150 Years of Rowing Faster!: 150 Years of Rowing Faster! Stephen Seiler PhD FACSM
Faculty of Health and Sport
Agder University College
Kristiansand, Norway
Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race Winning Times 1845-2005: Oxford-Cambridge Boat Race Winning Times 1845-2005
FISA Men’s championship 1x Winning Times 1894-2004: FISA Men’s championship 1x Winning Times 1894-2004
Slide4: 25-30% increase
in average velocity over 150 years
of competitive rowing What are the performance variables and
how have they changed? How will future improvements
be achieved?
Slide5: Decrease
Power
Losses Decrease
Drag Forces
on Boat Increase Propulsive
Efficiency
of oar/blade
Improve
Technical
Efficiency
Increase
Propulsive
Power Aerobic
Capacity Anaerobic
Capacity Maximal
Strength
”Evolutionary Constraints”: ”Evolutionary Constraints” Race duration ~ 6-8 minutes
Weight supported activity
Oar geometry dictates relatively low cycle frequency and favors large stroke distance to accelerate boat
High water resistance decelerates boat rapidly between force impulses
These constraints result in:: These constraints result in: High selection pressure for height and arm length
High selection pressure for absolute (weight independent) aerobic capacity
Significant selection pressure for muscular
strength and anaerobic capacity
Slide8: Ned Hanlan ca 1880
173cm
71kg Biglin Brothers ca 1865
180cm? 75-80kg? Ward Brothers ca 1865
185cm?
80+kg?
Slide9: ”Since the 19th century there have been clearly documented secular trends to increasing adult height in most European countries with current rates of 10-30mm/decade.” Cole, T.J. Secular Trends in Growth. Proceedings
of the Nurition Society. 59, 317-324, 2000.
97th percentile for height in Dutch 21 year-olds: Redrawn after data from Fredriks et al, in Cole, T.J. Secular Trends in Growth.
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 59, 317-324, 2000. 97th percentile for height in Dutch 21 year-olds
Slide11: Oxford Crew-2005
Average Height: 197cm
Average bodyweight
98.3 kg Taller Population= Taller Elite Rowers
Scaling problems- Geometry or fractal filling volumes?: Scaling problems- Geometry or fractal filling volumes? Based on Geometric scaling:
Strength and VO2max will increase in proportion to mass 2/3.
VO2 body mass scaling in elite rowers: VO2 body mass scaling in elite rowers Relationship between maximal
oxygen uptake and body mass for
117 Danish rowers
(national team candidates) From: Jensen, K., Johansen, L, Secher, N.H.
Influence of body mass on maximal oxygen
uptake: effect of sample size. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol.
84: 201-205, 2001. r = - 0.39 A key finding of this study was that VO2 scaled with body mass
raised to the =.73 power, or close to the 0.75 value predicted
by metabolic scaling
Slide14: Measuring Rowing Specific Physical Capacity Photo courtesy of Mathijs Hofmijster, Faculty of Human
Movement Sciences, Free University Amsterdam, Netherlands
Slide15: photos 1-4 from Miller, B. ”The development of rowing equipment” http://www.rowinghistory.net/equipment.htm 3. 4. 5.
The Maximum of Human Power and its Fuel: The Maximum of Human Power and its Fuel From Observations on the Yale University Crew, Winner of the Olympic Championship, Paris, 1924 Henderson, Y and Haggard, H.W. American J. Physiology. 72, 264-282, 1925 Height: 185 cm
Weight: 82 kg Crew average:
Slide17: Estimated external work required
at racing speed based on:
1. Boat pulling measurements
2. Work output on a rowing
machine
3. Rowing ergometer VO2
measurements (but did not go to max)
Estimated an external work requirement of ~6 Calories/min or (assuming 20% efficiency)
30 Calories/min energy expenditure.
Equals ~ 6 Liter/min O2 cost
Assumed 4 L/min VO2 max and 2 L/min anaerobic contribution during 6 min race. The ergometer of the day had to be redesigned to
allow a quantification of work and power.
