The Vulcan wrote:Without going into the how and why, is the end result that if I row for 30 minutes at a pace of 30 spm on damper setting 10, I should cover more meters than if I row for 30 minutes at a pace of 30 spm on damper setting 1?
Not neccesarily. The "how and the why" are relevant. For example, you could achieve a stroke rating of 30 at damper 10 by barely pulling back on the handle, then rushing the slide, versus rowing "normally" at damper 1 and 30 SPM, and your split will be much faster on setting 1. You can obviously reverse techniques and get a faster split on 10 than on 1.
Let's try another analogy... The damper setting you choose is kind of like how much weight you put on the bar when you do bench presses. A damper setting of 1 is a light load, and a setting of 10 is a heavy load. With the light load, you can easily and rapidly move the bar, but you don't do as much work per rep. With the heavy load, you do more work per rep, but you are straining more to do so.
This analogy breaks down/is incomplete though. Work is equal to force X distance. Assume the distance is the same for both your weight lifting (arm length stays constant) and for your erging (you keep a consistent stroke length). With the weights, the force is simply equal to the weight of the bar. However, the force on each stroke with the erg is *not* directly proportional to the damper setting. That force is a combination of factors, including the damper setting, the current speed of the flywheel/fan and how much you accelerate the system on each stroke.
What the PM is reporting as speed/distance is based upon how much work you've put into the erg, but it isn't a linear relationship. That's where that whole thing about modeling a four w/o coxswain comes in.