<br><br>Various different thoughts about rowing and training for it. Masculine used for feminine and all that malarky...<br><br><b>Assumption</b> My aim is to train oarsmen to row faster on the water.<br><i>Conclusion</i> Any training must aim to do something to increase the abilities of the oarsman to go faster on the water.<br><i>Conclusion</i> We need to identify areas in which the oarsman is deficient in order to remove these and increase his speed. So the problem arises - how to know what a deficiency is. It amounts to the same as asking the question 'how strong is strong enough?'. To answer this is tricky, so we need to explore possible ways to discover the truth.<br><br>There are two ways to proceed. Either conduct some form of study yourself and monitor the results carefully to gain the insights you need, or use someone else's data. The former has problems - how do you ensure that the data is not corrupted by other effects, and how do you obtain a large enough sample size for any results to be statistically significant? Both are tricky. The latter approach also has no guarantees that other effects have been eliminated, but it can allow you access to a much larger sample space, which can be used to reduce the effect on results of these outside influences.<br><br><b>Assumption</b> Based on the above analysis, we go with the larger sample space option. The sample space I'm going to choose is 'rowers'. So in order to improve my oarsmen, the approach I will take is: identify the current standard of my oarsmen; identify as large a group as possible of oarsmen of a higher standard; average the data for both groups; compare and contrast.<br><br>If my group of oarsmen is sub-international, then I can pick a group to compare to called 'international oarsmen'.<br><br><b>Fact</b> The only data I'm interested in creating a comparison between is that for racing, since that is what I want to improve. I will ignore any information I have about their training methods.<br><br>So pick some things that are different:<br><br><b>Fact</b> International oarsmen sustain a higher rating through the whole of a race than non international oarsmen.<br><br><b>Fact</b> International oarsmen create signficantly more distance per stroke than non international oarsmen.<br><br>Ok. We've got two things to work with. As it turns out, the discrepency in the dps is greater than that in the rating, so that is identified as our primary weakness. We therefore need to improve this. Let us again break things down and look carefully at what we can do. How can we move a boat further per stroke?<br><ul><li>Put more energy into the boat</li><li>Take less energy out of the boat</li></ul><br>Fair enough. Both simple concepts (I like simple!). Let's look at each in turn. I want to put more energy into the boat. Energy is Force * Distance (simple physics). So I need to either increase the force I apply, or increase the distance I apply it over (or both!). How to increase the force I apply? Well I can make my muscles stronger, both in terms of isolated strength, and in terms of how they work together to generate the force (joint summation). Seems good enough to me. How to increase the distance? Well, fairly simple as well - have the blade in the water with force applied to it for a longer distance of work.<br><br>How to take less energy out of the boat? This means looking for efficiency savings. This is where we can apply a little science and mechanics to identify areas of waste. However, there's no 'wasted energy' meter directly in the boat, so it's a little bit tricky to work on per se. We can make a few educated guesses (for example constant hull speed being more efficient) and then watch for signs of these to help us identify how we are doing. At the simplest level, drive time (and hence input energy) is linked inextricably to boat speed. If I can achieve the same boat speed at a lower rate, then I must have reduced the amount of energy I'm throwing away.<br><br>However we've also identified that one of the things I lack is boatspeed in general. So I'm interested in ways in which I can improve that at the same time. Logically, same boat speed at lower rate is equivalent to greater boatspeed at the same rate. Cool - I can kill two birds with one stone! <br><br>So I now have a clear, logical aim in my training - increase my distance per stroke at a given rate, since this will correlate with an increase in boatspeed. If I can do this at all rates, I will go faster at my race rate and so get closer to winning. Sounds good.<br><br>I'm not actually going to elaborate any further than that at this stage. I don't think I need to. I have outlined the very simple objective of training as I see it in rowing and my thought processes to get there. There are lots of subtleties we can work in, but they all come back to this central theme. Once we've got this bit thrashed out (if I haven't lost <i>everyone</i>!), I might go on a bit more.<br><br>MelSome Thoughts On Rowing And Training
-
[old] Mel Harbour
- Posts: 0
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
General
