https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k1nUIi6disHey Charles - that's quite a video.
On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 01:45:22 UTC+1, Charles Carroll wrote:(Steve Gladston's paraphrasing Steve Fairbairn)
Hey Rebecca - It is always good to hear from you. It's been years! I'll try sending you my email address. And I conmcur that it is quite a video.
Here is a bit of the takeaway:
Teach The Athlete To Watch The Blade As It Enters:
The eyes inform the body. Have the athlete develop an awareness of what they are doing. Show the athlete that he needs to coach himself. Once this happens and the athlete begins to do just that, I've pretty much accomplished what I need to accomplish.
will soon understand that there is only one place power emanates from — the legs! So make sure the blade is engaged, then get hold of it, then use the legs to drive out against it. And after you finish with it, let it go. Let the boat slide upDrills Without Pressure Are Worthless:
You can drill all day long. But if there's no pressure on the blade, the drill is worthless because it's not real. It's not dynamic. So pressure’s the key. Now think about applying pressure on the blade and how to increase the pressure, and you
Love all of these!
On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 01:45:22 UTC+1, Charles Carroll wrote:(Steve Gladston's paraphrasing Steve Fairbairn)
Hey Rebecca - It is always good to hear from you. It's been years! I'll try sending you my email address. And I conmcur that it is quite a video.
Here is a bit of the takeaway:
Teach The Athlete To Watch The Blade As It Enters:
The eyes inform the body. Have the athlete develop an awareness of what they are doing. Show the athlete that he needs to coach himself. Once this happens and the athlete begins to do just that, I've pretty much accomplished what I need to accomplish.
will soon understand that there is only one place power emanates from — the legs! So make sure the blade is engaged, then get hold of it, then use the legs to drive out against it. And after you finish with it, let it go. Let the boat slide upDrills Without Pressure Are Worthless:
You can drill all day long. But if there's no pressure on the blade, the drill is worthless because it's not real. It's not dynamic. So pressure’s the key. Now think about applying pressure on the blade and how to increase the pressure, and you
Love all of these!
On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 1:16:32 AM UTC-7, James HS wrote:(Steve Gladston's paraphrasing Steve Fairbairn)
On Monday, 8 May 2023 at 01:45:22 UTC+1, Charles Carroll wrote:
Hey Rebecca - It is always good to hear from you. It's been years! I'll try sending you my email address. And I conmcur that it is quite a video.
Here is a bit of the takeaway:
Teach The Athlete To Watch The Blade As It Enters:
The eyes inform the body. Have the athlete develop an awareness of what they are doing. Show the athlete that he needs to coach himself. Once this happens and the athlete begins to do just that, I've pretty much accomplished what I need to accomplish.
will soon understand that there is only one place power emanates from — the legs! So make sure the blade is engaged, then get hold of it, then use the legs to drive out against it. And after you finish with it, let it go. Let the boat slide up
Drills Without Pressure Are Worthless:
You can drill all day long. But if there's no pressure on the blade, the drill is worthless because it's not real. It's not dynamic. So pressure’s the key. Now think about applying pressure on the blade and how to increase the pressure, and you
Fairbairn, “Take hold of it as hard as you can, row it through harder, and finish it out hardest.”Love all of these!
Hi James,
I am sure that Steve Gladstone has forgotten more about rowing than I will ever know. But even so, it seems to me that he raises an old question.
Gladstone says that rowers should think about applying pressure on the blade and how to increase the pressure. Is he actually advising rowers to accelerate a shell through the Drive? Isn’t this what the words suggest? As Jimmy Hastie said to Steve
Or is there another way to think about how to apply pressure against the blade? Charley Butts says that Kris Korzeniowski “... gave us a different way of thinking about rowing — that you didn't have to work so hard early in the stroke, that it wasmore important to maintain pressure throughout its entirety."
Should rowers concern themselves with how to increase pressure? Or should they concern themselves with how to maintain pressure? Don’t just think about pulling harder through the stroke. Think instead about how to put pressure on the blade earlierand hold on to it longer. No mindless rowing!
Warmest regards,
Charles
It's hard to argue against maximising force throughout the stroke, but
Carl,throughout the stroke” refers to power, not force. So in effect aren’t you and I talking about the same thing — that is, maximising power, not force?