1970s - VO2 max vs boat placement in international regatta: 1970s - VO2 max vs boat placement in international regatta From Secher NH. Rowing.
Physiology of Sports
(ed. Reilly et al)
pp 259-286. 1971 Even if we assume 5 liter/min max for the dominant, champion 1924
crew, they would have been at the bottom of the international rankings 50 years later, as this team boat VO2 max data compiled by Secher demonstrates.
Slide19: 193 cm, 92 kg 6.23 L/min VO2 cycling. Subject reached 6.1 to 6.4 L/min during repeated testing in different boats. Jackson, R.C. and N. H. Secher.
The aerobic demands of rowing in
two Olympic rowers. Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc. 8(3): 168-170, 1976. This study was unique because 1) on water measurements were made
of champion rowers and, 2) the authors of the paper WERE the
Champion rowers (Niels Secher, Denmark and Roger Jackson, Canada)
who went on to very successful sport science careers.
Aerobic Capacity Developments ?: Aerobic Capacity Developments ? Dr. Fred Hagerman 7+ L/min Ohio University ? There is just not much
data available prior to the
late 60s, so the question
marks emphasise that
this is guessing. But that
aerobic capacity has
increased Is clear. Today,
isolated 7 liter values VO2 max
values have been recorded in
several good laboratories for
champion rowers.
How much of performance improvement is attributable to increased physical dimensions?: How much of performance improvement is attributable to increased physical dimensions? Based on W Cup results
from Lucerne over:
3 years
3 boat types
1st 3 places Here I use present day differences in boat velocity for world class lightweight and heavyweight crews to demonstrate that the massive scale up in body size has not resulted in a proportional
increase in boat speed, due to increased power losses associated with greater boat drag. The difference between these two weight classes today is about the same as the increase in body size observed over 150 years
Slide23: Rise at 7 a.m: Run 100-200
yards as fast as possible About 5:30: Start for the river and row
for the starting post and back Reckoning a half an hour in rowing to and
half an hour from the starting point, and a
quarter of an hour for the morning run- in all,
say, one and a quarter hours.
US National Team training during peak loading period: US National Team training during peak loading period 3 sessions/day
30+ hr/wk From US Women’s
national team 1996
Developments in training over last 3 decades: Developments in training over last 3 decades Fiskerstrand A, Seiler KS Training and performance characteristics among Norwegian international rowers 1970-2001. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004 (5):303-10.
Developments in training over last 3 decades: Developments in training over last 3 decades Fiskerstrand A, Seiler KS Training and performance characteristics among Norwegian international rowers 1970-2001. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2004 (5):303-10.
1860s - ”Athletes Heart” debate begins: 1860s - ”Athletes Heart” debate begins 1867- London surgeon F.C. Shey likened The Boat Race to cruelty to animals, warning that maximal effort for 20 minutes could lead to permanent injury.
1873- John Morgan (physician and former Oxford crew captain) compared 251 former oarsmen with non-rowers -concluded that the rowers had lived 2 years longer!
Myocardial hypertrophy was key topic of debate, but tools for measurement (besides at autopsy) were not yet available.
See: Park, R.J. High Protein Diets, ”Damaged Hearts and Rowing Men: antecendents of Modern Sports Medicine and Exercise Science, 1867-1928. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, 25, 137-170, 1997.
See also: Thompson P.D. Historical aspects of the Athletes Heart. MSSE 35(2), 364-370 2003.
Big-hearted Italian Rowers - 1980s: Big-hearted Italian Rowers - 1980s Of 947 elite Italian athletes tested, 16 had ventricular wall thicknesses exceeding normal criteria for cardiomyopathy. 15 of these 16 were rowers or canoeists (all international medalists).
