Geezus, let it go man!!!! Let it GO!!!!!!!

[Stelph]

I mostly ignored the Aram comments but paid attention to what Matt Paul had to say. Bingham wasn't using the RF at Henley and I don't think he did exceptionally well at the Brit trials. (Perhaps Fats and Kit D can give some details.) My take away was that Paul was trying to improve Bingham's front end connection and reduce his shoulder tension.

I also noted that Paul uses Joules to monitor race performance. Does anyone have any advice on how to do this? I use the Empower Oarlock so I know how to measure it. I just don't know how to use Joules to monitor sprint and head race "pace."

I have no idea if these are any good. I do recall that some were skeptical about hatchets back in 1982 (yes, I am that old) and they made a huge difference. Can another jump in efficiency of that kind be made? 5% or so increase in speed is a huge amount of drag to overcome. I'd like to hear from Dick and Pete. When they bring out Smoothie 2 Over-the-Top Fat Lip Non-vortex blades, I'll know.

Erm.... it was 1992... 1991 worlds, Macon blades, 1992 Oly, "big blades".
One of the prominent Canadian coaches back then remarked that the big advantage to big blades was in the first 500 m because there was less "slip" at the start of the race because of the bigger surface area. More moving the boat and less pulling the blade through the water. After that, mostly people were dealing with the same engine as they had before, so once the boat was up to speed the advantage diminished.
I don't know enough about the foil attachments and I'm not aware of anyone having done a lot of CFD on the complex movement of blades in water with and without these attachments

Interesting to hear the foils being used to help resolve technical faults. I had always thought that it wasn't so much that the hatchets were "faster", more that they were more forgiving to less than perfect technique. I have always thought that as experts in the field of fluid mechanics argue that there is no mechanical benefit to them, that it is likely that the foils similarly are more forgiving to dodgy strokes which then would result in a faster time, it would also suggest that the perceived benefit will depend on how technically good your stroke is and also how consistent you are.

This does mean that the people who are using the foils and have seen the quoted 3+% speed benefit will have to admit they would see the same speed benefit if they spent the time fixing whatever technical fault the foils are smoothing over, but I can see why that would be a hard thing to admit, and easier to believe that the foils are making them faster

[JD]

I have no idea if these are any good. I do recall that some were skeptical about hatchets back in 1982 (yes, I am that old) and they made a huge difference. Can another jump in efficiency of that kind be made? 5% or so increase in speed is a huge amount of drag to overcome. I'd like to hear from Dick and Pete. When they bring out Smoothie 2 Over-the-Top Fat Lip Non-vortex blades, I'll know.

Erm.... it was 1992... 1991 worlds, Macon blades, 1992 Oly, "big blades".
One of the prominent Canadian coaches back then remarked that the big advantage to big blades was in the first 500 m because there was less "slip" at the start of the race because of the bigger surface area. More moving the boat and less pulling the blade through the water. After that, mostly people were dealing with the same engine as they had before, so once the boat was up to speed the advantage diminished.
I don't know enough about the foil attachments and I'm not aware of anyone having done a lot of CFD on the complex movement of blades in water with and without these attachments

K-C
Right 19'92 - (It's all a blur now) Naturally, the big blade thing started in Vermont/New Hampshire (home of C2) with Dartmouth getting the first blades . They won the eastern sprints championships, which was oh, so rare for Dartmouth. When the rest of the country got the blades for IRA's 2 weeks later, Dartmouth got beat soundly.

I don't wonder if the foil might be a great tool to speed learning of proper depth, connection, etc., especially in the novice single. After a while you take them off.

[lt.wolf]

“I don't wonder if the foil might be a great tool to speed learning of proper depth, connection, etc., especially in the novice single. After a while you take them off.“

+1

Great for developing on all levels.

How long before C2 and Croker have their own adaptations.

