Free Spirits Rowing

Well done Erik! Sorry for putting pressure on you
You forgot to mention the 13 spots it made you climb on the Meterboard. Something some of us only can dream of. For me the guy to spots ahead of me is completely out of range, but then again, this will be my best season

Thanks, Tako

Well done with all your - not only SBs, but - PBs, this season, Tako

FINALLY managed to duck back under 40 mins for a 10k today. I've done a few hard rows in the last couple of weeks - all around 30 mins to 60 mins and around 2:03 ish pace so thought I'd target 40:40 to start with and "see how it went". Finished with 39:48.2 which is a 25.1 seconds improvement on my previous SB - so it "went" quite well!

I'm actually extremely pleased with that (and relieved as I thought <40 was not going to happen again for me)

plummy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:56 pm FINALLY managed to duck back under 40 mins for a 10k today. I've done a few hard rows in the last couple of weeks - all around 30 mins to 60 mins and around 2:03 ish pace so thought I'd target 40:40 to start with and "see how it went". Finished with 39:48.2 which is a 25.1 seconds improvement on my previous SB - so it "went" quite well!

I'm actually extremely pleased with that (and relieved as I thought <40 was not going to happen again for me)

Well done Dave. That does make the your 5k SB look like an easy target. Just sayin'

No way Jon - my 5k was all I had (and that was in a race) so 19:10 is it for this season. The 6k however - maybe some more to slice of that - but it's another one of those horrible distances!

Not an SB for me, but an SB(and PB) for my erg - Recorded the highest DF I have seen on there - 375.
Did a 10k strapless at 23.6 spm -

10k - 41:26.1

Paul G

paulgould wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:44 pm Not an SB for me, but an SB(and PB) for my erg - Recorded the highest DF I have seen on there - 375.
Did a 10k strapless at 23.6 spm -

10k - 41:26.1

Paul G

Well done, erg

Erik, on behalf of my erg - thank you!!

Got a reading of df 380 for this morning's row - the LCD display on the monitor starts playing up when the temp drops below -1c so I don't expect to see much higher readings.
10k at spm 23.8 this time - 41:57.1

Paul G

Paul, is the drag factor getting higher as it gets colder or is there a turning point? (What about humidity?)

Are you sure you haven't submerged the fan cage under water to get that drag factor?

plummy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:25 pm Are you sure you haven't submerged the fan cage under water to get that drag factor?

Not quite - I have taken the wire mesh off, and I row outside if it is not raining, so plenty of unimpeded air flow.
Cold air is denser too, and it was hovering just above freezing this morning - as you probably remember, it can never get too cold for me

Paul G

Posted on FB last night - I managed to increase my 60 minutes SB by 90m to 14827m - edging very slowly nearer to the magic 15km mark (not sure I still have that in the tank though). Neg splits and 26/27 spm rate. That's my second best 60 mins in the last 4 years!

Nice one Dave! According to Paul's law that would be 7732m for the Starnberg 30 minutes (2:01.4 -> 1:56.4)

Grobi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:38 pm Nice one Dave! According to Paul's law that would be 7732m for the Starnberg 30 minutes (2:01.4 -> 1:56.4)

I think Paul's law is a flawed law in this instance!!

Well done, Dave, very close to the 2:00 on the hour

Not a real SB for me today - but sub-7 for the first time since my stunt... Did 6:54.7 in the last leg of our 8x2k relay

Liefcat wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:56 pm Paul, is the drag factor getting higher as it gets colder or is there a turning point? (What about humidity?)

Erik, it gets higher the colder it gets - I haven't noticed fluctuations due to humidity but to be honest have not really looked at that.
The pm3 LCD starts to fade once the temperature hits 0 but it never gets much below that here.

Paul G

plummy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:24 pm

Grobi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:38 pm Nice one Dave! According to Paul's law that would be 7732m for the Starnberg 30 minutes (2:01.4 -> 1:56.4)

I think Paul's law is a flawed law in this instance!!

The maths nerd in me could not resist this one. For timed pieces, you need to calculate the expected difference in pace using an iterative process. The reason for this is that you are expected to do the shorter challenge at a faster pace than the longer one, therefore you will cover more than half the distance.