I am having second thoughts about my reply. You write: “It's hard to argue against maximising force throughout the stroke …” If I had taken the time to be more careful about what you were saying, I would have realised that the phrase “force
This makes me think of Steve Fairbairn's account of the lesson he learned from his boxing instructor.as it landed on his face to lift my front foot and push with the other. So the beginning must have a push in it; not merely the momentum of the body being thrown at the water and vanishing in it, but a full-powered drive beginning with that momentum as
“An oarsman and the crew are nothing but a human hammer driving the boat with a hit. A hit is not a mere tap-and-withdraw action. When I was taught to hit by my boxing instructor, he took hold of my left glove and told me to advance it steadily, and
The hit and the follow-through are coefficients that unite in action to produce in Fairbairn’s words “a full-powered drive.”
Whether rowing leisurely or racing for gold, what oarsman wants to row with less than a full-powered drive?
Warmest regards,
Charles
On 31/05/2023 02:24, Charles Carroll wrote:
Carl,
I am having second thoughts about my reply. You write: “It's hard to
argue against maximising force throughout the stroke …” If I had taken >> the time to be more careful about what you were saying, I would have
realised that the phrase “force throughout the stroke” refers to
power, not force. So in effect aren’t you and I talking about the same
thing — that is, maximising power, not force?
This makes me think of Steve Fairbairn's account of the lesson he
learned from his boxing instructor.
“An oarsman and the crew are nothing but a human hammer driving the
boat with a hit. A hit is not a mere tap-and-withdraw action. When I
was taught to hit by my boxing instructor, he took hold of my left
glove and told me to advance it steadily, and as it landed on his face
to lift my front foot and push with the other. So the beginning must
have a push in it; not merely the momentum of the body being thrown at
the water and vanishing in it, but a full-powered drive beginning with
that momentum as the blade takes the water, and carrying it through
with a drive from the stretcher.” ( “Rowing Notes,” Third Edition
1930, p. 156)
The hit and the follow-through are coefficients that unite in action
to produce in Fairbairn’s words “a full-powered drive.”
Whether rowing leisurely or racing for gold, what oarsman wants to row
with less than a full-powered drive?
Warmest regards,
Charles
Charles -
The pleasure is all mine - & best to you both from Jan and me. Much to discuss privately - it's been too long.
Now to business - rowing!
There are 2 over-arching aspects to the net propulsive effect of the
rowing stroke:
1. The amount of work that you do during the stroke which, simply put,
is the sum (the integral) of the force that you apply at any instant multiplied by the distance moved in that instant by the point of
application of that force (the hands)
2. The efficiency with which the work that you do is converted into
useful (propulsive) work.
That very simple depiction gets complicated very easily, so let's tread carefully. One reason is the sheer complexity of the inertial
interactions between the rower's body (which weighs far more than the
boat), & how one best to manage the relative motion of body & boat.
Another reason is that the efficiency of the interaction between blade & water is far from simple, varies continuously through the stroke & is
very difficult to analyse.
I feel, & see, little evidence that rowing wishes to study or understand
(or even acknowledge) these 2 aspects, preferring to think in stylistic
& stimulating but non-scientific terms - because it is very difficult to
do otherwise. Yet the time, effort & expense invested into rowing, especially at top levels, could suggest that we should do more to study
those 2 factors listed above. Not to do so is like investing without understanding the significance of risk & rate of return.
It's late after a busy day, so please treat the above as a place-holder
& I'll return in a day or so, over a cuppa, to elaborate. But let me
leave you with this thought, which I've expressed before:
that swirling puddle contains all of the energy input at the blade which
did _not_ move the boat.
Cheer -
Carl
On 02/06/2023 23:23, carl wrote:
On 31/05/2023 02:24, Charles Carroll wrote:
Carl,
I am having second thoughts about my reply. You write: “It's hard to
argue against maximising force throughout the stroke …” If I had taken
the time to be more careful about what you were saying, I would have
realised that the phrase “force throughout the stroke” refers to
power, not force. So in effect aren’t you and I talking about the same >> thing — that is, maximising power, not force?
This makes me think of Steve Fairbairn's account of the lesson he
learned from his boxing instructor.
“An oarsman and the crew are nothing but a human hammer driving the
boat with a hit. A hit is not a mere tap-and-withdraw action. When I
was taught to hit by my boxing instructor, he took hold of my left
glove and told me to advance it steadily, and as it landed on his face
to lift my front foot and push with the other. So the beginning must
have a push in it; not merely the momentum of the body being thrown at
the water and vanishing in it, but a full-powered drive beginning with
that momentum as the blade takes the water, and carrying it through
with a drive from the stretcher.” ( “Rowing Notes,” Third Edition >> 1930, p. 156)
The hit and the follow-through are coefficients that unite in action
to produce in Fairbairn’s words “a full-powered drive.”