See the Tomkins and Ginn thread for why I'm writing this! <br><br>Various different thoughts about rowing and training for it. Masculine used for feminine and all that malarky...<br><br><b>Assumption</b> My aim is to train oarsmen to row faster on the water.<br><i>Conclusion</i> Any training must aim to do something to increase the abilities of the oarsman to go faster on the water.<br><i>Conclusion</i> We need to identify areas in which the oarsman is deficient in order to remove these and increase his speed. So the problem arises - how to know what a deficiency is. It amounts to the same as asking the question 'how strong is strong enough?'. To answer this is tricky, so we need to explore possible ways to discover the truth.<br><br>There are two ways to proceed. Either conduct some form of study yourself and monitor the results carefully to gain the insights you need, or use someone else's data. The former has problems - how do you ensure that the data is not corrupted by other effects, and how do you obtain a large enough sample size for any results to be statistically significant? Both are tricky. The latter approach also has no guarantees that other effects have been eliminated, but it can allow you access to a much larger sample space, which can be used to reduce the effect on results of these outside influences.<br><br><b>Assumption</b> Based on the above analysis, we go with the larger sample space option. The sample space I'm going to choose is 'rowers'. So in order to improve my oarsmen, the approach I will take is: identify the current standard of my oarsmen; identify as large a group as possible of oarsmen of a higher standard; average the data for both groups; compare and contrast.<br><br>If my group of oarsmen is sub-international, then I can pick a group to compare to called 'international oarsmen'.<br><br><b>Fact</b> The only data I'm interested in creating a comparison between is that for racing, since that is what I want to improve. I will ignore any information I have about their training methods.<br><br>So pick some things that are different:<br><br><b>Fact</b> International oarsmen sustain a higher rating through the whole of a race than non international oarsmen.<br><br><b>Fact</b> International oarsmen create signficantly more distance per stroke than non international oarsmen.<br><br>Ok. We've got two things to work with. As it turns out, the discrepency in the dps is greater than that in the rating, so that is identified as our primary weakness. We therefore need to improve this. Let us again break things down and look carefully at what we can do. How can we move a boat further per stroke?<br><ul><li>Put more energy into the boat</li><li>Take less energy out of the boat</li></ul><br>Fair enough. Both simple concepts (I like simple!). Let's look at each in turn. I want to put more energy into the boat. Energy is Force * Distance (simple physics). So I need to either increase the force I apply, or increase the distance I apply it over (or both!). How to increase the force I apply? Well I can make my muscles stronger, both in terms of isolated strength, and in terms of how they work together to generate the force (joint summation). Seems good enough to me. How to increase the distance? Well, fairly simple as well - have the blade in the water with force applied to it for a longer distance of work.<br><br>How to take less energy out of the boat? This means looking for efficiency savings. This is where we can apply a little science and mechanics to identify areas of waste. However, there's no 'wasted energy' meter directly in the boat, so it's a little bit tricky to work on per se. We can make a few educated guesses (for example constant hull speed being more efficient) and then watch for signs of these to help us identify how we are doing. At the simplest level, drive time (and hence input energy) is linked inextricably to boat speed. If I can achieve the same boat speed at a lower rate, then I must have reduced the amount of energy I'm throwing away.<br><br>However we've also identified that one of the things I lack is boatspeed in general. So I'm interested in ways in which I can improve that at the same time. Logically, same boat speed at lower rate is equivalent to greater boatspeed at the same rate. Cool - I can kill two birds with one stone! <br><br>So I now have a clear, logical aim in my training - increase my distance per stroke at a given rate, since this will correlate with an increase in boatspeed. If I can do this at all rates, I will go faster at my race rate and so get closer to winning. Sounds good.<br><br>I'm not actually going to elaborate any further than that at this stage. I don't think I need to. I have outlined the very simple objective of training as I see it in rowing and my thought processes to get there. There are lots of subtleties we can work in, but they all come back to this central theme. Once we've got this bit thrashed out (if I haven't lost <i>everyone</i>!), I might go on a bit more.<br><br>Mel