Suggested that combination of pressure and volume loading on heart in rowing was unique,
but adaptation was physiological and not pathological. from: Pelliccia A. et al. The upper limit of physiologic cardiac hypertrophy
in highly trained elite athletes. New England J. Med. 324, 295-301, 1991.
Slide29: From: Pelliccia et al. Global left ventricular shape is not altered
as a consequence of physiologic remodelling
in highly trained athletes. Am. J. Cardiol. 86(6), 700-702, 2000 elite rower untrained control These ultrasound images show the
hypertrophied but geometrically similar heart of an elite Italian rower compared to the smaller heart of an untrained subject.
Slide30: Pelliccia et al. Remodeling of Left Ventricular
Hypertrophy in Elite Athletes After Long-Term
Deconditioning Circulation. 105:944, 2002 Myocardial adaptation to
heavy endurance training was
shown to be reversed with
detraining. The functional and
morphological changes
described as the
”Athlete’s Heart” are
adaptive, not pathological.
Force production and strength in rowing: Force production and strength in rowing Ishiko used strain gauge dynamometers mounted on the oars of the silver medal winning 8+ from Tokyo 1964 to measure peak dynamic forces.
Values were of the magnitude 700-900 N based on the figures shown
Ishiko, T. Application of telemetry to sport activities. Biomechanics.
1:138-146, 1967. Photo from WEBA sport GMBH
Slide32: 1971 - Secher calculated power
to row at winning speed in 1972
championships = 450 watts (2749 kpm/min)
”In accordance with the force-velocity relationship a minimal (isometric) rowing strength of 53 ÷ 0.4 = 133 kp (1300N) will be essential.” From: Secher, N.H. Isometric rowing strength of
experienced and inexperienced oarsmen.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.7(4) 280-283, 1975. How Strong do Rowers
need to be?
Force production and rowing strength: Force production and rowing strength From: Secher, N.H. Isometric rowing strength of
experienced and inexperienced oarsmen.
Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.7(4) 280-283, 1975. Measured isometric force in
7 Olympic/world medalists,
plus other rowers and
non-rowers
Average peak isometric force
(mid-drive): 2000 N
in medalists NO CORRELATION
between ”rowing strength”
and leg extension, back
extension, elbow flexion, etc.
Slide35: Decrease
Power
Losses Decrease
Drag Forces
on Boat Increase Propulsive
Efficiency
of oar/blade
Improve
Technical
Efficiency
Slide36: Boat Velocity – Oxygen Demand Relationship Boat velocity
range for Men’s
and women’s 1x This figure shows that achieving a 10% increase in average boat velocity
would require an impossibly large increase in aerobic capacity. This
means that any revolutionary boat velocity increases in the future must be
achieved by decreasing power losses (boat drag for example).
Drag Forces on the Boat and Rower: Drag Forces on the Boat and Rower Boat Surface Drag - 80% of hydrodynamic drag (depends on boat shape and total wetted surface area)
Wave drag contribution small - <10%
of hydrodynamic drag
Air resistance – normally <10% of total drag, depends on cross-sectional area of rowers plus shell
Slide38: In-rigged wherry
typical of those used in racing
prior to 1830 figures from Miller, B. ”The development of rowing equipment”
http://www.rowinghistory.net/equipment.htm
All radical boat form improvements completed by 1856.: All radical boat form improvements completed by 1856. 1828-1841. Outrigger tried by
Brown and Emmet, and perfected
by Harry Clasper
Keel-less hull developed by William Pocock and Harry Clasper 1840-1845 Thin-skin applied to keel-less frame
by Matt Taylor- 1855-56 photo and timeline from Miller, B. ”The development of rowing equipment” http://www.rowinghistory.net/equipment.htm Transition to epoxy and carbon fiber
boats came in 1972. Boat weight of
8+ reduced by 40kg
Effect of reduction in Boat Weight on boat velocity: Effect of reduction in Boat Weight on boat velocity ΔV/V = -(1/6) Δ M/Mtotal Example: Reducing boat+oar weight from
32 to 16kg = 2.4% speed increase for 80 kg
19th century rower. From: Dudhia, A Physics of Rowing.
http://www-atm.physics.ox.ac.uk/rowing/physics/
V= boat velocity
M = Mass
ΔV= Change in Velocity
ΔM= Change in Mass
Slide41: To achieve a radical reduction in drag forces
on current boats, they would have
to be lifted out of the water!