Whether rowing leisurely or racing for gold, what oarsman wants to row
with less than a full-powered drive?
Warmest regards,
Charles
Charles -
The pleasure is all mine - & best to you both from Jan and me. Much to discuss privately - it's been too long.
Now to business - rowing!
There are 2 over-arching aspects to the net propulsive effect of the rowing stroke:
1. The amount of work that you do during the stroke which, simply put,
is the sum (the integral) of the force that you apply at any instant multiplied by the distance moved in that instant by the point of application of that force (the hands)
2. The efficiency with which the work that you do is converted into
useful (propulsive) work.
That very simple depiction gets complicated very easily, so let's tread carefully. One reason is the sheer complexity of the inertial interactions between the rower's body (which weighs far more than the boat), & how one best to manage the relative motion of body & boat. Another reason is that the efficiency of the interaction between blade & water is far from simple, varies continuously through the stroke & is
very difficult to analyse.
I feel, & see, little evidence that rowing wishes to study or understand (or even acknowledge) these 2 aspects, preferring to think in stylistic
& stimulating but non-scientific terms - because it is very difficult to do otherwise. Yet the time, effort & expense invested into rowing, especially at top levels, could suggest that we should do more to study those 2 factors listed above. Not to do so is like investing without understanding the significance of risk & rate of return.
It's late after a busy day, so please treat the above as a place-holder
& I'll return in a day or so, over a cuppa, to elaborate. But let me leave you with this thought, which I've expressed before:
that swirling puddle contains all of the energy input at the blade which did _not_ move the boat.
Cheer -Part 2: How the work that you do is dissipated, & therefore wasted, in
Carl
the water. Let's have some definitions:-
1, Newton's 2nd Law of Motion: "Force applied to a body equals the mass
of that body multiplied by the acceleration induced", or F = m x a,
where 'F' is the force(e.g. Newtons, lb force, kg force, etc) to the
mass, 'm' (e.g. lb mass or kg mass), and 'a' is the resulting
acceleration of that mass (its rate of _change_ in velocity, measured as feet or metres per second per second - no repeating the per second is
not a typo!)
2. Newton's 3rd Law of Motion: "Every action has an equal & opposite reaction". If I push you, the force that you apply is the force that I
feel &, if we're of equal mass & both standing on frictionless ice, then
we will each move but in opposite directions at equal velocities.
3. Kinetic Energy: The energy stored in any moving body of mass 'm'
moving at velocity 'v' by virtue of its mass and velocity. This K.E. is theoretically capable of being completely recovered when bringing the
moving object to a halt. In mathematical terms, this is defined as E =
0.5 x m x v^2/g, where 'g' is the gravitational constant (the rate of acceleration of a body in free fall under gravity - ~9.81 metres/sec/sec
or 32.2 feet per sec per sec. To double a mass's velocity requires
quadruple the energy that was required to get it moving at its original velocity.
4. Momentum: This is defined as mass times velocity - M = m x v
It is upon these fundamental relationships that boat propulsion depends.
But first understand that all mechanical (including fluid-mechanical) processes are to some degree inefficient - part of the work invested is inevitably lost/dissipated on the way, so your blade can never convert
100% of your work into propelling the boat. In fact what we can term propulsive efficiency is depressingly low & with deficient technique may even be 50% or less. For comparison, screw propulsion for ships tends
to be 60-70% efficient.
So how is so much of your input work/energy lost? Some of it disappears because, to paraphrase Newton #3, to push the boat forward against the frictional drag on its hull means that something else must be pushed backwards - & that something is a "lump" of water. Since energy is
always conserved (can't be made, can't be destroyed), whatever is moved backwards has gained a bundle of kinetic energy, which is a price paid
that can't be recovered - it's a total waste, a dead loss, but makes a lovely puddle.
Which begs the question - how can we minimise that loss % thereby
increase the propulsive efficiency of our stroke?
Let me just say that this is where momentum comes into the calculation.
The force applied is proportional to the momentum gained by the mass
against which you are reacting. So you have an increase in momentum,
which is proportional to the thrust, which in turn is proportional to
the mass of water moved by the blade & the change in its velocity
(assumed to start from zero at the catch). And you have a simultaneous increase in the kinetic energy of that mass of water, which is
proportional to that same mass of water and to the _square_ of its
increase in velocity.
I'll leave the there, to be resumed in my next posting. Some may
already see where this is heading...
