Cheers -
Carl



--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglasrowing.com Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: carldouglasrowing.com & now on Facebook @ CarlDouglasRacingShells

[James HS]

watching practice days at the olympics (rio) I was really surprised by this - until I saw almost every crew do it at low rate - stop at the back. Almost universal - never at rate - so must be something they are taught in training and there must be a perceived benefit.

My guess is that it is completely under their control and used o coordinate effort at low rate and then gradually bring that timing and moving together into high rate work.

no doubting the pedigree of the rowers - or the performance at rate, so if we can agree it is not damaging, it may actually be beneficial.

[Sarah Harbour]

It's a style that Drew Ginn's crews tend to row. At high rate they don't actually 'pause' but you can still detect a sort of 'gather' point if you look for it. I quite like it in crew boats as it gives another timing point to get together. As Carl said already, a lot of the time when people are told to get their hands away faster, they do so by not finishing off the previous stroke before they get onto the recovery - you see it a lot in the college-standard crews on the Cam!

Sarah

[Kit Davies]

Yes, this came to the fore recently with Drew Ginn's now famous "Will it
make the boat faster?" video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n-G91HGegQ

But this is my favourite of his AUS 4- showing their pause and gather:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wff25wXWE9o

I could watch that on loop for hours. The NZ M2- did the same and now it
seems pretty well established at the top level.

Kit

[Chip Johannessen]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 10:06:36 AM UTC-8, usbrit wrote:
> I'm curious as what this group thinks of the current fashion of a very specific hand pause at the finish followed by slow hands out away from the body.
>

Not sure if this is the (or a) reason for it, but a clear benefit of taking a pause at the finish is that it removes any pause at the catch. Pause even slightly at the finish and you find that you roll into and out of the catch very naturally, very continuously, and the timing seems to take care of itself.

Anyway, that's the belief here in Los Angeles.

[marko....@gmail.com]

I think it started as a backlash to the 'fast hands away' mantra which never made much sense to me especially at low ratings. Rush getting hands away and then go slowly up the slide is wholly unnatural and jerky.

Having point at there end of the stroke where there is a slight pause keeps the crew together and 'reset' for the next stroke. This idea of an endless totally continuous stoke into another stroke isn't conducive to a well timed crew imo.

[rolyb...@googlemail.com]

- you see it a lot in the college-standard crews on the Cam!
>

You'll see the ones I coach doing single strokes to backstops, what used to be called 'Swiss paddling'. I find its a good exercise for eights that are near to the point of being able to sit the boat on the recovery; often their problem is that one or two of the crew are not 'finishing the stroke out' and are collapsing on their handles at the finish or even as Sarah says taking off on the recovery before the rest of the crew has finished. On the other hand you see a lot of scullers on the Cam who stop at the finish which I think is as much because they are frightened of hitting something as a deliberate technique. Bumps racing thouhg is an all out sprint from the gun, not a 2k race, you want fast hands to get a high rating, but not at the expense of finishing the strokes together; the pause at backstops is a stage in the progression, not an end in itself.
Roly

[alister....@gmail.com]

From my couple of months coaching (and swearing extensively) on the Cam, I think you're on to a lot...

I feel that there's far too many crews here who look at high rating as an end in itself, and that if they need to shorten at both ends, and rush hands away, so be it. They haven't necessarily made the connection that high rate doesn't necessarily correlate with high speed.

[madmar...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 24 November 2016 14:37:02 UTC, alister....@gmail.com wrote:

>
> From my couple of months coaching (and swearing extensively) on the Cam, I think you're on to a lot...
>

Since when did you need an excuse to swear?

My feeling is that it is all much less to do with the hand speed at the back turn and much more to do with the time that the legs are down and the seat stationary.

[Sarah Harbour]

Ah yes, we still need to go for that beer to put Cam rowing to right, don't we?

Definitely onto something about high rating being seen by many as the be all and end all - and there will be some glorious displays of this on Thursday for Novice Fairbairns... When Mel was LBC at Peterhouse his girls crew managed to place something like 4th or 5th by rating 24/25ish... (those of you who aren't familiar with Cambridge colleges, Peterhouse is the smallest and didn't have many women...)

Why do they all try to run before they can walk?!

Roly - wasn't suggesting individual crew members not finishing the stroke off, I meant the entire crew rowing like that!

Sarah

[magnus....@gmail.com]

Heh, I myself will be in a Peterhouse boat this Friday :) . No women when I was there, well, maybe a handful of postgrads

[Mel Harbour]

On Monday, 28 November 2016 13:17:25 UTC, magnus....@gmail.com wrote:
> Heh, I myself will be in a Peterhouse boat this Friday :) . No women when I was there, well, maybe a handful of postgrads

Will try and give you a cheer. I'll be on the finish line doing some timing (showing Fairbairns how the WEHoRR timing kit works).

Mel

[rich....@montgomerybell.edu]

I have to admit. I am not sold on the "gather at the finish", as it's called on this side of the pond. I do not believe that it leads to a stronger finish. I feel that it weakens it...

The handle is moving towards the body with some velocity. In order for it to come to a stop (gather) at the body, it has to decelerate. The velocity has to drop to zero before reaching the body where the gather occurs. If the decrease in speed drops occurs while the spoon is immersed, the rower is no longer adding/maintaining the boat speed. In fact, he/she is causes some drag by the spoon slowing in the water. OR, which I think is more the case, the spoon starts to leave the water during this decrease in handle speed. As a result, some of the rower's power is being wasted on moving "loose" water. Watch the videos again. You will see definite "rainbows" of water coming off of the spoon as it is being feathered. Here is U of Texas demonstrating this perfectly: https://twitter.com/TexasRowing/status/799412944236933120

Here is defending 3-time NCAA Champion Ohio State: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WybpdCemoww The last 10seconds of the video is sustained, low-rate rowing. Pause the video at the release of each stroke, you will see the puddle being "lifted" out of the water.