<br><br>Various different thoughts about rowing and training for it. Masculine used for feminine and all that malarky...<br><br><b>Assumption</b> My aim is to train oarsmen to row faster on the water.<br><i>Conclusion</i> Any training must aim to do something to increase the abilities of the oarsman to go faster on the water.<br><i>Conclusion</i> We need to identify areas in which the oarsman is deficient in order to remove these and increase his speed. So the problem arises - how to know what a deficiency is. It amounts to the same as asking the question 'how strong is strong enough?'. To answer this is tricky, so we need to explore possible ways to discover the truth.<br><br>There are two ways to proceed. Either conduct some form of study yourself and monitor the results carefully to gain the insights you need, or use someone else's data. The former has problems - how do you ensure that the data is not corrupted by other effects, and how do you obtain a large enough sample size for any results to be statistically significant? Both are tricky. The latter approach also has no guarantees that other effects have been eliminated, but it can allow you access to a much larger sample space, which can be used to reduce the effect on results of these outside influences.<br><br><b>Assumption</b> Based on the above analysis, we go with the larger sample space option. The sample space I'm going to choose is 'rowers'. So in order to improve my oarsmen, the approach I will take is: identify the current standard of my oarsmen; identify as large a group as possible of oarsmen of a higher standard; average the data for both groups; compare and contrast.<br><br>If my group of oarsmen is sub-international, then I can pick a group to compare to called 'international oarsmen'.<br><br><b>Fact</b> The only data I'm interested in creating a comparison between is that for racing, since that is what I want to improve. I will ignore any information I have about their training methods.<br><br>So pick some things that are different:<br><br><b>Fact</b> International oarsmen sustain a higher rating through the whole of a race than non international oarsmen.<br><br><b>Fact</b> International oarsmen create signficantly more distance per stroke than non international oarsmen.<br><br>Ok. We've got two things to work with. As it turns out, the discrepency in the dps is greater than that in the rating, so that is identified as our primary weakness. We therefore need to improve this. Let us again break things down and look carefully at what we can do. How can we move a boat further per stroke?<br><ul><li>Put more energy into the boat</li><li>Take less energy out of the boat</li></ul><br>Fair enough. Both simple concepts (I like simple!). Let's look at each in turn. I want to put more energy into the boat. Energy is Force * Distance (simple physics). So I need to either increase the force I apply, or increase the distance I apply it over (or both!). How to increase the force I apply? Well I can make my muscles stronger, both in terms of isolated strength, and in terms of how they work together to generate the force (joint summation). Seems good enough to me. How to increase the distance? Well, fairly simple as well - have the blade in the water with force applied to it for a longer distance of work.<br><br>How to take less energy out of the boat? This means looking for efficiency savings. This is where we can apply a little science and mechanics to identify areas of waste. However, there's no 'wasted energy' meter directly in the boat, so it's a little bit tricky to work on per se. We can make a few educated guesses (for example constant hull speed being more efficient) and then watch for signs of these to help us identify how we are doing. At the simplest level, drive time (and hence input energy) is linked inextricably to boat speed. If I can achieve the same boat speed at a lower rate, then I must have reduced the amount of energy I'm throwing away.<br><br>However we've also identified that one of the things I lack is boatspeed in general. So I'm interested in ways in which I can improve that at the same time. Logically, same boat speed at lower rate is equivalent to greater boatspeed at the same rate. Cool - I can kill two birds with one stone! <br><br>So I now have a clear, logical aim in my training - increase my distance per stroke at a given rate, since this will correlate with an increase in boatspeed. If I can do this at all rates, I will go faster at my race rate and so get closer to winning. Sounds good.<br><br>I'm not actually going to elaborate any further than that at this stage. I don't think I need to. I have outlined the very simple objective of training as I see it in rowing and my thought processes to get there. There are lots of subtleties we can work in, but they all come back to this central theme. Once we've got this bit thrashed out (if I haven't lost <i>everyone</i>!), I might go on a bit more.<br><br>Mel-
[old] ededit
- Posts: 0
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
General
Mel:<br><br>Your outline here makes perfect sense. Where I expect the "hole-poking" to occur is when you are more specific about how to go about both elements of improvement (more energy in, less out) - specifically how a coach approaches preparing his/her "non-international level oarsmen" to achieve the desired ends, particularly when training time is far more limited than that used by said international oarsmen.<br><br>Looking forward to reading the next installment.
-
[old] PaulS
- Posts: 0
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
General
Removing intermediate posts as the Main post evolves...
-
[old] PaulS
- Posts: 0
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
General
Removing intermediate posts as the Main post evolves...
-
[old] PaulS
- Posts: 0
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
General
Removing intermediate posts as the Main post evolves...