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: ca...@carldouglasrowing.com Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: carldouglasrowing.com & now on Facebook @ CarlDouglasRacingShells
On Sunday, 4 June 2023 at 20:50:00 UTC+1, carl wrote:
On 02/06/2023 23:23, carl wrote:
On 31/05/2023 02:24, Charles Carroll wrote:Part 2: How the work that you do is dissipated, & therefore wasted, in
Carl,
I am having second thoughts about my reply. You write: “It's hard to >>>> argue against maximising force throughout the stroke …” If I had taken >>>> the time to be more careful about what you were saying, I would have
realised that the phrase “force throughout the stroke” refers to
power, not force. So in effect aren’t you and I talking about the same >>>> thing — that is, maximising power, not force?
This makes me think of Steve Fairbairn's account of the lesson he
learned from his boxing instructor.
“An oarsman and the crew are nothing but a human hammer driving the
boat with a hit. A hit is not a mere tap-and-withdraw action. When I
was taught to hit by my boxing instructor, he took hold of my left
glove and told me to advance it steadily, and as it landed on his face >>>> to lift my front foot and push with the other. So the beginning must
have a push in it; not merely the momentum of the body being thrown at >>>> the water and vanishing in it, but a full-powered drive beginning with >>>> that momentum as the blade takes the water, and carrying it through
with a drive from the stretcher.” ( “Rowing Notes,” Third Edition >>>> 1930, p. 156)
The hit and the follow-through are coefficients that unite in action
to produce in Fairbairn’s words “a full-powered drive.”
Whether rowing leisurely or racing for gold, what oarsman wants to row >>>> with less than a full-powered drive?
Warmest regards,
Charles
Charles -
The pleasure is all mine - & best to you both from Jan and me. Much to
discuss privately - it's been too long.
Now to business - rowing!
There are 2 over-arching aspects to the net propulsive effect of the
rowing stroke:
1. The amount of work that you do during the stroke which, simply put,
is the sum (the integral) of the force that you apply at any instant
multiplied by the distance moved in that instant by the point of
application of that force (the hands)
2. The efficiency with which the work that you do is converted into
useful (propulsive) work.
That very simple depiction gets complicated very easily, so let's tread
carefully. One reason is the sheer complexity of the inertial
interactions between the rower's body (which weighs far more than the
boat), & how one best to manage the relative motion of body & boat.
Another reason is that the efficiency of the interaction between blade & >>> water is far from simple, varies continuously through the stroke & is
very difficult to analyse.
I feel, & see, little evidence that rowing wishes to study or understand >>> (or even acknowledge) these 2 aspects, preferring to think in stylistic
& stimulating but non-scientific terms - because it is very difficult to >>> do otherwise. Yet the time, effort & expense invested into rowing,
especially at top levels, could suggest that we should do more to study
those 2 factors listed above. Not to do so is like investing without
understanding the significance of risk & rate of return.
It's late after a busy day, so please treat the above as a place-holder
& I'll return in a day or so, over a cuppa, to elaborate. But let me
leave you with this thought, which I've expressed before:
that swirling puddle contains all of the energy input at the blade which >>> did _not_ move the boat.
Cheer -
Carl
the water. Let's have some definitions:-
1, Newton's 2nd Law of Motion: "Force applied to a body equals the mass
of that body multiplied by the acceleration induced", or F = m x a,
where 'F' is the force(e.g. Newtons, lb force, kg force, etc) to the
mass, 'm' (e.g. lb mass or kg mass), and 'a' is the resulting
acceleration of that mass (its rate of _change_ in velocity, measured as
feet or metres per second per second - no repeating the per second is
not a typo!)
2. Newton's 3rd Law of Motion: "Every action has an equal & opposite
reaction". If I push you, the force that you apply is the force that I
feel &, if we're of equal mass & both standing on frictionless ice, then
we will each move but in opposite directions at equal velocities.
3. Kinetic Energy: The energy stored in any moving body of mass 'm'
moving at velocity 'v' by virtue of its mass and velocity. This K.E. is
theoretically capable of being completely recovered when bringing the
moving object to a halt. In mathematical terms, this is defined as E =
0.5 x m x v^2/g, where 'g' is the gravitational constant (the rate of
acceleration of a body in free fall under gravity - ~9.81 metres/sec/sec
or 32.2 feet per sec per sec. To double a mass's velocity requires
quadruple the energy that was required to get it moving at its original
velocity.
4. Momentum: This is defined as mass times velocity - M = m x v
It is upon these fundamental relationships that boat propulsion depends.