My belief is that the handle should leave at the same speed at which it comes in. Rather than decreasing the speed/increasing the speed of the handle at the back end of the stroke, have the speed be constant and the acceleration be a result of a change in direction. The "gather" is the point at which the knees unlock. With the arms outstretched, shoulders set to the stern, the knees unlock slowly. Starting the slide slowly still allows for the "pulling" on the toes going into the catch.


--
<http://www.facebook.com/rollredroll>
<http://www.twitter.com/montgomerybell>
<https://www.instagram.com/montgomerybellacademy>
<https://www.youtube.com/user/rollredroll1867>

[gsl...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 1:13:03 PM UTC-8, rich....@montgomerybell.edu wrote:

> My belief is that the handle should leave at the same speed at which it comes in. Rather than decreasing the speed/increasing the speed of the handle at the back end of the stroke, have the speed be constant and the acceleration be a result of a change in direction. The "gather" is the point at which the knees unlock. With the arms outstretched, shoulders set to the stern, the knees unlock slowly. Starting the slide slowly still allows for the "pulling" on the toes going into the catch.

I'm not sure I understand you here.
1) the speed of the hands must change. You can not change directions without accelerating hands. They must slow down to zero at the release and then accelerate on the recovery. A "gather" just means you either pause the hands or start moving the hands slowly on the recovery.
2) Again, my understanding is that the "gather" is entirely a function of how you move the hands away from you on the recovery. You can have exactly the same oar motion during the drive and release with and without a gather. If you are not feathering your oars out, your oars should be completely out of the water the moment when your hands reverse direction. This can be independent of weather you move them slowly or quickly out of bow. Similarly you can feather the oars out and lift water with the spoon whether you row with or without a "gather".

[rich....@montgomerybell.edu]

Yes, there has to be an "acceleration." But, constant speed around a curve is an acceleration also. The hands do not have to come to a stop in order for the oar to change direction. Yes, the "bow-ward" velocity drops to zero and the stern-ward increases from zero. Having the hands move in a "rounded-off rectangle" shape at the finish allows the rower to keep the hands moving at all times (towards the body, down, and then away).

In order to row on the square, there has to be a downward motion of the handle to extract the spoon. Continuing that motion, and then away from the body, at the same speed with which it comes in allows the rower to maintain a constant speed while changing direction.

An exercise I give my rowers to practice: sit in a chair, in the finish position, about 1 foot (or 30cm) away from your kitchen table. Place your hands on the table as if you are holding an oar. For the "gather" motion, the hands slide across the table and follow that level into the body and then back away from the body on top of the table. For the "continuous" motion, the hands slide across the table and follow the level into the body, move downward, and then back away underneath the table. With practice, the motion can be completed smoothly without having to stop the hands.

[roc...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-8, Chip Johannessen wrote:
>
>
> Anyway, that's the belief here in Los Angeles.

Really? I don't recall ever meeting you.

[carl]

On 30/11/2016 21:02, rich....@montgomerybell.edu wrote:
> Yes, there has to be an "acceleration." But, constant speed around a curve is an acceleration also. The hands do not have to come to a stop in order for the oar to change direction. Yes, the "bow-ward" velocity drops to zero and the stern-ward increases from zero. Having the hands move in a "rounded-off rectangle" shape at the finish allows the rower to keep the hands moving at all times (towards the body, down, and then away).
>
> In order to row on the square, there has to be a downward motion of the handle to extract the spoon. Continuing that motion, and then away from the body, at the same speed with which it comes in allows the rower to maintain a constant speed while changing direction.
>
> An exercise I give my rowers to practice: sit in a chair, in the finish position, about 1 foot (or 30cm) away from your kitchen table. Place your hands on the table as if you are holding an oar. For the "gather" motion, the hands slide across the table and follow that level into the body and then back away from the body on top of the table. For the "continuous" motion, the hands slide across the table and follow the level into the body, move downward, and then back away underneath the table. With practice, the motion can be completed smoothly without having to stop the hands.
>
>

Rich - Where some of us might differ is over just what does happen at
the finish?

First, I think it hard to argue against the effectiveness of some of the
greats who do clearly end one stroke at a point in space, with no
continuity of movement at the finish - no hands circling & going away at
the speed at which they approach the body.

Second, we should separate what these guys do when paddling light or
firm & what they appear to do at race pace. The only way for any of us
to raise the rate to any degree is to reduce the total time between
finish & catch (since we can only marginally reduce power stroke
duration without shortening or washing out). So what they demonstrate
as a hands pause at lower rates is inevitably abbreviated as the rate
rises, maybe to the point at which its duration is nearly zero. But the
resulting hands path implies and actual stop, however brief, so there
can be no continuity through the finish.

You hold a clear view that the finish should be rowed with square blade
& that the blade must therefore continue moving sternwards (& the handle
moving bow-wards) right up to the instant at which the blade clears the
water. In that case you could be right about the hands following a
continuously curving path with a noticeable arc at their most forward
position, & in which they do not stop even for an instant. But what use
is the bit of the stroke during which the blade is emerging from the
water? Can it be loaded then? Doesn't a part-immersed blade scrape
water off the surface if still loaded, & isn't that rather a wasted
exercise?

Others of us see it differently. We see the hands starting to drop in
the last part of the finish while the blade simultaneously begins to
feather while still immersed. To us there's no circling of the hands at
the end of the stroke; instead the hands come on one path to a point in
space & then move away on another path, in which case they will stop at
that point.

I understand that you feel any underwater feathering of the blade in the
last instants of the finish is a bad thing, but is it? Whereas the
blade in a square finish must needs keep moving astern until clear or it
will surely backwater, a feathering (bit not feathered) blade can follow
an upward path as it extracts & still either sustain some degree of load
or at least not backwater because the resultant of its upwards motion &
the boat's forward motion the water will in effect be near to parallel
to it's minor chord (the blade's width).