If we assume that 5 seconds for each doubling of the distance is correct, this would give an expected distance for 30 minutes of 7713m @ 1:56.7 pace. For lightweight rowers, the adjustment for each doubling of the distance tends to be less than 5 seconds, maybe 4 seconds or even less. Applying an adjustment of 4 seconds would give an expected result of 7654m @ 1:57.6 pace, while a 3 seconds adjustment would give 7595m @ 1:58.5.

Paul V

PS: Congratulations on a very strong SB, plummy!

Thanks for the correction Paul, although I think that our results (7713m vs. 7732m, both based on the 5 seconds assumption) aren't that much apart.

If I enter Plummy's 60 minutes into the Paul's law calculator it gives me a 5k time of 18:55.6 (1:53.6). If I then enter this 5k time and a 39:32 (1:58.6) into the FS pace predictor it deliveres 7713m for the 30 minutes. Is that how you came up with your result?

I used a spreadsheet, Peter. I guess the calculator works the same way as my spreadsheet i.e. using a logarithmic approach. So you multiply the adjustment factor (say 5 seconds) by the log of the change in distance divided by the log of 2. I use natural logs in my calculation, but it would work just as well with logs to any other base.

As you say, my result is not that different from yours and reflects a slightly slower pace than 1:56.4 because 7713 is just over 52% of 14827. To calculate this figure, I start off by plugging 7732 into the spreadsheet, then adjusting this downwards until I get the whole number of meters that brings me closest to a 5 second adjustment per doubling of the difference.

I hope that makes sense.

Paul V

Paul Victory wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:54 pm
I used a spreadsheet, Peter. I guess the calculator works the same way as my spreadsheet i.e. using a logarithmic approach. So you multiply the adjustment factor (say 5 seconds) by the log of the change in distance divided by the log of 2. I use natural logs in my calculation, but it would work just as well with logs to any other base.

Paul, are you not over-simplifying this a bit?

Paul G

paulgould wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:53 pm

Paul Victory wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:54 pm
I used a spreadsheet, Peter. I guess the calculator works the same way as my spreadsheet i.e. using a logarithmic approach. So you multiply the adjustment factor (say 5 seconds) by the log of the change in distance divided by the log of 2. I use natural logs in my calculation, but it would work just as well with logs to any other base.

Paul, are you not over-simplifying this a bit?

Paul G

If you want a full explanation, please visit my blog at www.icantbelieveanyonecouldbequitethatboring.com

Paul Victory wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:04 pm

paulgould wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:53 pm

Paul Victory wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:54 pm
I used a spreadsheet, Peter. I guess the calculator works the same way as my spreadsheet i.e. using a logarithmic approach. So you multiply the adjustment factor (say 5 seconds) by the log of the change in distance divided by the log of 2. I use natural logs in my calculation, but it would work just as well with logs to any other base.

Paul, are you not over-simplifying this a bit?

Paul G

If you want a full explanation, please visit my blog at www.icantbelieveanyonecouldbequitethatboring.com

And I thought I was a numbers geek!!

Paul G

Stepping away from Paul's Law and using the PB generator instead, I looked at the best "percentage" against my all time PB I have managed for my SBs this year and they are all 91.x % of my all time PB. As all my best % scores are all very very similar I thought I would just keep changing the 30 minutes distance until I saw a result at about 91.5% - which brought up 7665m (give or take 10m depending on where I set the number after the decimal point). That looks there or thereabouts to me (assuming well rested, fit and well etc).

To me erging is very much practical, so don´t have anything to add to the ongoing "discussion"...

For a couple of months now I have taken up spinning and done my heart rehabilitation. Easier for me now to get HR up and also feeling more energy after 40 minutes of workout. Tuesday at spinning class i.e. I managed to keep HR a little above 140 for most of the last 15 minute rep: So yesterday I wanted to see if I could convert this to the erg and attacking the hour SB. Rather pleasantly I got above 15k: 15261m

Very nice "hour" Erik.

Paul G