But first understand that all mechanical (including fluid-mechanical)
processes are to some degree inefficient - part of the work invested is
inevitably lost/dissipated on the way, so your blade can never convert
100% of your work into propelling the boat. In fact what we can term
propulsive efficiency is depressingly low & with deficient technique may
even be 50% or less. For comparison, screw propulsion for ships tends
to be 60-70% efficient.
So how is so much of your input work/energy lost? Some of it disappears
because, to paraphrase Newton #3, to push the boat forward against the
frictional drag on its hull means that something else must be pushed
backwards - & that something is a "lump" of water. Since energy is
always conserved (can't be made, can't be destroyed), whatever is moved
backwards has gained a bundle of kinetic energy, which is a price paid
that can't be recovered - it's a total waste, a dead loss, but makes a
lovely puddle.
Which begs the question - how can we minimise that loss % thereby
increase the propulsive efficiency of our stroke?
Let me just say that this is where momentum comes into the calculation.
The force applied is proportional to the momentum gained by the mass
against which you are reacting. So you have an increase in momentum,
which is proportional to the thrust, which in turn is proportional to
the mass of water moved by the blade & the change in its velocity
(assumed to start from zero at the catch). And you have a simultaneous
increase in the kinetic energy of that mass of water, which is
proportional to that same mass of water and to the _square_ of its
increase in velocity.
I'll leave the there, to be resumed in my next posting. Some may
already see where this is heading...
Cheers -
Carl
I am waiting for the next instalment ......muscle cross section) looking at the most force production availability in the early portion of the drive (up to perpendicular with the pin, when most knees are down and hip swing part way through?)
but - my reading so far, is;
we are aiming for the boat to have as constant a speed as is possible - because this reduces 'drag' and therefore is the most 'efficient' use of the input.
The blade efficiency (and possibly biomechanical force production capability) vary through the stroke cycle - I think I remember that the blade efficiency is greatest at the beginning and the end of the cycle, and biomechanically we are probably (
What I am going to postulate ('cos I only learn by having my thinking picked apart) is that even within this cycle, with these caveats, there is a dis-benefit to over-doing the acceleration early in the cycle (drag, fluid dynamics, blisters, tendonsetc) and more benefit to an application of force that maximises the efficiencies here, and then holding that force through the stroke to the end where it becomes more efficient?)
So I guess, to crudely summarise, I am a "hang and hold" rather than a "hang and bang".
James
Forget the rower for the moment, & just consider the relationships
between thrust, momentum and kinetic energy:-
Forget the rower for the moment, & just consider the relationships
between thrust, momentum and kinetic energy:-
Carl,
Am I wrong to think that key to the argument is the rate at which momentum is acquired?
Peak force produced earlier and held onto through the entire stroke can provide as much momentum as twice the amount of peak force acquired late and let go early. Isn’t this what the graph in my earlier post shows?
Warmest regards.
Charles
Hi Carl -
It appears that the rsr brain trust has all but disappeared. I am not surprised. The only constant in life is change.
You are quite right to admonish me for asking easy questions that only have difficult answers. But that’s how we learn, isn’t it? What follows is a small meditation on science and artistry and rowing. Maybe it will give you a chuckle as you read it.
Best to Jan,For this reason a racing shell, in and of itself, can neither be said to be either fast or slow. But a racing shell with the correct hull geometry can do less to slow a fast rower down.
Charles
Does it make sense to think of a racing shell as being either fast or slow? No it doesn't for the simple reason that as a means of transport a racing shell is not self-propelling. For propulsion it depends entirely on an independent engine, the rower.
The preceding statement is important because it introduces a relationship between science and artistry. Many imagine inescapable conflict in such a relationship. Without much thought they are given to hypothesize the superiority of one over the other.this why “mileage makes champions” is an idea so beloved by coaches and rowers? Artistry in rowing is gained and refined through mileage. One does not spend thousands of hours pulling against an oar handle to learn the science of rowing, but rather
But doesn’t this beg a question? Is the relationship between science and artistry necessarily antagonistic?
While it is undeniably true that there is science in rowing, it is also undeniably true that there is artistry in rowing. Science is learned through careful observation and thought. Artistry, on the other hand, is cultivated through practice. Isn’t
So the artistry of rowing is about fast rowers rowing boats that do less to slow them down. And the science of rowing is to equip rowers with such boats and other necessaries to accomplish this.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 489 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 45:15:15 |
| Calls: | 9,670 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,717 |
| Messages: | 6,169,992 |