The document discusses the use of rowing ergometers in training and testing, highlighting their differences from on-water rowing and potential injury risks associated with prolonged use. It presents results from studies on drag factor and ergometer settings that suggest a need for adjustments to better reflect on-water conditions. Recommendations include using dynamic ergometers and modifying settings to enhance training efficacy and reduce injury risk.

1. The Rowing Ergometer; It’s
Relevance to Training and Testing
Ivan Hooper
M.Phty.St (Sports), B.Sc (HMS)
AIS Sports Physiotherapist & RA SSSM Coordinator

2. Relevance to Training and Testing
1. Discussion of some fundamentals
about the rowing ergometer
2. Presentation of Drag Factor study
results
3. Advice & recommendations
I AM NOT HERE TO TELL YOU TO
STOP USING THE ERGOMETER!

3. The Rowing Ergometer
Does it accurately reflect what happens on water?
– Kleshnev (2001, 2003, 2005) lists six key differences
1. Stroke rate is always 10-15% lower *
2. The stroke length is 3-5% longer *
3. Handle force has a higher peak and develops later
4. Handle and footstretcher forces nearly equal as opposed to
footstretcher force on water being 30% higher
5. Difference in the timing of stretcher and handle forces *
6. Maximal legs velocity is lower on an ergometer *
* a dynamic ergometer significantly alters or eliminates this difference
“Rowers with fast legs produce more power on water, while athletes
with slower legs and stronger upper bodies have relatively higher ergo
scores”

4. Fixed vs Dynamic Ergometers

5. Men’s Coxless Four

6. The rowing ergometer
• While static ergometers may
have been useful for training
physical fitness, they may also
adversely alter the coordination
of the muscles used in on water
rowing. (Elliot, 2002)

7. Fixed vs Dynamic Ergometers
• Bernstein et al, 2002
– Athletes rowed average 53mm longer on a fixed
ergometer
– As pieces progressed, there was an increase in stroke
length at the catch on a fixed ergometer
– The mean forces developed during the power phase were
significantly higher with the fixed ergometer
• Colloud et al, 2006
– Rowing on a dynamic ergometer seems to require
different muscular coordination to produce external force
contact patterns
– The lower catch and maximum values for external contact
forces on a dynamic ergometer could decrease the risk
factors for injuries

8. Ergometer Use and Low Back Pain
• Teitz et al, 2002
– Ergometer training for longer than 30 mins was the most
significant and consistent predictor of back pain for all age
groups
• Holt et al 2003
– 5% increase in lumbar flexion during a one hour ergometer
at training intensities
– Attributed to fatigue of the lumbar muscles
• Reid & McNair, 2000
– The combination of lumbar flexion and muscular fatigue
has long been identified as a cause of lumbar spine injury
amongst rowers

9. Ergometer Use and Low Back Pain
• Bernstein et al, 2002
– In elite rowers, land based training carries a 10-fold higher
risk of injury per hour than water based training, the
leading causes suggested being weights and ergometer
training
• Wilson et al, 2008
– Time spent ergometer training had the most significant
impact on injury risk
– This confirms biomechanical observations that the loading
to the joints in ergometer sessions is different to the
patterns seen on water
– Nov, Dec & Jan highest months for injuries and this is
related to high volumes of land training during winter
months

10. If we can confidently say that the
ergometer is not the same as on
water rowing, and that it is clearly
linked to injury, isn’t it time we did
something about it?

11. The effect of manipulating drag factor and
Concept II sliders on stroke rate
Scott Coleman1, Margy Galloway1, Ivan Hooper2,
Angela McCoombe1, Mark Osbourne3
1. Biomechanics Dept, Australian Institute of Sport
2. Physical Therapies Dept, Australian Institute of Sport
3. Sports Science, Queensland Academy of Sport

12. Background
• Ergometer testing is often completed
at stroke rates well below on water
race pace
• Many athletes report the current drag
factor (DF) settings feel too heavy
• Many coaches now prescribe
ergometer training at lower DF’s
• There is increased interest in using
the Concept II sliders as training tools

13. What Do Crews Rate?
2007 World Championships
Class SR Class SR
M8+ 40 W8+ 39.1
M4- 40.5 W4x 37.4
M4x 39.3 W2x 35.9
M2x 38.2 W2- 37.4
M2- 38.8 W1x 34.1
M1x 36.3 LW2x 36.1
LM4- 40.6
LM2x 38.8

14. The Current Situation
• What are the current settings?
Category Drag Factor
HM 130
HW 120
LM 120
LW 110
• Where did these come from?