Slide42: To run this video, download it to the same directory from http://sportsci.org/2006/flyak.wmv (7.4 MB) Video of a hydrofoil kayak with two submerged wings. See http://www.foilkayak.com/
Slide43: Decrease
Power
Losses Decrease
Drag Forces
on Boat Increase Propulsive
Efficiency
of oar/blade
Improve
Technical
Efficiency
Oar movement translates rower power to boat velocity: Oar movement translates rower power to boat velocity Figure from:
Baudouin, A. & Hawkins D.
A biomechanical review of factors affecting rowing performance. British J. Sports Med. 36: 396-402 Boat
Travel
Slide46: The slide properly used is a decided advantage and gain of speed, and only objection to its use is its complication and almost impracticable requirement of skill and unison in the crew, rather than any positive defect in its mechanical theory.
J.C. Babcock 1870 1876 Centennial Regatta, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. London Crew winning heat
Slide47: Photo from www.concept2.com Boat direction From: Nolte, V. Die Effektivitat des ruderschlages. 1984
in: Nolte, V ed. Rowing Faster. Human Kinetics, 2005 A common conception of the oar blade-water connection is that it is
solid, but it is not. Water is moved by the blade. Energy is wasted in
moving water instead of moving the boat as the blade “slips”
through the water. Much or oar development is related to
improving blade efficiency and decreasing this power loss. However,
the improvement has been gradual, in part due to technological
limitations in oar construction.
Oar hydrodynamic efficiency- propelling the boat but not the water: Oar hydrodynamic efficiency- propelling the boat but not the water Oar power loss = blade drag force * blade velocity (slip) Power applied = Force Moment at the oar * oar angular velocity Affeld, K., Schichl, Ziemann, A. Assessment of rowing efficiency Int. J. Sports Med. 14 (suppl 1): S39-S41, 1993.
Oar Evolution: Oar Evolution ”Square” and
”Coffin” blades
1906 Square loomed
scull 1847
Slide50: Affeld, K., Schichl, Ziemann, A. Assessment of rowing efficiency
Int. J. Sports Med. 14 (suppl 1): S39-S41, 1993. Big blades found
to be 3% more
hydrodynamically
efficient compared
to Macon blade ?
Rower/tinkerer/scientists?- The Dreissigacker Brothers: Rower/tinkerer/scientists?- The Dreissigacker Brothers All pictures from www.concept2.com in
exchange for unsolicited and indirect
endorsement!
Effect of Improved Oars on boat speed?: Effect of Improved Oars on boat speed? Kleshnev (2002) used instrumented boats and measurement of 21 crews to estimate an 18% energy loss to moving water by blade Data suggests 2-3% gain in boat velocity possible with further optimization of oar efficiency (30-50% of the present ~ 6 % velocity loss to oar blade energy waste)
Rowing Technique: ”Ergs don’t float”: Rowing Technique: ”Ergs don’t float”
Slide54: Decrease
Power
Losses Decrease
Drag Forces
on Boat Increase Propulsive
Efficiency
of oar/blade
Improve
Technical
Efficiency
Decrease
velocity
fluctuations
Optimize/Synchronize
Force
Curves
Decreasing Velocity Fluctuations: Larger fluctuations require greater propulsive power for same average velocity Decreasing Velocity Fluctuations Figure from Affeld et al. Int. J.