-
[old] Mel Harbour
- Posts: 0
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
General
Ok, just to clarify, I'll c&p my original post and try and tidy it up a bit!<br><br><b>Assumption</b> My aim is to train oarsmen to row faster on the water.<br><i>Conclusion</i> Any training must aim to do something to increase the abilities of the oarsman to go faster on the water.<br><i>Conclusion</i> We need to identify areas in which the oarsman is deficient in order to remove these and increase his speed. So the problem arises - how to know what a deficiency is. It amounts to the same as asking the question 'how strong is strong enough?'. To answer this is tricky, so we need to explore possible ways to discover the truth.<br><br><b>Assumption</b> As before we will choose the large sample spaces where possible to minimise any effects which are skewing the data.<br><br>If my group of oarsmen is sub-international, then I can pick a group to compare to called 'international oarsmen'.<br><br><b>Fact</b> The only data I'm interested in creating a comparison between is that for racing, since that is what I want to improve. I will ignore any information I have about their training methods. (I will tighten up the following information a bit, being stricter with myself about this point).<br><br>So pick some things that are different. Note that we are strictly comparing racing performance with racing performance. No assumptions are allowed to be made for 'what if' scenarios at this stage. Let's just look at what's currently happening.<br><br><b>Fact</b> International oarsmen sustain a significantly higher boatspeed through the whole of a race.<br><br><b>Fact</b> International oarsmen sustain a higher rating through the whole of a race than non international oarsmen.<br><br><b>Fact</b> International oarsmen create signficantly more distance per stroke than non international oarsmen.<br><br>Boatspeed is a dependent variable based on rate and distance per stroke. This is clear if you consider that combining rate and distance per stroke automatically gives a speed (if anyone's that bothered I can show you by doing the dimensional analysis, but I doubt that anyone's actually going to care about the details!). As a result, to increase our speed, we need to increase either rate or dps without causing too much of a hit on the other.<br><br>Rate and distance per stroke are quite possibly inter-dependent (changes to one may affect the other), but at this stage, I'm not presupposing any knowledge of any such effects. Let's press on with any such assumptions for the moment and see where it gets us! Note there is no contradiction between the last sentence of the previous paragraph and this one, as I've only said that there's a possibility they may affect each other.<br><br>Ok, so moving onwards we need to either increase rate or dps. Let's look at the factors which can affect each:<br><br><b>Rate</b><br><br>Tricky. Hard to tie down what factors affect this. I can suggest some possibilities and we can all argue about them, but they're a little bit hard to work out what they might be. Possible factors can be intangibles such as 'agression' or 'determination', but can also be things such as energy losses as a result of the higher rating. Hard to know - I'm open to sensible suggestions!<br><br><b>Distance Per Stroke</b><br><br>Easier. Only two possible factors here<br><ul><li>Input energy per stroke</li><li>Efficiency over the whole stroke</li></ul><br>Energy = integral of force over the distance applied, so we can increase the input energy by either increasing the magnitude of the force, or the distance it is applied over. In terms of the 'distance it is applied over' we have to be a little bit careful with our definitions. For reasons which will become clear in just a moment, I'm actually going to define distance as purely the arc through which the handle travels when it is moving from catch to finish. Just that, nice and simple. No reference to the water whatsoever!<br><br>But clearly whether it's in the water or not plays a big part, I hear you cry! Well, yes, but I'm actually going to put that under the heading of efficiency. There are broadly two sorts of inefficiency in our system:<br><ul><li>Things actively slowing us down (drag)</li><li>Things reducing the transmission of input force to output force</li></ul><br>And whether the blade is in the water or not clearly jumps nicely into the 2nd heading. Once again we're at a bit of a sticking point, since it's quite hard to work out exactly all the different factors that can contribute to these things. I'm still not denying that things may affect each other, but at least we've got categories to put things in.<br><br>How does that grab everyone?<br><br>Mel
-
[old] Mel Harbour
- Posts: 0
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
General
That's the 100,000 dollar question...<br><br>I think we'll be getting to that in time. Just got some groundwork to get through first!<br><br>Mel
-
[old] PaulS
- Posts: 0
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
General