Further, if the blade exits the water at the speed of the boat (in order
not to backwater) then it must then continue some small distance
sternwards WRT the boat once it is in the air - which seems like stroke
length wasted. In contrast, the part-feathered extraction exits
vertically WRT the boat & there is no wasted sternwards movement in the air.

Just a few thoughts to stir the pot, & I'd welcome your reactions. But
let me say in closing that, once, I used to think as you do now, because
I'd had it repeated to me so often by my coaches & others. Only when I
started to pick apart the actual feasible movements in the stroke, & to
experiment with them, did I come round to my present view.

[Mileage]

Only a bad coach would be asking athletes to pause around the finish. That's a separate drill

What most of these coaches are asking athletes to do it to take some more time, get a good sequence of movements off the finish. The timing of the hands and body movement to to complement and enhance the boat speed. I.e move smoothly off the finish while the boat speed is higher and then shift the body weight, and slide as the boat slows down. This draws the boat underneath you maintaining a higher average shell velocity.

If you go quick hands away and body over which has less effect on maintaining shell speed at some point you have to slow down, or risk having a short recovery time. This slowing down on the slide essentially holds the shell speed down as you approach the catch.

The gather at the finish is extremely effective if done well and the catch timing is very good. However it can be a disaster with crews with poor catch timing as they arrive at frontstops with all their weight on the footstretcher and a spoon hanging in the air.

[wmar...@gmail.com]

Sigh... Sanderson and Martindale,Towards Optimizing Rowing Technique, 1986, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise.

[marko....@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 29 November 2016 21:13:03 UTC, rich....@montgomerybell.edu wrote:
> I have to admit. I am not sold on the "gather at the finish", as it's called on this side of the pond. I do not believe that it leads to a stronger finish. I feel that it weakens it...
>
> The handle is moving towards the body with some velocity. In order for it to come to a stop (gather) at the body, it has to decelerate. The velocity has to drop to zero before reaching the body where the gather occurs. If the decrease in speed drops occurs while the spoon is immersed, the rower is no longer adding/maintaining the boat speed.

Velocity along the plane of the water/boat is the same whether the rower pauses after the extraction or continues with a down and away movement. I don't see how the finish is weakened.

[rich....@montgomerybell.edu]

I feel comfortable assuming that we all agree that the slide should be started slowly and under control with an increase of speed as the rower approaches the catch. I have read that Sanderson & Martindale article many times over the years. While it does contain a wealth of information (and dare I say, the impetus for "hatchet blades"), the only technical implication regarding the recovery is that it be "smooth". Any coach worth his strokewatch knows that rushing into the catch is "poor" technique (slowing at the front stops). The slide should start slower than it ends (the rower drawing the stern towards him).

My contention is that hand speed/motion are NOT connected to slide speed. Moving the hands away in a continuous, smooth motion (with the shoulders following them out of the bow) at the same speed in which they arrived does not lead to a fast slide. Yes, there is a tendency for novice rowers to want to "pop" their knees up and start moving. That is where proper drilling comes in. If drilled properly, the slides can still start slowly out of the bow and accelerate into the catch (drawing the boat) in unison.

Imagine two identical runners racing 400m. The first gets to run on a normal, oval track. The 2nd has to run in a straight line: 200m down, 200m back. Obviously, the first runner will win. I picture the motion at the finish to be the same. If the hands change direction at the finish at a single point in space, the velocity has to drop to zero, even if for a brief instant. Why is this so important?

Take two rowers, both at 36spm. That means each completes on stroke in 1.67s. If each spends 0.67s in the water, they have 1.0s to get from release to catch. Rower 1 maintains the handle speed until the body angle is forward. Let's say this takes 0.2s. This leaves 0.8s to move up the 1m (for simplicity) to the catch. 1m/0.8s = 1.25m/s avg velocity = 2.5m/s final velocity = an acceleration of 3.125m/s2. Rower 2 changes direction in space. Even if "costs" only 0.1s extra. It still has a dramatic effect. 0.7s to move up the slide = 1m/0.7s = 1.43m/s avg velocity = 2.86m/s = an acceleration of 4.086m/s2. For two rowers of the identical mass, it takes almost 25% more force to get up the slide and maintain the stroke rate than it does for the rower who maintains the handle velocity away from the body.

I concede that it does take energy to move the shoulders out of the bow "quickly". However, the energy required to move the upper body is less than that required to move the entire body. Additionally, it is primarily the core muscles required for this movement and not legs, which are required to draw yourself up the slide. With proper training, the core muscles can handle this extra work saving more of the legs for the drive.

Yes, I know what most of the elite rowers in the world are doing. But, would I coach a youth basketball player to do the things that Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson did? No, they may not have the physical gifts of the elite athletes. The same can be said about rowers. Bond, Drysdale, and others can "get away with" more in the stroke than any of us plebes could. I look at the rowers who "shouldn't be there": Ekaterina Karsten in the last Olympics, the 2004 Romanian Women's 8 with Lipa. At Schoolboy regattas I look for the "little guys" who are hanging with the pack. They may not be winning. But, they are doing something to move the boat better than the ones with the physical gifts.

[gsl...@gmail.com]

You are neglecting two things:
1) A rower is not moving up the slide, she is bringing the boat towards her. So your energy cost of "moving up the slide" is not moving the entire body, but only the legs and boat. (I don't have any numbers but when I row with a lot of lay back to match a larger partner, it feels to me like moving the upper body quickly out of bow costs more than moving up the slide.)
2) Slow movement out of bow does avoid an increase in hull speed and the boat has a more constant speed. Any additional energy cost to having to complete the slide quicker has to be offset against the loss of energy due to larger boat speed variations. A former coach describes this as "letting the boat run". Since the drag is proportional to velocity squared, at lower rates/speed, the boat slows much less so the "gather" is ideally much longer and looks exaggerated but is barely visible at race pace.

