Does racing at a lower drag than when training make a difference?

[phoenix]

I'm a 60 year old heavyweight female who has just started indoor rowing again after giving it up 15 years ago.
I have been training on a drag of 115-117, 4x a week for 12 weeks. I did my first 2k race at an indoor comp a few days ago but unfortunately the ergs were in poor condition and the drag was only at 90 even on a damper setting of 10. A few people pulled out of the race because of this, as when warming up on the machines they said they couldn't pull their usual splits. I went ahead with the race as I was keen to know what time I could do, to use it as a refernce for basing my next lot of training on. Does anyone know if racing at a drag of 90 after training on 117 would affect the time of the 2k? I'm not made for speed and raced at my prefered stroke rate of 27/28spm.
My time was ok - but I was expecting to do slightly better.

[mitchel674]

Being forced to race at a lower drag factor than you are used to for training would certainly affect your 2k time.

Pretty lousy organizers who put together a race event and didn't take the time to maintain and clean the machines. They must have been packed with dust to have a drag factor of 90 at lever setting of 10. I don't blame folks for dropping out and not racing.

[Sakly]

I could clearly not reach same splits on DF 90, as I am not the explosive athlete.
Selection of DF is very individual, a personal preference. And even if you could get to your usual splits on a lower drag, it could drain you more.

[Dangerscouse]

There are two, and maybe three parts to this imo. A lower drag will very probably affect you as it's quite a difference from 117 to 90, but I do know of some people that thrive at lower drag factors, although they are the outliers, not the other way round. Most people will struggle to generate enough power at such a low drag factor, especially if they're not used to it. I'd rather have too much drag, than too little.

There is also the psychological affect too. I know I have mentally struggled with lower and higher drag factors, as it just doesn't feel right. When that seed is planted it can become difficult to ignore.

Finally if the ergs are so badly maintained to be df90, it's possible that you will be losing time from other issues too eg a loose bungee cord.

[JaapvanE]

Just for a frame of reference: the Model C/D's at my gym have a DF of 110 to 120, and haven't been maintained, oiled or vacuumed for 20 years. So a machine with DF 90 is a sign of severe neglect for decades. Deciding to conduct a race on that, with all safety issues of neglected maintenance, comes extremely close to irresponsible.

Going back several DF points is difficult, as your rhythm gets disturbed: your force during the drive matches the recovery time so that the flywheel has a certain speed when you arrive back at the catch (i.e. the dragfactor optimises your effectiveness at your preferred SPM). Changing that is tough, as you have to find that rhythm again. It will kill any speed, as you will be way too early for your catch. The process becomes quite similar to pushing a kid on a swing, but you are too late and the kid is already on its way back.

Even I would struggle with a DF of 90. Normally I train at DF 135. However, I have been injured (tore my biceps) and thus I had to "earn" the right to move up 5 points DF by rowing it for 4 weeks painfree. I trained quite a long time at DF 70 to 90, almost 6 months to the day, and 3 weeks ago I was allowed to make the jump to DF110. Basically, moving to a new DF requires to readjust either my timing in recovery or my power in the drive to get a good catch, which typically takes me two to three trainings to find my optimal rhythm. Recently I had a setback and had to move back to a lower DF, and I discovered that finding that (well trained) rhythm back again still takes me 2 to 3 K. Quite acceptable as part of a training in a recovery process, but totally unacceptable when it is forced onto you during a race where the distance is 2K.

[phoenix]

Yes, the event was very poorly organised. It was actually a well known Masters Games event so all the competitors were very shocked to see the ergs supplied for the race. Two were model C, with chains so stiff, they had to be almost pushed back into the catch on each stroke, and the clocks didn't even work properly. Luckily I didn't have to race on those, but some people did.
I managed to knock 1 second off my best 2k, when racing on the 90 drag machine. Eventually a competitor went home and fetched his own erg so we raced on that for the shorter distances.
Rowing on his erg with a drag of 117, I knocked 5 secs off my best 500m and 2-3 secs off my best 200m piece.
I'm convinced now, that as I knocked 5 secs off my best 500m (raced after the 2k), if I had had a better machine I could have beat my 2k by more than 1 second. I feel quite cheated!
Oh well, I'll try again in Feb at the next race

[JaapvanE]

Two were model C, with chains so stiff, they had to be almost pushed back into the catch on each stroke, and the clocks didn't even work properly. Luckily I didn't have to race on those, but some people did.

That is more neglect than technical capability of the machine. When taken care of in a decent way, a Concept2 will outlive anyone here easily. When neglected for too long, that happens. Shame that it robbed people from a great experience.

[phoenix]

That is more neglect than technical capability of the machine. When taken care of in a decent way, a Concept2 will outlive anyone here easily. When neglected for too long, that happens.

I totally agree, I own a secondhand model C that used to be owned by a school so has many Ks on the clock and had been illtreated by schoolboy rowers. A little TLC from me and it rows great! They are bullet proof

[Joebasscat]

To your original question I would say yes it would most likely make a difference. I have recently experienced some hip or more likely muscle issues on my right side and to help the recovery I reduced my drag factor to 85 or so. Was able to hit my target pace on my weekly 8x500 but it was different. Same with my SS workouts. It’s much more of an aerobic workout at the same pace. Tougher to manage HR. So depending on the individual you may be able to hit your splits, but at a minimum I would say SR would need to increase.