<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Assumption My aim is to train oarsmen to row faster on the water. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><br>I think claiming this as “your” aim is a bit cheeky, as it seems to be the aim of many. Perhaps "The aim of this discussion is to determine how to go about training oarsmen to row faster on the water."<br><br><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fact International oarsmen sustain a significantly higher boatspeed through the whole of a race.<br><br>Fact International oarsmen sustain a higher rating through the whole of a race than non international oarsmen.<br><br>Fact International oarsmen create signficantly more distance per stroke than non international oarsmen. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><br>I can recall a Japanese (Olympic crew in this case, so should fall in with “International” easily enough.) crew that rated higher than any other crew I’ve heard of (~60), but didn’t do too well. But since you are “defining” your facts as facts, I’ll go along under that assumptions for the sake of the discussion.<br><br><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Boatspeed is a dependent variable based on rate and distance per stroke. This is clear if you consider that combining rate and distance per stroke automatically gives a speed (if anyone's that bothered I can show you by doing the dimensional analysis, but I doubt that anyone's actually going to care about the details!). As a result, to increase our speed, we need to increase either rate or dps without causing too much of a hit on the other.<br><br>Rate and distance per stroke are quite possibly inter-dependent (changes to one may affect the other), but at this stage, I'm not presupposing any knowledge of any such effects. Let's press on with any such assumptions for the moment and see where it gets us! Note there is no contradiction between the last sentence of the previous paragraph and this one, as I've only said that there's a possibility they may affect each other. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><br>You must mean, “press on” [without] “any such assumptions”?<br>For a given Input, rate and distance per stroke are completely interdependent, both having the dependency of RATIO. Solve that, and you will have made progress.<br><br>Ok, so moving onwards we need to either increase rate or dps. Let's look at the factors which can affect each:<br><br><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rate<br><br>Tricky. Hard to tie down what factors affect this. I can suggest some possibilities and we can all argue about them, but they're a little bit hard to work out what they might be. Possible factors can be intangibles such as 'aggression' or 'determination', but can also be things such as energy losses as a result of the higher rating. Hard to know - I'm open to sensible suggestions! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><br>How about specifying that a rate increase without an associated speed increase can only be seen as a benefit if it allows for the speed to be maintained for a longer time. Since this started with the T&G being represented in the RBN2004#10, it would be a good time to point out that there are 8 frames in the “D” class that should be in the “R” class, under a tighter definition of Drive and Recovery. At 25frames/sec that is nearly 0.3 sec, that is quite a chunk of the total stroke time of 1.64sec, and will effect subsequent examination of Ratio, when you get around to that.<br><br><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Distance Per Stroke<br><br>Easier. Only two possible factors here<br>· Input energy per stroke <br>· Efficiency over the whole stroke<br><br>Energy = integral of force over the distance applied, so we can increase the input energy by either increasing the magnitude of the force, or the distance it is applied over. In terms of the 'distance it is applied over' we have to be a little bit careful with our definitions. For reasons which will become clear in just a moment, I'm actually going to define distance as purely the arc through which the handle travels when it is moving from catch to finish. Just that, nice and simple. No reference to the water whatsoever! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><br>It would be nice if it were that simple. You have mentioned that you do not think that the handle continually moves faster all through the drive phase, but that is based only on linear velocity along the axis of the hull. So be careful with this so that confusion can be kept to a minimum.<br><br><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But clearly whether it's in the water or not plays a big part, I hear you cry! Well, yes, but I'm actually going to put that under the heading of efficiency. There are broadly two sorts of inefficiency in our system:<br>· Things actively slowing us down (drag) <br>· Things reducing the transmission of input force to output force<br><br>And whether the blade is in the water or not clearly jumps nicely into the 2nd heading. Once again we're at a bit of a sticking point, since it's quite hard to work out exactly all the different factors that can contribute to these things. I'm still not denying that things may affect each other, but at least we've got categories to put things in. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><br>This “crying” thing is a pretty big assumption on your part, and a bit arrogant in tone. I’m quite sure the audience is capable of thinking this through.<br>Your second sort of inefficiency in the system is going to be extremely complicated to quantify with consistency, but you know that, right? (i.e. Things that happen during the blades initial interaction with the water change the way the blade will be able to react with the water in the near future)<br>Even the first sort of inefficiency is difficult; as it can be extremely variable in a cyclic stroke of the ratio we are dealing with. Though we can look at other systems to know that a constant speed is more efficient than widely varying speeds. (Tortoise and Hare story comes to mind as a parallel for our younger audience) <br>
-
[old] Mel Harbour
- Posts: 0
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
General