[Rocket-Sauce]

Right 19'92 - (It's all a blur now) Naturally, the big blade thing started in Vermont/New Hampshire (home of C2) with Dartmouth getting the first blades . They won the eastern sprints championships, which was oh, so rare for Dartmouth. When the rest of the country got the blades for IRA's 2 weeks later, Dartmouth got beat soundly.

I don't wonder if the foil might be a great tool to speed learning of proper depth, connection, etc., especially in the novice single. After a while you take them off.

Not quite. Dartmouth won the 1992 IRA in a 3 way tie along with Penn and Navy. They dead-heated with Navy and Penn won a protest because they were waked by the launches.

Then Dartmouth lost by a bowball to Harvard at the National Championships in Ohio (remember that the IRA was not the recognized National Championships back then). Both boats were open water (4+ seconds) ahead of 3rd place Penn.

That was a very fast Dartmouth crew.

[sandor]

Thanks, Sandor. I should be back on the water soon and will experiment. As I understand it, Joules should be more constant as the rate goes up whereas Watts will vary with stroke rate. Perhaps understanding Joules could help me find sustainable race pressures for different distances. Through experience I know my race stroke rates.

If you are interested in training with Joules then id recommend poking around on the rowperfect site as its very easy to get the software to show Joules, so they have often talked about training with them

https://www.rowperfect.co.uk/teach-rowe ... p-in-rate/


They also had an interesting idea how to use Joules to target and train for a 2k time, something Juri Jaansen apparently did using the RP
https://www.rowperfect.co.uk/rowperfect ... ce-splits/

Would there be anything wrong with converting a C2's watts to joules by dividing 60 seconds by the stroke rate & multiplying it by average watts for the stroke?

60 / SPM * watts

for example: 60 / 20 SPM * 200 watts = 600 joules

[KiwiCanuck]

Interesting to hear the foils being used to help resolve technical faults. I had always thought that it wasn't so much that the hatchets were "faster", more that they were more forgiving to less than perfect technique. I have always thought that as experts in the field of fluid mechanics argue that there is no mechanical benefit to them, that it is likely that the foils similarly are more forgiving to dodgy strokes which then would result in a faster time, it would also suggest that the perceived benefit will depend on how technically good your stroke is and also how consistent you are.

This does mean that the people who are using the foils and have seen the quoted 3+% speed benefit will have to admit they would see the same speed benefit if they spent the time fixing whatever technical fault the foils are smoothing over, but I can see why that would be a hard thing to admit, and easier to believe that the foils are making them faster

Yes in the years I've been coaching, as long as the 'big blades' were pitched properly they did allow people to learn to row more quickly.
The quoted (by Randall Foil promoters) 5% speed increase - are crews REALLY 100 metres faster using the foils over a 2000 m course? (compared to their own performances, of course)

[Stelph]

Interesting to hear the foils being used to help resolve technical faults. I had always thought that it wasn't so much that the hatchets were "faster", more that they were more forgiving to less than perfect technique. I have always thought that as experts in the field of fluid mechanics argue that there is no mechanical benefit to them, that it is likely that the foils similarly are more forgiving to dodgy strokes which then would result in a faster time, it would also suggest that the perceived benefit will depend on how technically good your stroke is and also how consistent you are.

This does mean that the people who are using the foils and have seen the quoted 3+% speed benefit will have to admit they would see the same speed benefit if they spent the time fixing whatever technical fault the foils are smoothing over, but I can see why that would be a hard thing to admit, and easier to believe that the foils are making them faster

Yes in the years I've been coaching, as long as the 'big blades' were pitched properly they did allow people to learn to row more quickly.
The quoted (by Randall Foil promoters) 5% speed increase - are crews REALLY 100 metres faster using the foils over a 2000 m course? (compared to their own performances, of course)