As for elite vs non-elite rowers, I really don't see any reason why rowing this way would hurt non-elite rowers. Personally I don't have much trouble varying the amount of gather, especially at lower ratings.
I talked to a very good high school coach about this. His feeling (or rather my interpretation) was that rowing with slow hands was good, but that the time was better spent working on other things.

It would be easy to test this at low ratings. Have two boats row at say a 20, having them match each other stroke for stroke. Run it like a seat race where the only change is the amount of gather in one of the boats. I have a training partner who is almost same speed as me, so I may get to try this soon.

[wmar...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 1 December 2016 20:25:42 UTC-5, gsl...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> You are neglecting two things:
> 1) A rower is not moving up the slide, she is bringing the boat towards her. So your energy cost of "moving up the slide" is not moving the entire body, but only the legs and boat. (I don't have any numbers but when I row with a lot of lay back to match a larger partner, it feels to me like moving the upper body quickly out of bow costs more than moving up the slide.)
> 2) Slow movement out of bow does avoid an increase in hull speed and the boat has a more constant speed. Any additional energy cost to having to complete the slide quicker has to be offset against the loss of energy due to larger boat speed variations. A former coach describes this as "letting the boat run". Since the drag is proportional to velocity squared, at lower rates/speed, the boat slows much less so the "gather" is ideally much longer and looks exaggerated but is barely visible at race pace.
>
> As for elite vs non-elite rowers, I really don't see any reason why rowing this way would hurt non-elite rowers. Personally I don't have much trouble varying the amount of gather, especially at lower ratings.
> I talked to a very good high school coach about this. His feeling (or rather my interpretation) was that rowing with slow hands was good, but that the time was better spent working on other things.
>
> It would be easy to test this at low ratings. Have two boats row at say a 20, having them match each other stroke for stroke. Run it like a seat race where the only change is the amount of gather in one of the boats. I have a training partner who is almost same speed as me, so I may get to try this soon.

Well said. The idea behind a slower movement to start the recovery and a quicker movement during the end of the recovery is to reduce boat velocity variations. With intermittent propulsion (stroke, glide, stroke, glide, etc) it is impossible to have "constant velocity". It IS, however, possible to reduce the variation about the mean velocity by altering how you recover.

When one swings one's body mass aft quickly, that mass movement has causes a reaction in the boat, pulling the boat more quickly through the water, increasing drag with a squared factor - so - it's better not to move quickly "out of the bow" to reduce the post-extraction velocity spike. Later in the recovery when the "movement system*" is approaching it's minimum velocity, it is beneficial to move the feet (and boat with luggage) more quickly towards the finish line in order to reduce hull velocity loss, and THEN it's vital to time the blade entry well so that no time is wasted and no water is missed.

That's the essential gist of a part of the Sanderson-Martindale article.

Recall that while we all "recover" and in our little universe it seems like we're "approaching the stern" during the recovery - we're not really doing that - if the "system" has positive velocity (towards the finish line) the crew continues moving toward the finish line, and pulls the boat under them towards the finish line - with a hull velocity increase, and a crew velocity decrease.

My coaching is "keep the hands moving, in proportion to how fast you're going". By that I don't mean move the hands away quickly at all costs - it means that if you're rowing "full pressure" or any pressure, at (say) 18, there's no need to move the handles away quickly, as long as you're rigged high enough to get clear of wave-tops on the release. At (say) 49 strokes/minute during a LM4- racing start, you can't sit around admiring your handiwork, and need to get moving to the next catch.


*movement system: boat, crew, oars, coxswain, coxmate/speedcoach, speakers, bow-number, waterbottles, etc., add or subtract depending on the boat class

[rich....@montgomerybell.edu]

>" 1) A rower is not moving up the slide, she is bringing the boat towards her. So your energy cost of "moving up the slide" is not moving the entire body, but only the legs and boat. (I don't have any numbers but when I row with a lot of lay back to match a larger partner, it feels to me like moving the upper body quickly out of bow costs more than moving up the slide.) "

>" Recall that while we all "recover" and in our little universe it seems like we're "approaching the stern" during the recovery - we're not really doing that - if the "system" has positive velocity (towards the finish line) the crew continues moving toward the finish line, and pulls the boat under them towards the finish line - with a hull velocity increase, and a crew velocity decrease. "

Regardless of the frame of reference from which you choose to look (body moving towards the stern, stern moving towards the body) the need for a higher acceleration requires a proportional increase in applied force. The more time it takes from the moment of release until the time in which the body the can start on the slide, the less time you have to move on the slide. The less time, the greater speed requirement, the greater force requirement.

>" 2) Slow movement out of bow does avoid an increase in hull speed and the boat has a more constant speed. Any additional energy cost to having to complete the slide quicker has to be offset against the loss of energy due to larger boat speed variations. A former coach describes this as "letting the boat run". Since the drag is proportional to velocity squared, at lower rates/speed, the boat slows much less so the "gather" is ideally much longer and looks exaggerated but is barely visible at race pace. "
>

>" Well said. The idea behind a slower movement to start the recovery and a quicker movement during the end of the recovery is to reduce boat velocity variations. With intermittent propulsion (stroke, glide, stroke, glide, etc) it is impossible to have "constant velocity". It IS, however, possible to reduce the variation about the mean velocity by altering how you recover.
>
When one swings one's body mass aft quickly, that mass movement has causes a reaction in the boat, pulling the boat more quickly through the water, increasing drag with a squared factor - so - it's better not to move quickly "out of the bow" to reduce the post-extraction velocity spike. Later in the recovery when the "movement system*" is approaching it's minimum velocity, it is beneficial to move the feet (and boat with luggage) more quickly towards the finish line in order to reduce hull velocity loss, and THEN it's vital to time the blade entry well so that no time is wasted and no water is missed."