Sports Med. 14: S39-S41, 1993 Sources
Pulsatile Force application
Reactions to body mass
acceleration in boat
The Sliding Rigger: The Sliding Rigger 1954 Sliding Rigger developed
by C.E. Poynter (UK) From: Miller, B. The development of Rowing Equipment. http://www.rowinghistory.net Idea patented in 1870s
Functional model built in 1950s
Further developed by Volker Nolte and Empacher in early 1980s
Kolbe won WCs in 1981 with sliding rigger
Top 5 1x finalists used sliding rigger in 1982.
Outlawed by FISA in 1983. The sliding rigger was outlawed on the basis of its high cost (an unfair
advantage). This argument would not be true today with modern
construction methods.
How much speed could be gained by reducing velocity fluctuations by 50%? : How much speed could be gained by reducing velocity fluctuations by 50%? Estimated ~5% efficiency loss due to velocity fluctuations (see Sanderson and Martindale (1986) and Kleshnev (2002) Reducing this loss by 50% would result in
a gain in boat velocity of ~ 1% or ~4
seconds in a 7 minute race. Sliding rigger effect probably bigger!
due to decreased energy cost of rowing and
increased stability (an additional 1%+ ?)
Better Boat Balance?: Better Boat Balance? 0.3 to 0.5 degrees
50% of variability attributable
to differences in rower mass 0.1 to 0.6 degrees.
0.5 degrees = 2.5 cm
bow movement 0.3 to 2.0 degrees.
Highest variability
between rowers here Smith, R. Boat orientation and skill level in sculling boats. Coaches
Information Service http://coachesinfo.com/
The Rowing Stroke Force Curve- A unique signature: The Rowing Stroke Force Curve- A unique signature From: Ishiko, T. Biomechanics of Rowing. Medicine and Sport
volume 6: Biomechanics II, 249-252, Karger, Basel 1971
”Oarsmen of a crew try to row in the same manner and they believe that they are doing so. But from the data it may be concluded that this is actually not true.”
Slide60: From Schneider, E., Angst, F. Brandt, J.D. Biomechanics
of rowing. In: Asmussen and Jørgensen eds.
Biomechanics VI-B Univ. Park Press, Baltimore, 1978.
pp 115-119. A ”Good Crew” ”A new crew with visible success” 2 juniors with ”only 1 year experience
in the same boat” Rowers 1 and 2 have very similar force curves, showing that the
timing of blade forces in the two rowers is well matched. Rowers 3 and 4 are quite different from 1 and 2, reaching peak force earlier in their stroke. They are similar to each other though, perhaps explaining their ”visible success”. Rowers 7 and 8 show markedly different stroke force profiles, with rower 7 reaching peak force late in the stroke.
Rowing Together: Synchronizing force curves: From: Wing, A.M. and Woodburn, C. The coordination and consistency of rowers in a racing eight. Journal of Sport Sciences. 13, 187-197, 1995 Rowing Together: Synchronizing force curves Fatigue changes the amplitude
of the curve, but not its shape. Changing rowers in the boat did not change the force curves of the other rowers, at least not in the short term.
Is there an optimal force curve?: Is there an optimal force curve? For a 1x sculler: perhaps yes, one that
balances hydrodynamic and physiological constraints to create a personal optimum.
For a team boat: probably no single optimum exists due to interplay between biomechanical and physiological constraints at individual level. see also: Roth, W et al. Force-time characteristics of the rowing stroke and corresponding
physiological muscle adaptations. Int. J. Sports Med. 14 (suppl 1): S32-S34, 1993
Slide63: Contribution of rowing variables to
increased velocity over 150 years Increased Physical
Dimensions - 10% Improved
Training – 33% Improved Boat Design
/reduced dead weight – 12% Improved hydrodynamic
efficiency of oar – 25% Sliding Seat/Evolved Rowing
Technique – 20% This is my best estimate of the relative contribution of the different performance variables
addressed to the development of boat velocity over 150 years. Future improvements are probably best
achieved by further developments in oar efficiency, and perhaps the return of the sliding rigger!
Slide64: Thank You! This is Oxford. They won. This is Cambridge. They…didn’t.