On the plus side I think it’s been interesting and instructive to work at 85 for a couple of weeks. And yes getting improvement on the muscle irritation as well.

[nick rockliff]

During the 2004/05 season there was a lot of races. I got stuck at around 6.20 for the 2k. I used DF123 for all training but at races machines seemed to feel totally different so used to set DF to how the machine felt. One of the last races was in Manchester and the machine felt heavy at 123 and ended up setting it at 111. Time for the 2k races was 6.20. Think I ended up with five 2k times around 6.20 that period.

[gvcormac]

Let's go back to basic physics: Energy is force times distance. Your speed will be determined by the amount of energy you transmit to the flywheel over the course of the event.

If your muscles can generate the same force for a faster pull you can get the same energy per stroke. If you maintain the same stroke rate you'll generate the same amount of energy and achieve the same speed. But in order to maintain the same stroke rate you'll need to take a slower recovery.

Even if you can't generate the same force you'll still get a faster stroke. This might result in a faster stroke rate (assuming recovery at the same rate) and result in the same amount of energy over the event.

In short: it is complicated. Lower drag probably, but not necessarily, decreases work per stroke. At the same time, it probably, but not necessarily results in increased stroke rate. Decrease in work per stroke may or may not be offset by increase in stroke rate.

[JaapvanE]

In short: it is complicated. Lower drag probably, but not necessarily, decreases work per stroke. At the same time, it probably, but not necessarily results in increased stroke rate. Decrease in work per stroke may or may not be offset by increase in stroke rate.

This is a very complicated way to explain the bike gear analogy with relation to drag factor. From a purely energetic standpoint you are right: regardless of DF/gear, you can theoretically produce the same work.

But nobody goes up a mountain in 21st gear, despite it theoretically being able to produce the same work as going up in 1st.

From a physiology standpoint, there is a huge difference. Similar to bike gears, it is a personal preference where people's personal combination of muscle build and speed are the most effective. And then there is the issue of finding the rhythem for an efficient catch. In my experience for the last 8 months with a frequently changing DF, that is really tough. Especially when are used to a higher DF, you'll very likely miss the catch a lot (i.e. being way too early and thus needing to catch a too fast flywheel).

[Nomath]

The bicycle gear analogy is nonsense. Bicycle gears, whatever gears you chose, have almost zero energy loss. So the bicycle gear choice is only about what the human body handles more efficiently : high pedal rate with a low pedal force or low a pedal rate with a high pedal force.

In contrast, the drag factor in indoor rowing principally and primarily affects energy loss. A higher drag factor is like rowing a boat with a higher hydrodynamic resistance, for example a higher cross section or a rougher surface. The proper analogy in cycling is : riding with a higher frontal area or in a less-aerodynamic position. The hydrodynamic drag of a boat follows the same physical equation as a moving vehicle in air : work is proportional to the drag factor and speed to power three.

Experimental studies of ergometer rowing have shown that if you impose the drag factor and let rowers free in adapting the stroke rate, they will opt for a higher stroke rate at lower drag factors. See the studies Effects of Drag Factor on Physiological Aspects of Rowing (2008) and Effects of Stroke Resistance on Rowing Efficiency of Club Rowers Post-Season (2012) in Int. J. Sports Medicine by D. A. Kane and co-authors. The attached graph was constructed by me from data in the second paper. The studies were done at two drag factor settings, 100 and 150. At the ultimate power output the participants went all-out in a 3-min period. As you can see in the graph, there was not much difference in their ultimate power output at these two very different drag factors !



For more details, see viewtopic.php?f=7&t=192076

[JaapvanE]

The bicycle gear analogy is nonsense.

With all respect, see https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/ ... etting-101, which states:

Damper setting is similar to bicycle gearing: it affects how rowing feels but does not directly affect the resistance. A lower damper setting on the indoor rower is comparable to easier gears on a bike.

To change the "type of boat", according to http://eodg.atm.ox.ac.uk/user/dudhia/ro ... l#section9, you have to:

The figure used for c is somewhat arbitrary - selected to indicate a 'realistic' boat speed for a given output power.

Here, the magic constant c determines the ratio between power and speed, not k (the dragfactor).

[gvcormac]

In short: it is complicated. Lower drag probably, but not necessarily, decreases work per stroke. At the same time, it probably, but not necessarily results in increased stroke rate. Decrease in work per stroke may or may not be offset by increase in stroke rate.

This is a very complicated way to explain the bike gear analogy with relation to drag factor. From a purely energetic standpoint you are right: regardless of DF/gear, you can theoretically produce the same work.

But nobody goes up a mountain in 21st gear, despite it theoretically being able to produce the same work as going up in 1st.

From a physiology standpoint, there is a huge difference. Similar to bike gears, it is a personal preference where people's personal combination of muscle build and speed are the most effective. And then there is the issue of finding the rhythem for an efficient catch. In my experience for the last 8 months with a frequently changing DF, that is really tough. Especially when are used to a higher DF, you'll very likely miss the catch a lot (i.e. being way too early and thus needing to catch a too fast flywheel).

I didn't say anything about bicycle gearing. With bicycle gearing, it is axiomatic that you apply less force over more distance to do the same work. Here, you apply nearly the same force over nearly the same distance on each stroke.

Also, I did say "if your muscles can do it" at that speed, which would include being able to execute the catch.