I understand the idea of system efficiency and lower energy costs of maintaining "constant speed" as much as possible. However, we can all agree that this is impossible in our sport. I have never understood the argument of "don't make the boat move faster because drag will just slow you down." Yes, there is are diminishing returns as velocity increases. But, would a coach ever say to row 3/4 pressure to help minimize loss due to drag?

I feel that it is possible to both move quickly (again, smoothly move from about 20-30degrees layback to shoulders in front of the hips) and still be able to "pull the boat" going into the catch to increase its speed just prior to insertion. In fact, I believe that this is a faster way to row. Picture two different velocity/time curves. The first is a crew which leaves the bow slowly. From the moment of extraction, the velocity decreases until just prior to the catch (the pull of the feet towards the finish line, as you put it). The second crew leaves the bow quickly, creating the "post-extraction velocity spike". That shell then slows at the same rate as the first (due to both being identical) until just prior to the catch. However, the amplitude of the velocity "peak" on the recovery for the second crew will not be as high. Being identical, both will reach the same max velocity. The second crew, due to attaining a slightly higher velocity before the shell slowing down, will have a slightly higher minimum velocity. The larger the amplitude, the more energy/power it takes to attain it.

Graphically, the lines representing their velocities will meet at the point of each reaching the recovery "max velocity" and stay over-lapped through the drive (being identical crews). However, from extraction until the point where they meet again, the line for the second crew would be "higher" than that of the first. Area under the curve represents distance traveled per stroke. The 2nd crew would cover more ground each stroke.

[Henry Law]

On 02/12/16 18:45, rich....@montgomerybell.edu wrote:
> it's better not to move quickly "out of the bow" to reduce the post-extraction velocity spike

But this is very complicated. At that point your weight, being at its
maximum for'ard, is causing the bow to dip, which is slowing the boat
down. So there are factors in both directions.

--

Henry Law Manchester, England

[rich....@montgomerybell.edu]

I agree fully, Mr. Law. I was quoting (or attempting to) wmar...

Like Mr. Douglas, I don't coach/row with the exact technique that was taught to me. However, one part that has always made sense was "less time in the bow means more time on the slide." There is an idea that a crew has to be either slow out of the bow and draw the boat on the recovery OR quick out of the bow and "heavy on the feet" into the catch. Wouldn't combining the two produce the best results?...both quick out of the bow and being able to draw the boat on the recovery.

Rich

[gsl...@gmail.com]

On Friday, December 2, 2016 at 10:45:57 AM UTC-8, rich....@montgomerybell.edu wrote:
> Regardless of the frame of reference from which you choose to look (body moving towards the stern, stern moving towards the body) the need for a higher acceleration requires a proportional increase in applied force. The more time it takes from the moment of release until the time in which the body the can start on the slide, the less time you have to move on the slide. The less time, the greater speed requirement, the greater force requirement.

Yes this is true.

> I understand the idea of system efficiency and lower energy costs of maintaining "constant speed" as much as possible. However, we can all agree that this is impossible in our sport. I have never understood the argument of "don't make the boat move faster because drag will just slow you down." Yes, there is are diminishing returns as velocity increases. But, would a coach ever say to row 3/4 pressure to help minimize loss due to drag?

No a coach wouldn't and I don't think anyone here is making that argument.

> I feel that it is possible to both move quickly (again, smoothly move from about 20-30degrees layback to shoulders in front of the hips) and still be able to "pull the boat" going into the catch to increase its speed just prior to insertion. In fact, I believe that this is a faster way to row. Picture two different velocity/time curves. The first is a crew which leaves the bow slowly. From the moment of extraction, the velocity decreases until just prior to the catch (the pull of the feet towards the finish line, as you put it). The second crew leaves the bow quickly, creating the "post-extraction velocity spike". That shell then slows at the same rate as the first (due to both being identical) until just prior to the catch. However, the amplitude of the velocity "peak" on the recovery for the second crew will not be as high. Being identical, both will reach the same max velocity. The second crew, due to attaining a slightly higher velocity before the shell slowing down, will have a slightly higher minimum velocity. The larger the amplitude, the more energy/power it takes to attain it.
>
> Graphically, the lines representing their velocities will meet at the point of each reaching the recovery "max velocity" and stay over-lapped through the drive (being identical crews). However, from extraction until the point where they meet again, the line for the second crew would be "higher" than that of the first. Area under the curve represents distance traveled per stroke. The 2nd crew would cover more ground each stroke.
>

First of all, I am not trying to criticize anyone who is not teaching slow hands out of bow, especially for non-elite crews. I am just trying to explain the logic of behind the technique. If you find something that works better for you by all means do that.

However your logic is faulty here. The second crew in your example starts the "post-extraction velocity spike" while the boat is at a higher speed. Therefore the peak hull speed on the recovery will be greater than the first boat. That necessarily results in more total drag. The two boats in your example do not slow at the same speed. The curves you describe will not overlap because drag is non linear.

Drew Ginn, Hamish Bond and Eric Murry, have experimentally determined that this is a faster way for them to row. The advantages for them outweigh the disadvantages, as it seems to most of elite crews--it may not be the same for your crew, It does require very clean releases good set, and excellent timing. If you have problems with those things, then don't spend time worrying about the gather.

[rich....@montgomerybell.edu]

> Therefore the peak hull speed on the recovery will be greater than the first boat. That necessarily results in more total drag. The two boats in your > example do not slow at the same speed. The curves you describe will not overlap because drag is non linear.