100m does seem unlikely, certainly I remember reviewing the study data that the claim came from (a Biorow test) where it was pointed out the conclusion was a little flawed as it showed a measured power increase and put that across as the efficiency of the foil, whereas the power meter actually measures the power input by the rower - so actually the difference between the foil and unfoil was that the rower pulled harder with the foil - to me suggesting that any greater speed seen could be from the rower's maximum power being restricted by a technical flaw that the foil helped resolve, so again supporting the theory that they are just helping smooth over technical faults - which isnt a bad thing, but its important to understand rather than to believe that they are somehow making you faster than you otherwise would be without them (and crucially that if you don't have the technical fault then you wont see any benefit)

The rec.sport.rowing thread is brutally long but its an interesting dicussion

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... %5B1-25%5D

Id quite like to see more comparisons and data from the people claiming big performance improvements - what is it they are doing without foils that the foils is fixing? Is it something that's easy to diagnose and so coaches can then "prescribe" foils to help fix it? If it is more relaxation at the catch then great, we know who they are for and who will benefit most from them

[Stelph]

Thanks, Sandor. I should be back on the water soon and will experiment. As I understand it, Joules should be more constant as the rate goes up whereas Watts will vary with stroke rate. Perhaps understanding Joules could help me find sustainable race pressures for different distances. Through experience I know my race stroke rates.

If you are interested in training with Joules then id recommend poking around on the rowperfect site as its very easy to get the software to show Joules, so they have often talked about training with them

https://www.rowperfect.co.uk/teach-rowe ... p-in-rate/


They also had an interesting idea how to use Joules to target and train for a 2k time, something Juri Jaansen apparently did using the RP
https://www.rowperfect.co.uk/rowperfect ... ce-splits/

Would there be anything wrong with converting a C2's watts to joules by dividing 60 seconds by the stroke rate & multiplying it by average watts for the stroke?

60 / SPM * watts

for example: 60 / 20 SPM * 200 watts = 600 joules

I guess you could, hard to do on the fly - it might be worth contacting one of the smartphone developers who have an app that connects to the C2 and seeing if they could add the value to their app?

EDIT: after a quick google the suggestion is that Painsled already has Joules as an option

https://quantifiedrowing.com/2016/03/10 ... ed-review/

[sandor]

Thanks, Sandor. I should be back on the water soon and will experiment. As I understand it, Joules should be more constant as the rate goes up whereas Watts will vary with stroke rate. Perhaps understanding Joules could help me find sustainable race pressures for different distances. Through experience I know my race stroke rates.

If you are interested in training with Joules then id recommend poking around on the rowperfect site as its very easy to get the software to show Joules, so they have often talked about training with them

https://www.rowperfect.co.uk/teach-rowe ... p-in-rate/


They also had an interesting idea how to use Joules to target and train for a 2k time, something Juri Jaansen apparently did using the RP
https://www.rowperfect.co.uk/rowperfect ... ce-splits/

Would there be anything wrong with converting a C2's watts to joules by dividing 60 seconds by the stroke rate & multiplying it by average watts for the stroke?

60 / SPM * watts

for example: 60 / 20 SPM * 200 watts = 600 joules

I guess you could, hard to do on the fly - it might be worth contacting one of the smartphone developers who have an app that connects to the C2 and seeing if they could add the value to their app?

EDIT: after a quick google the suggestion is that Painsled already has Joules as an option

https://quantifiedrowing.com/2016/03/10 ... ed-review/

My thought was just to calculate your target pace/watts for each stroke rate based off of the joules - so you do it once, before hand & then have your numbers.

Painsled looks interesting, got it downloaded & set up and may try it out tomorrow morning...

[Stewie Griffin Should Cox]

I’m just excited to watch how the Chinese, Germans and “English” perform in the World Cup with foils as suggested in the video?

[lt.wolf]

Being fair, I think Ollie Zeidler is utilizing them. Then again he has only been sculling about three years

[rowing]

Trying them. Using them. Racing them.

All different meanings.

