comparing erg scores
Gareth Wynn
wondered what people think about my reasons for choosing.
I recently purchased a C2 with one of the main deciding factors being the
monitor. I want to compare my scores with other, both within my crews, and
with everyone else. Considering most people use C2 it seemed the best
option.
How similar are scores on the three machines? Is it possible to compare one
person's score on a C2 with another's on a water rower for example?
If not,considering many rowers spend several hours on the water every week
is there any real benefit in the "more realistic feel"?
Cheers
Gareth
David Goddard
set up. The Rowperfect software allows a 'boat' selection, and the split
reflects this accordingly. In general Rowperfect splits are lower than C2 ones.
Set to 8+ I reckon the Rowperfect shows a split ~12 seconds lower than the C2.
This is really pure guesswork on my part (other people may have more accurate
comparisons), and reflects both differences in the processing of data and the
inherent differences in the two rowing actions. Certainly C2 scores are
currently more of a 'standard', and more importantly I guess those trialling for
boats will generally have to complete tests on a C2 - so familiarity of the C2
rowing style will clearly be an advantage.
My first impressions of the Rowperfect were mixed, while undeniably providing a
more authentic rowing 'experience', the rowing action seemed fussy compared to
the very simple C2, and also much less forgiving. However, with continued use I
much prefer the Rowperfect - the connection at the catch is much more solid (as
described by Tim Granger in response to a recent post) and the machine is more
rewarding both over short high-pressure pieces and for long steady-state work.
dg
Gareth Wynn wrote:
--
__________________________________________________________________________________
David Goddard
659 King's College, Cambridge, CB2 1ST
65 Sherbourne Road, Witney, Oxon., OX8 5FQ
Tel. 07977 589370 / 01993 702768
Anu Dudhia
output used to turn the flywheel, you should be able to achieve a higher power score
on the RowPerfect since you're not using up as much energy accelerating your
bodyweight backwards and forwards.
Adriaan Koster
>
> The comparison between Rowperfect and C2 splits depends on how the Rowperfect is
> set up. The Rowperfect software allows a 'boat' selection, and the split
> reflects this accordingly.
To make the RowPerfect as similar as possible to a Concept (why would
you want to do that again?) you can set it to a built-in Concept-II
mode. If you want to go further you can use a big glue-clamp and fix the
sliding flywheel assembly to the sliding. This will effectively turn
your RowPerfect in a good approximation of an old Concept II-B.
By the way, I can understand your choice of erg if comparing erg scores
is the most important factor for you.
See you on the water...
A3aan.
Tim Granger
Gareth Wynn <gar...@90arnfield.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't want to simply repeat the C2 / water rower / Rowperfect debate but I
>wondered what people think about my reasons for choosing.
>
>I recently purchased a C2 with one of the main deciding factors being the
>monitor. I want to compare my scores with other, both within my crews, and
>with everyone else. Considering most people use C2 it seemed the best
>option.
>
>How similar are scores on the three machines? Is it possible to compare one
>person's score on a C2 with another's on a water rower for example?
The last time I did any heart rate controlled stuff, I seems to find that
the watts readout on the C2 and rowperfect were pretty much the same for
the same heart rate level. A very approximate test and not researched
properly, but I could see how this might be a better way to compare scores
across machines than some idea of split.
Tim
iai...@my-deja.com
Concept II in that time. I find my distances achieved over set time
periods are about 2/3 of what, from previous experience, I'd expect to
see on the Concept. I don't believe I'm only 2/3 as fit as I used to
be, as my sculling times are much the same, if not better.
As I'm not training competitively, I'm not particularly bothered about
comparing scores with anyone except myself, however, it would be
interesting to know if anyone else sees such a big discrepancy between
W-R and C2 scores? Have I got a W-R with a dodgy clock, or am I just
useless at ergoing.....?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Adriaan Koster
>
> I've owned a water-rower for a couple of years, and I haven't used a
> Concept II in that time. I find my distances achieved over set time
> periods are about 2/3 of what, from previous experience, I'd expect to
> see on the Concept. I don't believe I'm only 2/3 as fit as I used to
> be, as my sculling times are much the same, if not better.
One big mistake you shouldn't make: Your erg score is not only a measure
for (rowing) fitness, but also very much a measure of competence on that
specific erg. With that I mean that your score improves radically just
by exercising the exact same motion on the exact same machine type.
Erging is a little trick which is a different on each machine, and very
different from on-water rowing.
A3aan.
Keith Thomas
to be meaningful - I'd suggest that the difference between the machines and
a boat will be so great as to make them meaningless. The erg (all three)
are simply aerobic endurance/strength machines, yet rowing on water where
timing, synchrony, balance, cadence, rhythm and intuition all have a role,
make the comparison rough to say the least.
Better to compare boat times with boat times and erg performance with erg
performance.
Keith, Canberra, Australia
Gareth Wynn wrote in message <8ua570$ims$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
iai...@my-deja.com
getting used to the W-R. I've had my own single for 15-odd years before
I ever bought the machine. I might not be the world's best, but I would
say that at least I'm pretty consistent at what I do, technically.
Over the 2 years I've had the W-R, my scores, although improved, have
been of the same order of magnitude as when I first got it.
The fact remains that my PB for 20 minutes, for example, on the W-R is
about 3700m, and my C2 best is well over 5K. So, does this prove that
there isn't any correlation between the machines, or am I just an
isolated case? - the question stands.
Gareth Wynn
equipment. And to compare yourself to people you can't row with is
impossible (except, for example, Pincent is very good and strong. I am not.
Easy one that one!)
"Keith Thomas" <ia...@spirit.com.au> wrote in message
news:3MuO5.24$tK.11...@news.interact.net.au...
> If you are competent enough to want to compare times - and the comparison
is
> to be meaningful - I'd suggest that the difference between the machines
and
> a boat will be so great as to make them meaningless. The erg (all three)
> are simply aerobic endurance/strength machines, yet rowing on water where
> timing, synchrony, balance, cadence, rhythm and intuition all have a role,
> make the comparison rough to say the least.
>
> Better to compare boat times with boat times and erg performance with erg
> performance.
>
> Keith, Canberra, Australia
>
> Gareth Wynn wrote in message <8ua570$ims$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
mir
I have almost exactly the same experience - about 5k/20min on a C2, and
3.7k/20min on a WR with 17.5 litres of water indicated in the tank. I
still have access to C2 at work, so I can compare my output on both. It
seems that the difference in apparent speed for a given level of output is
due to differences in the way the C2 and WR computers work. If I
understand the differences between the C2 and WR computers correctly, the
C2 normalizes equivalent boat speed regardless of damper setting by
calulating flywheel drag during each recovery, so speed is actually a
function of your effective power output - but the WR computer doesn't, so
reducing water level in the WR makes it in effect a lighter, faster boat.
At least, that's what I got from asking WR and C2 detailed questions
about their computers function. Too bad we can't have the best of both
machines - a quiet, compact C2, or a WR with a better computer.
Mike
In article <8ue7sh$lvu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, iai...@my-deja.com says...
Gareth G. Price
Compact would be a nice idea as it's currently sprawled along the length of
my living room.....
Gareth
mir <miru...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8uh0rg$68c$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...