I am finding much difficulty describing in words what I can represent graphically. I agree that curve for the 2nd boat will have a larger negative slope than the first. However, it is starting from a higher point. As time passes (and the boat slows), the slope will match that of the 1st boat for the corresponding velocity (which occurred at an earlier time). Throughout the "slowing phase" of the shell on the recovery, the higher curve of the 2nd crew will approach that of the first. However, it will never drop below the curve of the first (the 2nd shell traveling at a slower speed than the 1st.) As both crews reach the end of the slide and pull the boat towards the finish line, they will both achieve the same shell velocity. The increase in speed of the boat approaching the catch is a result of how the body moves on the slide not what the hands do at the finish. The velocity achieved during the drive is a result of the bodies in the boat. Being "identical", both curves will line up.

> Drew Ginn, Hamish Bond and Eric Murry, have experimentally determined that this is a faster way for them to row.

Have they made public any data that they gathered? I would be very interested to see the results.

[alister....@gmail.com]

Drew talks a lot about it in a YouTube video that Axel Dickinson put up, "will it make the boat go faster".
Bond and Murray refer to this in their book, "The Kiwi Pair", where they talk about it being a faster way for them to row. (I'll find the page numbers later, off to cause trouble at a boat club dinner...)

It's not exactly peer reviewed, but it did work for them. Having rowed with most of the Oarsome Foursome guys back when I rowed at the same club, that was most definitely the style that worked best for them and for me, and it's something I'd be comfortable coaching any crew with.

In contrast to you, I feel it also works well for "lower performance" crews, as the gather, or even a mild pause, gives a chance for crews to come together and then draw the boat past them into the catch. It is more challenging to get the catch right, but it's worthwhile. The college crew I coached this term went from getting bumped badly in last Mays (with me attempting to sand edges off rather than change technique wholesale) to having the best Fairbairns result in the club's history yesterday after a focus on building what was close to a pause in the finish, and setting up earlier for the catch.

Yes, other factors at work, but it did make them go significantly quicker. The speedcoach is the only article of faith I have in rowing. If it doesn't make the boat go faster, there is no point in doing a certain session and rowing a certain technique. Anecdotal, but it works for me, and what you couch works for you.

[carl]

On 02/12/2016 21:23, rich....@montgomerybell.edu wrote:
> I agree fully, Mr. Law. I was quoting (or attempting to) wmar...
>
> Like Mr. Douglas, I don't coach/row with the exact technique that was taught to me. However, one part that has always made sense was "less time in the bow means more time on the slide." There is an idea that a crew has to be either slow out of the bow and draw the boat on the recovery OR quick out of the bow and "heavy on the feet" into the catch. Wouldn't combining the two produce the best results?...both quick out of the bow and being able to draw the boat on the recovery.
>
> Rich
>

Hi Rich -

A few more thoughts, but I fully concur with Walter & GSLewis:

1. It is theoretically possible to achieve constant boat velocity
through the recovery but, while we like to think we're athletic, our
athleticism is not up to that particular challenge. So we make the best
of a bad job.

2. At the finish the boat moves much faster than at any other point in
the cycle - at ~20% above its mean speed - at that point incurs _44%
more drag & dissipates energy ~70% faster than at its mean speed. And
there's another point in the cycle where boat speed is ~20% lower than
the mean, with drag ~36% below that at mean speed & energy dissipation
~49% lower.

3. If we move body mass sternwards relative to the boat, we will waste
more energy by doing so near the finish - we'll either spike or sustain
maximum boat speed where drag losses are disproportionately large. If,
however, we focus our relative movement on sustaining boat speed where
it is already closer to the mean speed, then we get a better return on
investment (= a reduced level of energy dissipation).

4. We do less work during recovery than during the power stroke, yet
until the rate reaches 40spm we still have more time to accomplish the
recovery. So the athletic challenge of tuning the recovery to reduce
fluctuations in the boat's speed is hardly severe.

All of which make it neither necessary nor desirable to start the
recovery as a continuous part of the finish. Only when rate approaches
40spm does the brief stasis at the finish seem to disappear - which is
why rates much above 40 are rather rare. If you circle the hands at the
finish, then that does absorb time - the time taken to move the hands
vertically after the power stroke has ended. And that loss of time is
likely to limit your peak rating.

Otherwise, what restricts rating is the notion that you should gather
for the catch. The catch cannot be hard (the oar has to be bent to be
loaded, & that takes time), & it is created by a vertically diagonal
reversal of the hand movement which is an unlikely follow-up to a moment
of deliberately increased tension. But there is a looping action at the
catch so one should accept that this is a fast, pause-free continuation
of the last part of the recovery. Which in turn suggests that the hands
should be moving quickly into the catch - a kind of whiplash action.

And that ensures that the boat is being strongly pulled towards the
body's centre of mass right up to the catch, where the boat is moving
slowest, the drag is least & that pull can be most productive.

[gsl...@gmail.com]

Rich, I think one thing I have not been clear about, and what may be confusing, is that the hand speed is not all that important in and of it self. It does however effect the timing of the the body over and the slide speed.

> Alister: In contrast to you, I feel it also works well for "lower performance" crews,

If you meant me, I was not clear. I do think it works for lower performance crews. Just that it is less important for them. I do like the style and feel that it is a more relaxing way row.

[rich....@montgomerybell.edu]

Otherwise, what restricts rating is the notion that you should gather
for the catch. The catch cannot be hard (the oar has to be bent to be
loaded, & that takes time), & it is created by a vertically diagonal
reversal of the hand movement which is an unlikely follow-up to a moment
of deliberately increased tension. But there is a looping action at the
catch so one should accept that this is a fast, pause-free continuation
of the last part of the recovery. Which in turn suggests that the hands
should be moving quickly into the catch - a kind of whiplash action.

HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING HERE. I never said, nor do I believe, that a gather should happen at the catch or anywhere near it. I coach the same motion which you describe. I tell them to take the catch "on the run". My contention is that the point at which any "gather" should occur is just before the knees unlock with the shoulders out of the bow.

3. If we move body mass sternwards relative to the boat, we will waste
more energy by doing so near the finish - we'll either spike or sustain
maximum boat speed where drag losses are disproportionately large. If,
however, we focus our relative movement on sustaining boat speed where
it is already closer to the mean speed, then we get a better return on
investment (= a reduced level of energy dissipation).

And that ensures that the boat is being strongly pulled towards the
body's centre of mass right up to the catch, where the boat is moving
slowest, the drag is least & that pull can be most productive.

I do understand the mechanics behind this argument. I have degrees in both Math and Physics. My argument is that adding a little bit of speed at the end of the stroke by using core muscles is not a "bad" thing. Yes, the boat there will be more drag. But, the speed gained was not derived from the legs in any fashion. Now, as you move up the slide, the boat is traveling at a higher minimum velocity that it would have been otherwise. (Yes, there is more drag. But the goal is to make the boat move faster.) Now, when you pull the boat "toward's the body's centre of mass", you will not need as much force because the shell is moving at a speed closer to the maximum velocity that you could create. This is the "return" on the investment that you made at the early part of the stroke. Are both energies equal in magnitude? If they are not, I do not believe that they will differ greatly. I have not crunched the numbers to verify because I don't believe that it matters. One was created by core muscles, saving the legs to do more work during other parts of the stroke.

Regardless of the source of the energy, the velocity/time curve for the "shoulders out/gather at the 'forward lean' " crew will be higher than or equal to the "gather at the release" crew. Am I correct in assuming this? Now that we are clear that both crews start the slide slowly, draw the boat towards them, "move throughout the catch", and achieve the same peak velocity. The only difference between the strokes is that the "gather" is moved from a position where the shoulders are bow-ward of the hips to one in which they are stern-wards of them.

Mr. Lewis, I do agree that the hand speed does affect the "body over" speed. However, if drilled properly, it does not affect the slide speed.

[wmar...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 3 December 2016 18:45:30 UTC-5, rich....@montgomerybell.edu wrote:

>
> I do understand the mechanics behind this argument. I have degrees in both Math and Physics. My argument is that adding a little bit of speed at the end of the stroke by using core muscles is not a "bad" thing. Yes, the boat there will be more drag. But, the speed gained was not derived from the legs in any fashion. Now, as you move up the slide, the boat is traveling at a higher minimum velocity that it would have been otherwise. (Yes, there is more drag. But the goal is to make the boat move faster.)

Doesn't matter... Increased hull velocity through the water means increased drag - or - energy loss from the movement system to the outside world. IF the crew is still "oars in the water" propelling the boat, this is a good thing because the movement system is still increasing velocity/momentum. If the oars are in the air, and you increase the hull velocity through the water, you give up more energy to the water and OVERALL slow down faster. When the oars are in the air the only thing that can possibly happen to the entire system is that it slows down - the only forces acting on the boat from the outside world come from the water and air resistance, and if you disregard air resistance (for this discussion), form drag, wave drag, and viscous drag are unforgiving - particularly viscous drag, because it goes up faster than the velocity goes up. It makes no sense to purposely increase the drag on something that is only slowing down.

Wasted energy via a fast start to the recovery is still wasted energy, and AS YOU KNOW the change in velocity of the hull, with the oars in the air, gives a disproportionate loss of energy (movement system velocity) to the outside environment... The "legs" may not be contributing to this, but it does take muscular energy to flex the hips and haul the boat through against the resistance of the water. Smith (Australia) has shown since the late 1990s that it takes about 100N (around 10 kg worth of force) of pulling force on a foot stretcher in a single to move the boat through the water during the recovery. The "BAT Logic" website has graphic representation of foot-stretcher forces during the recovery, also. There's a pull on the stretcher (any boat, but singles are easiest to study and interpret) for most of the recovery, and then when the crew is approaching their catch, the force on the foot stretcher changes direction again and the crew/hull velocity difference approaches zero again. These forces are relatively small - when you run you're putting about 2-3 x your body mass through your feet - so 50N/foot is hard to notice unless you're made aware of it.

Now... IF you absolutely know when your last stroke in a race is, and you are going to be commencing a recovery within a few metres or so of the finish line, you can gain a slight advantage by "lunging the boat" (pulling a really fast recovery) as people try to do in some ski or skating races to shoot their ski or blade past the finish line before the opponent - or "leaning" forward in a 100 m sprint running race - but you can't do that every stroke. Kayakers and canoeists have a better idea of where the finish line is and sometimes you'll see them attempt to lunge their boats, but it's usually a matter of lucky timing in a rowing race to be on the "surge" at the moment you cross the finish line.

[Sarah Harbour]

^snip^ Kayakers and canoeists have a better idea of where the finish line is and sometimes you'll see them attempt to lunge their boats, but it's usually a matter of lucky timing in a rowing race to be on the "surge" at the moment you cross the finish line.

Would have been an interesting finish to the men's Olympic singles final if Drysdale and Martin had done a lunge!

Sarah

[carl]

On 03/12/2016 23:45, rich....@montgomerybell.edu wrote:
> (Yes, there is more drag. But the goal is to make the boat move faster.)

And adding drag makes you faster? For the same total power output? I
would respectfully suggest that to be a novel but implausible proposition.

Your parenthesised statement, above, encapsulates the conflict that
exists between your interpretation & that of other contributors.

I believe that the main parties to this discussion each have adequate
academic qualifications to enable us to present our case, but we are all
fallible. The correct interpretation will depend upon which of us has
made an unfounded assumption or assumptions.

