New C2 Blade

[singlesculler]

From the 12/23/2020 newsletter, I assume this data is from the same experiment
Rigging:
"Smoothies (plain, 88/288), Fat2 (vortex 88/282) and the new Comps (vortex, 88/288)"

Study was done with a men's 1x. I wonder what a study of developmental scullers would look like?
Seems an important factor might be ease of rowing with the blade.

"(1.84m, 85kg, international U23 level), who completed three 1000m runs with step-increasing stroke rate (20, 24, 28, 32, 38spm) changing the sculls after each run."
"Blade work was similar for Smoothies and Comps, and slightly shallower with Fat2 (Fig.2,b). This could be related to the feedback from the sculler that “Fat2 were the most uncomfortable blades to row, creating problems with the pitch and keeping the blade in the water”.

But the 12/2020 newsletter on blade center of force concluded: "it looks like the Fat2 blade was the most efficient between the three types tested. . . . Though Fat2 blades appeared to be the most efficient, they were qualitatively the most uncomfortable to row" I guess this updated that efficiency analysis.

[rowing]

I remember all these sweet nothings being whispered in my ears when fat blades first came out. What shitheels those turned out to be. Ima stick with my OG cleavers. Good enough for Kimmie, good enough for me.

[FullSend]

I would argue we have seen fairly quick adoption of comp blades. I think they won 6 medals at the Olympics and they were released only a year ago? That's pretty quick adoption at that level considering it means making the switch in the Olympic year.

Someone who's been around could lend more perspective, but did we see any significant Fat2 adoption at that level, let alone that quickly? National teams have by far the highest ability to trial different equipment, and are less restricted in making 1 off purchases than other situations. Each boat/athlete could use their preference in a way that simply won't happen at even a high IRA level.

I wonder if they're more helpful in smaller boats vs 8s, women's vs men's etc. I could see the added front end stability being really helpful in a 1x/2x/2- and less so in an 8+.

[rowing]

(1.84m, 85kg, international U23 level), who completed three 1000m runs with step-increasing stroke rate (20, 24, 28, 32, 38spm) changing the sculls after each run."

That sounds more useless every time I read it.

What happened to, you know, racing 2k under full reality ????

The 20, 24, 28 stuff is about as insightful as a cat turd.

[KiwiCanuck]

Need to see this done with more athletes, order of blade use randomized.. How about someone actually design a study that can determine under "real" conditions which blade makes the boat go faster on average over a lot of trials and conditions.

[catdailey]

http://biorow.com/index.php?route=infor ... news_id=80

[rowing]

http://biorow.com/index.php?route=infor ... news_id=80

That is the study being questioned and ridiculed.

[boston_1x]

(1.84m, 85kg, international U23 level), who completed three 1000m runs with step-increasing stroke rate (20, 24, 28, 32, 38spm) changing the sculls after each run."

That sounds more useless every time I read it.

What happened to, you know, racing 2k under full reality ????

The 20, 24, 28 stuff is about as insightful as a cat turd.

Yeah... like the W2x in Tokyo

[rowing]

(1.84m, 85kg, international U23 level), who completed three 1000m runs with step-increasing stroke rate (20, 24, 28, 32, 38spm) changing the sculls after each run."

That sounds more useless every time I read it.

What happened to, you know, racing 2k under full reality ????

The 20, 24, 28 stuff is about as insightful as a cat turd.

Yeah... like the W2x in Tokyo

Anecdotes with medals are still anecdotes.

If we're going to be fed sciencey goo, it should be way more sciencey.

As KiwiCanuck says, "Need to see this done with more athletes, order of blade use randomized.. How about someone actually design a study that can determine under "real" conditions which blade makes the boat go faster on average over a lot of trials and conditions."

Have some standards. 2K testing across multiple sessions, multiple athletes, multiple months. We've been fed that bullshit marketing X% faster for almost four decades now. The world times don't bear out the promised gains.

[lt.wolf]

Or the FRA mens double in Tokyo


Row with what you feel comfortable with and changes the splits on the GPS.


I like them

[rowing]

There is nothing wrong with personal and observational anecdotes. Someone won a medal at U23 with macons. Whoop dee doo.

But the minute someone says X% faster and the "testing protocol" (sarcastic quotes) looks nothing like actual racing variables, Ima punch nuts.

Here's some advice for rigging paper quacks: do it right or STFU. You're wasting our time and your marketing stipend.

[oneofthorsboys]

Back in the day we won a World Cup medal racing with two Concept 2 oars and two Crokers!. Why? It felt better and the boat moved faster.

[KitD]

There is nothing wrong with personal and observational anecdotes. Someone won a medal at U23 with macons. Whoop dee doo.

But the minute someone says X% faster and the "testing protocol" (sarcastic quotes) looks nothing like actual racing variables, Ima punch nuts.

Here's some advice for rigging paper quacks: do it right or STFU. You're wasting our time and your marketing stipend.

Neither Kleshnev nor C2 are saying the Comps will make you 3.4s faster over 2k. The efficiency numbers are what was calculated from the power and acceleration data of this study. They are what they are. The 3.4s is an expression of the same.

Everyone on this thread seems to be extrapolating and then complaining about their own extrapolation.

[rowing]

From the shhhtudy:

"As magnitudes of Eblade.slip and Esys/handle were quite similar, and it is still not clear which one is more important, their average values were taken as an overall efficiency. Based on this, the Comp blades were the most efficient with 79.5%, Fat2 were the second with 77.6% and Smooth – the last ones with 77.4%. With the above levels of rowing speed and power, Comp would be 3.4s faster over 2km than Fat2, and 3.9s faster than Smooth blades."


So kind of exactly saying that.

I know if you have an infinite number of monkeys and infinite number of typewriters, eventually they will produce the complete works of Shakespeare.

What do you get with a handful humping an old calculator?

[oldman]

For those who want a visual

220px-Chimpanzee_seated_at_typewriter.jpg (7.25 KiB) Viewed 430 times

and from the Wikip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

We always liked better the idea if you had one really good monkey tapping out "To be or not to be, that is ..." while the rest of the group hurled feces at the wall.

But, right on. Numbers is numbers without much meaning in a study that has no peer reviews or legitimate testing protocols. Just some numbers.