Ok, if you want to redefine the aim slightly fair enough! <br><br>I was actually thinking on the way home that rather than comparing my group of rowers to international oarsmen, what would be a better comparison was having a continuous data line for the major variables for all rowers. However, neither I, nor anyone else has access to that kind of information. It would be nicer to be able to say 'we want x dps - not more and not less', however I don't think we have the information to do that, so the best we can do is close on something which would appear to be optimal (or at least closer to it than we are at the moment).<br><br>The example of the Japanese crew is an isolated case, and disappears almost instantly when taking an average, which is what I'd said to do.<br><br>Here's a dependency - as rate rises, it becomes harder to row long (whatever that means), which lowers distance per stroke (remember we're talking maximal effort - it's a race). When you implement things like compulsary 10mps, you say yourself that you're talking about training rather than racing, so you limit the speed that a person should row at (rate for pace etc), but we're not talking about that (yet!). But we don't even need to know that the two definitely are connected - we can safely say they might be.<br><br>You want to introduce ratio at this stage. That's not something that I've mentioned as being different between my crews and international crews. It might well be, it's true. The aim of this bit of text is to try and work towards working out the main variables that we can seek to alter (what could be referred to as the 'independent variables' if you understand that term). I would suggest that ratio is not one of these key variables, and is instead a dependent variable, one that could be used as an indicator of other things going on, but not one we can seek to alter directly.<br><br>Your next point is quite valid however. Rate increases might not increase speed per se, but might allow us to sustain the speed. We need to bring in an idea of the length of race. I suggest 2000m. So we're in search of the highest average speed possible over 2000m. I think that covers the issue you correctly raise nicely?<br><br>As far as handle movement goes, arc is by far the better one to work with. We have the data for arc movement and that is what I refer to when I say that handle speed drops towards the end of the drive.<br><br>Indeed, we are in complete agreement that quantifying the nature of the energy losses and inefficiencies through theoretical work is extraordinarily tricky. The number of variables that come into play very quickly is almost ridiculous! I firmly believe that it's that point that is where coaching becomes an art rather than a science. But again, we'll come to that in due course.<br><br>Mel
-
[old] PaulS
- Posts: 0
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
General
<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The example of the Japanese crew is an isolated case, and disappears almost instantly when taking an average, which is what I'd said to do. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><br>Okay, how about a more recent example, when the US 8+ picked up the rate, along with the Dutch for the Final sprint, they were lucky that the Dutch didn’t attack 150M earlier, the Dutch under rated the US nearly the entire race and probably had it in them, but made a strategic error by losing too much contact in the body OR holding the sprint too long, you can choose whichever you like. (We still won, and not because we were on the recovery instead of in D1) <br><br><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here's a dependency - as rate rises, it becomes harder to row long (whatever that means), which lowers distance per stroke (remember we're talking maximal effort - it's a race). When you implement things like compulsary 10mps, you say yourself that you're talking about training rather than racing, so you limit the speed that a person should row at (rate for pace etc), but we're not talking about that (yet!). But we don't even need to know that the two definitely are connected - we can safely say they might be. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><br>We could safely say the phase of the moon MIGHT be connected also, so let’s try to do away with the mushiness in words like “might”. There are times to use them, but this isn’t a good one. I don’t limit the pace at which anyone can train, anyone should be able achieve their 2k pace while S10PS (not necessarily for a full 2K, and frankly, considerably faster than their 2K pace should not be a problem.), if they cannot, then they have these “deficiencies” that you want to eliminate. And what was that “aim”? “To TRAIN rowers to be faster in boats”?<br><br><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You want to introduce ratio at this stage. That's not something that I've mentioned as being different between my crews and international crews. It might well be, it's true. The aim of this bit of text is to try and work towards working out the main variables that we can seek to alter (what could be referred to as the 'independent variables' if you understand that term). I would suggest that ratio is not one of these key variables, and is instead a dependent variable, one that could be used as an indicator of other things going on, but not one we can seek to alter directly. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><br>To the contrary, I can alter it directly by fixing the DPS on the Ergo, systematically increasing the pace for a given steady state distance (~30 min), you could use 30 minutes specifically if you like, but I hate timed pieces since there is no way to finish them more quickly.<br><br><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your next point is quite valid however. Rate increases might not increase speed per se, but might allow us to sustain the speed. We need to bring in an idea of the length of race. I suggest 2000m. So we're in search of the highest average speed possible over 2000m. I think that covers the issue you correctly raise nicely? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><br>Excellent, so 2000M racing is the only thing we are concerned with, easy, improve your 5K or 6K. <br><br><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as handle movement goes, arc is by far the better one to work with. We have the data for arc movement and that is what I refer to when I say that handle speed drops towards the end of the drive. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><br>I don’t think you are talking about the angular speed, since nearly by definition that must move from slow to fast during the drive, unless the boat is slowing during the drive, something that I hope is being avoided. Now what you may be seeing is that the shaft bends and stores some energy which is reclaimed later, so do you want to account for that, or pretend that the shaft stays straight. The straight option would appear to be mechanically correct, while the very flexible shaft adds another “independent variable” that you will have a very tough time dealing with. This is where the Ergo is nice, chains don’t stretch (shaft bend) and flywheels don’t slip (account for timing errors which muck up blade efficiency). So training some very specific behaviors on the Ergo (a controlled situation), and then transferring them to the boat (mild chaos) is how this is going to be accomplished in the shortest time.<br>
-
[old] Mel Harbour
- Posts: 0
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
General
Indeed it's a more recent example, but it's still that - an example, not an average.<br><br>You then start to discuss your 10 metres per stroke thing, but we haven't yet discussed anything that suggests that that would be the target to aim for. All I've said so far is that internationals row with a greater distance per stroke than my athletes at race pace on average.<br><br>When you discuss how you 'alter the ratio directly', you unfortunately contradict yourself. You say that you can alter the ratio directly by keeping distance per stroke the same and varying the pace. Yet to vary the pace, you've had to increase either pressure or rate, which in turn <i>results</i> in a change in ratio.<br><br>Actually I am talking about angular speed, measured at the gate. I am quite well aware of what data I have and don't have. I'm also thoroughly aware of the differences between angular movement and linear movement.<br><br>Mel
-
[old] PaulS
- Posts: 0
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 10:32 pm
General
<!--QuoteBegin-Mel Harbour+Nov 13 2004, 08:38 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> (Mel Harbour @ Nov 13 2004, 08:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Indeed it's a more recent example, but it's still that - an example, not an average.<br><br>You then start to discuss your 10 metres per stroke thing, but we haven't yet discussed anything that suggests that that would be the target to aim for. All I've said so far is that internationals row with a greater distance per stroke than my athletes at race pace on average.<br><br>When you discuss how you 'alter the ratio directly', you unfortunately contradict yourself. You say that you can alter the ratio directly by keeping distance per stroke the same and varying the pace. Yet to vary the pace, you've had to increase either pressure or rate, which in turn <i>results</i> in a change in ratio.<br><br>Actually I am talking about angular speed, measured at the gate. I am quite well aware of what data I have and don't have. I'm also thoroughly aware of the differences between angular movement and linear movement.<br><br>Mel<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><br>I didn't "start to discuss my S10PS thing", you mentioned it and I mentioned it also.<br><br>There is no contradiction, I suspect that you have only poo-pooed the idea instead of trying it for yourself, even for a couple weeks (you won't get it right in a day or two), to see what I am talking about. I can show you data across a very wide range of paces with the ratio and DPS remaining constant. Rate and Pressure both increase (Not "either or", as you state), and the ratio remains the same (as the pace gets faster). You are welcome to speculate that it doesn't, but put a bit more thought into it, and the dependencies, and I'm sure you will change your conclusion. You can even go right to my web site, and see data for a 1:21.9 and 1:39.1, both very close in ratio (2.41 and 2.65 respectively), however the one with a bit more DPS (10.14 and 10.38) has the higher ratio, just as I would predict. Don't claim "set up", this has been posted for months. Peak pressure is obvioulsy very different.<br><br>In FACT, if you increase DPS without a rate change, you both increase pressure, avg speed, and ratio. i.e less time on the drive and more on the recovery.<br><br>You have already specified that increasing strength is one way to go, but that is going to plateau eventually. So it would appear that attaining maximum boat speed over the course is going to be untimately limited by peak strength, with technique being the X factor which will allow a crew with less peak strength to beat a crew with more. You want to train that technique, because peak strength must be all the greater without it.<br><br>Please forward the specific data regarding angular velocity, if you can. I don't recall it in any of the RBN material, but if I just missed it there, volume and number will be enough for me to review it. What I specify is from diagrams in A Textbook of Oarsmanship (p69, 77) where teh positions of the shaft are being drawn at equal time intervals through the drive. The x axis is the Pin, so the travel at the hands (even linearly) would be far more pronounced as widening as the system is accelerated.