Free Spirits Rowing

Had my first go at this this morning - managed 1:44.3 @ 38 spm
Reckon I can go a bit faster so will try again later in the month - I only had the drag factor on 105 and had just done a 1k test...

Forgot to say - weight this morning 65.4kg, age 41

Shang-Chi wrote:Yeah, Mikkel, 58 years old, 76 kg. rowing 1:17.1, that's me

Sounds quite plausible.

Paul Victory wrote:

Shang-Chi wrote:Yeah, Mikkel, 58 years old, 76 kg. rowing 1:17.1, that's me

Sounds quite plausible.

Yeah, 1 in a gazillion. (PS: Lying down now)

Until we get some more female entries, I have included millie's time in the main table:

Thanks Alan - I'd rather be at the bottom of a table with more than just me in it than be at the top of a table where I am the only one

You don't need to improve your adjusted time by much to move off the bottom, by my reckoning. Now there's some motivation for your next attempt!

I will have a go at this but I want to get Starnberg out of the way first and then try and have some semblance of fitness before I do an all out 500. Shame I wasn't up to it yesterday as I weighed in at 68.4kg!

plummy wrote:I will have a go at this but I want to get Starnberg out of the way first and then try and have some semblance of fitness before I do an all out 500. Shame I wasn't up to it yesterday as I weighed in at 68.4kg!

Sounds like you also suffers from elevator-weight, David I weighed 86.5 last week and got to 89.9 friday and back to 87 today. Good luck the 500 and keeping the weight down. [-o<

AlanS wrote:You don't need to improve your adjusted time by much to move off the bottom, by my reckoning.

Thanks Alan!

Yes I had noticed....Watch out Paul
Alan it looks like I get 2 seconds for my age - I had a look at the Concept 2 spreadsheet (as we have used the WAAR for comparing erg times in my OTW club) and looks like the age benefit for 41 is 10 seconds per 2k so I figured that would be 2.5 seconds for this challenge. How is it actually being worked out? Guessing there is some pro-ratering where get less of a benefit for shorter distances??
And if you think I'm just asking the question because I am trying to improve my score a little bit, er yes you're probably right

My foot is finally getting a bit better so thought I'd try this after a few days of eating too much and not doing any training. I didn't have any particular plan but to go as hard as I could and see what happened.

This resulted in HD after about 300m. I'd obviously not done one of these for a while and had forgotten that it was a long way and I couldn't just go as hard as possible all the way. Picked it back up and finished in 1:41.3. Still on the plus side I did see a few 1:27 which I haven't seen before.

Decided that really was a bit of a poor effort so had a five minute light row and decided to try again, and just be conservative and keep it under 1:40. This went smoothly for about 30 seconds and then I realised that it was foolhardy to attempt a second attempt. Struggled home in 1:39.7, so more to come at a later date. Current weight is 64.7Kg.

Jeremy, thanks for the entry. I look forward to seeing what you can post with a 'proper' attempt.

Millie, you are completely right. An age benefit of 10s over 2km works out as 2.5s over 500m. There isn't any pro-rata-ing going on, but your query may have highlighted a bug in my spreadsheet. It looks as if you're only getting a 2s benefit - the .5 is being ignored. That goes for everyone else too. Alan should have a 12.9s benefit, but only gets 12s, etc. I'll look into it...

I hate these sprints.

Yambo (Doug Trumper)

Age: 62, Weight: 85 kgs Time: 1:42.5

It's given me another 11 points on the Nonathlon but I'm still over a second short for the 850 points I'm aiming for per event.

Thanks Doug, and well done on the PB. =D>

Well that hurt like you wouldn't believe - my lungs still hurt now - and it wasn't even that fast...

1:38.0 - weighed in at 69.0kg

plummy wrote:and it wasn't even that fast...

I beg to disagree - that's a great effort =D> =D>
I'm planning a second attempt on Thursday morning so watch out boys (Philip I think you're more than safe though )

millie wrote

I'm planning a second attempt on Thursday morning so watch out boys (Philip I think you're more than safe though )

Age has its advantages

Alan, I'm getting confused with the age adjustement. Shouldn't Mikkel's age adjusted time for example be 1:22.1 instead of 1:23.1?

My calculation is 87.1 seconds - 1/4 * 19,9 seconds = 87.1 seconds - 4.975 seonds = 82.125 seconds = 1:22.1

81kg 1:35.4 - first sprint for ages and done after a hard 5k so should be able to improve further...

Thanks plummy. Thanks Mike.

Peter, you are right. millie made the same observation a few posts above. It is a defect in my spreadsheet. The problem seems to be in my use of Excel's TIME function in the age adjustment algorithm. For example:

D4-TIME(0,0,N4)

Where D4 is the actual time (1:27.1), held as a time value; and N4 is 4.975 held as a number. The TIME function ignores the decimal places, and only takes 4s off. Anyone know of another way to implement this (correctly)?

Latest leaderboard:

It's not a perfect solution, but it's probably better than what I had previously - I've rounded the adjustment to the nearest whole number. So 4.975 becomes 5, for example.

This gives a slightly different allocation of points at the bottom, but the order remains the same:

AlanS wrote:The problem seems to be in my use of Excel's TIME function in the age adjustment algorithm. For example:

D4-TIME(0,0,N4)

Where D4 is the actual time (1:27.1), held as a time value; and N4 is 4.975 held as a number. The TIME function ignores the decimal places, and only takes 4s off. Anyone know of another way to implement this (correctly)?

Are the decimal places being ignored because of the two "0"? Could you therefore replace these "0" by let's say "2" and have two decimals taken into account?

edit: forget the above, it's non-sense I'm afraid The two "0" stand for hours and minutes if I'm not mistaken. Could you format the cell itself and allow two decimals?

Bizarre.

I emailed the spreadsheet to use at home, where I use OpenOffice rather than the MS Office I use at work. I opened up the spreadsheet and was most surprised to see that it was subtracting the fractions of a second! Problem solved. I will just use OpenOffice at home from now on and my formulae are now fine.

My contribution:

01:30.7 500 39 0 01:30.7

Age 66 Wt 102kg

Bill