Normal blades as of three weeks ago.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8mKpVjo1_n/

[Stewie Griffin Should Cox]

Being fair, I think Ollie Zeidler is utilizing them. Then again he has only been sculling about three years

The theme that Aram has running through his products is expense. His coaching costs are ridiculous. The Bio Rower is uncompetitively very expensive and he is clearly struggling to sell it, and the foils are prehibitively expensive for the best audience which is entry level rowing. They cost about half the amount of a complete Bantam C2 set of oars.

The simple fact is that there is not that much revenue to earn in rowing.

[caustic]

Thanks, Sandor. I should be back on the water soon and will experiment. As I understand it, Joules should be more constant as the rate goes up whereas Watts will vary with stroke rate. Perhaps understanding Joules could help me find sustainable race pressures for different distances. Through experience I know my race stroke rates.

If you are interested in training with Joules then id recommend poking around on the rowperfect site as its very easy to get the software to show Joules, so they have often talked about training with them

https://www.rowperfect.co.uk/teach-rowe ... p-in-rate/


They also had an interesting idea how to use Joules to target and train for a 2k time, something Juri Jaansen apparently did using the RP
https://www.rowperfect.co.uk/rowperfect ... ce-splits/

Would there be anything wrong with converting a C2's watts to joules by dividing 60 seconds by the stroke rate & multiplying it by average watts for the stroke?

60 / SPM * watts

for example: 60 / 20 SPM * 200 watts = 600 joules

The tough thing is that Watts are an expression of energy over time, and Joules are just raw energy. 1 watt = 1 Joule per second.

So, if you see 200W on your display, that's 200J/s. If you maintain that rating for a full minute, that's 200J/s times 60s = 12,000J.

Now, for fun, 1 Joule is the equivalent energy expended from exterting 1 newton of force to move an object 1 meter. In terms of gravities, approximately 4 newtons of force is roughly equivalent to 1 pound of force.

Meaning: WE CAN CONVERT THIS TO CHEESEBURGERS.

1/4lb cheeseburger is equal to about 1 newton. Meaning, if you maintain 200W over a minute, you could move 12,000 cheeseburgers 1 meter.

[sandor]

Thanks, Sandor. I should be back on the water soon and will experiment. As I understand it, Joules should be more constant as the rate goes up whereas Watts will vary with stroke rate. Perhaps understanding Joules could help me find sustainable race pressures for different distances. Through experience I know my race stroke rates.

If you are interested in training with Joules then id recommend poking around on the rowperfect site as its very easy to get the software to show Joules, so they have often talked about training with them

https://www.rowperfect.co.uk/teach-rowe ... p-in-rate/


They also had an interesting idea how to use Joules to target and train for a 2k time, something Juri Jaansen apparently did using the RP
https://www.rowperfect.co.uk/rowperfect ... ce-splits/

Would there be anything wrong with converting a C2's watts to joules by dividing 60 seconds by the stroke rate & multiplying it by average watts for the stroke?

60 / SPM * watts

for example: 60 / 20 SPM * 200 watts = 600 joules

The tough thing is that Watts are an expression of energy over time, and Joules are just raw energy. 1 watt = 1 Joule per second.

So, if you see 200W on your display, that's 200J/s. If you maintain that rating for a full minute, that's 200J/s times 60s = 12,000J.

Now, for fun, 1 Joule is the equivalent energy expended from exterting 1 newton of force to move an object 1 meter. In terms of gravities, approximately 4 newtons of force is roughly equivalent to 1 pound of force.

Meaning: WE CAN CONVERT THIS TO CHEESEBURGERS.

1/4lb cheeseburger is equal to about 1 newton. Meaning, if you maintain 200W over a minute, you could move 12,000 cheeseburgers 1 meter.

12,000 J if you keep that 200 watts for a full minute-long stroke

but if you are doing 20 SPM @ 200 watts that is 600 joules per stroke.
If you do 600 joules of work at 30 SPM, then you are producing 300 watts.
600 J @ 40 SPM? = 400 watts.

same work per stroke, just more strokes in a given time.
the more strokes, the less recovery time from the work.