[rich....@montgomerybell.edu]

Of course adding drag doesn't make you faster. That was never my suggestion. Adding speed, which does result in additional drag, is mine. But, is not the goal of every coach the addition of speed? I will attempt this one more time:

Let's look at 4 intervals of the recovery (t=0.0s - release, t=0.2s, t=0.3s, t=0.55s, and t=0.67s) for the two shells (A - gather at the finish, B-shoulders forward). Both at 36spm, both identical.
t=0s: Both boats extract blades from the water
0s - 0.2s: Boat A's speed begins to decrease as shoulders start to move slowly out of the bow
Boat B's speed increases as the shoulders move from behind the hips to in front of hips (conservation of momentum)
0.3: Rowers in Boat B can begin to move on the slide
Rowers in Boat A have already begun SLOWLY moving into the catch (less than 1/4 slide)
0.2-0.3s: Boat B continues to decrease speed
Boat A decreases speed at a higher rate than B. However, still has a higher absolute velocity
0.3-0.55s: Rowers in both boats move "up the slide". Both boats continue to decrease in speed, A at a higher rate than B. At the end of this interval, both shells are traveling at the same speed.
0.55s: Crew A has now "caught up to" Crew B both are at the exact same position on the slide. Both crews pull the shell towards them to begin the "catch phase" of the stroke
0.55-0.67s: Both crews achieve the same pre-catch velocity due to the fact that their motions are now exactly the same.

Throughout the recovery, yes, Shell B does experience a higher relative drag than shell A for the same moment in time. But that is due to the fact that it is traveling faster at that same moment. The moment it slows to the same speed at shell A, they will have the SAME drag and behave identically. (Shell B will not maintain a higher drag because it was travelling faster previously. Drag is a factor of the instantaneous velocity not the average.) So, at no point during this recovery does shell B travel slower than A. The motion into the catch (pulling the shell, etc) is identical for both crews. Crew B just traveled more slowly from the beginning of the slide until whatever point BOTH crews "accelerated into the catch."

All of this being said, I do not believe that there is one "correct" style. Training, rigging, and equipment (blade type, shell shape) all play huge roles in whether or not any technique will be successful for a given crew. My issue is that the current culture in the sport is that anyone who teaches shoulders out is either ill-informed or refusing to learn new ways. The "gather at the finish" technique has changed the way I teach the catch. No longer do I use the "front edge of a ski" analogy to describe the hand motion going to the stern. The benefits of speeding up the shell (and adding drag ;) ) going into the catch just makes good sense. I don't believe that the only way to achieve that benefit is to keep the shoulders from moving forward quickly.

[rke...@gmail.com]

In my haste, I chose the numbers representing the las 2 intervals wrong: 0.67 is drive phase at 36spm; 1.0s is recovery. The intervals should be: 0, 0.2, 0.3, 0.85 and 1.0s. All descriptions still hold true. My apologies.

Rich

[Mel Harbour]

I think the central issue is that you need to think not in terms of making the boat 'faster' or 'slower' on the recovery, but rather consider the movement up the slide as being a conservation of momentum decision. From the moment the blades exit the water, until connection has been established after the blades are in the water again, the centre of mass of the entire system will be slowing down. It has to, as there are no forces acting externally to push you forwards (Newton), only drag, both aerodynamic (against your body, and the oars) and fluid (against the shell). But the shell and your body can be moved (somewhat) independently, and you can choose, through muscle action to perform a transfer of momentum between the two. Indeed, you're going to have to at some point in order to move forwards. The earlier you perform that transfer, the higher the shell speed will be during the whole recovery. That makes absolutely no difference to the speed of the centre of mass of the system (again, it can't - no external force acting, thank you Newton again...), so makes no difference to the speed at which the system moves towards the finish line, except for the fact that the rower and the boat experience different levels of drag. The drag experienced by the boat being much more.

Conclusion - avoid the momentum exchange. You can't boost the speed of the system that way, but you will increase the drag experienced by the shell for the same system speed. Sad face.

Mel

[John Greenly]

Mel's got it in a nutshell. As Carl and others also point out, the goal isn't to make the boat go faster, it's to make the boat and rower system go faster (except in that last lunge of the race where the boat can effectively leave the rower behind by a slide length, as Walter points out).

Rich's scenario misses the effect on the rower's momentum due to his actions in moving the boat. If during some time interval in the recovery rower B moves his boat faster, the extra drag of the increased hull speed will rob the system of more momentum, so at the end of that interval, the hull might be going the same speed as the other (A) boat but the system momentum is lower, and that means the rower's center of mass is moving faster sternward up the slide. That's where the scenario goes awry. If you carry it through you will find that to arrive at the catch at the same time, rower B will then have to slow down on the slide, and during that time his B boat will then go slower through the water than the A boat. The net effect is that the B boat will cover less distance during the same total recovery time; it will be slower.

hope this helps,

Cheers,
John

[gsl...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 11:22:39 AM UTC-8, rich....@montgomerybell.edu wrote:
>My issue is that the current culture in the sport is that anyone who teaches shoulders out is either ill-informed or refusing to learn new ways.

Certainly not intending to imply that, not intending to imply that you should change your coaching. Just trying to get the physics right.

[carl]

Not only does a pause at the finish work for "lower performance" crews
(which I guess is the great majority of rowers?) but in my experience it
works wonderfully for near novices who are suffering from poor finishes,
tatty recoveries, uncertain catches & the rest.

Many newbies are encouraged to fear the finish because, they hear, if
you hang around something nasty will happen to your blades. For that
reason many are actively instructed to get the hands away from the
finish ASAP.

That is, of course, nonsense. The safest, most secure part of the
stroke is at the finish, with blades half-square and just scuffing the
surface. And the beauty of demythologising the finish & instead giving
it time is that you can focus on the stroke, maximising its length &
sustaining its power to the end, as there's nothing else you need to do
when it ends. And isn't it the stroke that delivers the power?