15. Study Concept
• Small study designed to add some knowledge to
the following questions:
– Are the current drag factor settings appropriate?
– What effect do Concept II sliders have on stroke rate?
– Can we manipulate DF +/- sliders to get stroke rate closer
to on water race rates?
– Are Concept II sliders a reliable form of testing?

16. On Water vs Ergometer?
• Can we compare forces?
• Assumption
– If we manipulate variables to get
rate similar to on water racing, then
forces must be close to similar

17. Study
• 7 x 500m pieces at variable drag factors
– 3 @ 80% 2000m PB wattage
– 4 @ 100% 2000m PB wattage
• Manipulation of DF outlined below
Study Settings
DF 1 DF 2 DF 3
HM 130 115 100
HW 120 105 90
LM 120 105 90
LW 110 100 90
• Testing order was randomised for each subject
• Done on fixed Concept II and on Sliders one week
apart

18. Subjects
Study Subjects
Category No Crew
HM 4a Olympic Men's 4-
1 Sen A Men's 2+
4 U/23 Men's 4x
HW 4b U/23 Women's 4-
4 WUG Women’s 2x, 4-
LW 3 Sen A Women's LW4x
a) 1 athlete completed both sessions on sliders, 1 athlete didn’t do sliders
b) 1 athlete didn’t complete sliders

19. Results
• Mean rates for current settings
Study Results WC Results
Category Group mean Sculling Sweep
HM 29.8 36.3 (17.9%) 38.8 (23.2%)
HW 28.4 34.1 (16.7%) 37.4 (24.1%)
LW 31.3 36.1 (13.3%)

20. Results
Sub Max Fixed Ergo
Stroke Rate (spm) 30
28
26
HMA
24
HMB
22
HWB
20
HWUG
18 LWA
16
14
D F1 D F2 D F3
Sub Max Dynam ic Ergo
30
Stroke Rate (spm)
28
26
24 HMA
HMB
22
HWB
20
HWUG
18 LWA
16
14
D F1 D F2 D F3

21. Results
Fixed Race Pace
38
37
Stroke Rate (spm) 36
35
34 HM
33 HW
32
31 LW
30
29
28
DF1 DF2 DF3
Dynam ic Race Pace
38
37
Stroke Rate (spm)
36
35
34 HM
33 HW
32
31 LW
30
29
28
DF1 DF2 DF3

22. Results
• Most athletes subjectively reported that they found
the lightest setting too light compared to the feel of
“on water rowing”
Com bined FE vs DE
40
Stroke Rate (spm)
38
36 HM A
34 HM B
32 HWB
30 HWUG
28 LWA
26
FE DF1 DE DF2

23. Results
Comparative Data
Fixed Ergo Fixed Ergo Dynamic Ergo
WC WC
Category Current Drag Lighter Drag Lighter Drag
Sculling Sweep
(DF1) (DF 2) (DF 2)
HM 36.3 38.8 29.8 30.23 36.4
HW 34.1 37.4 28.4 29.82 35
LW 36.1 31.3 29.75 31.3

24. Results
• Error measurements
Time %
Fixed 0.4 sec 0.4
Dynamic 0.58 sec 0.58
• Well within current accepted error
measurements for stationary ergometer

25. Recommendations
• Change to the following DF’s
Category Drag Factor
HM 115
HW 105
LM 105
LW 100
• Test on sliders
• Train on sliders

26. Thanks To:
• All the subjects
• Tim Conrad
• Ellen Randell
• Lincoln Handley
• Peter Howard
• Alan Bennett
• Phil Gardiner & Sykes Racing

27. What Would Change?
• Marsden, 2006
– Comparison between physiological variables on fixed vs
slider Concept II
– No differences in curves, thresholds, peak metabolic data
(n=4)
– Mean 4.6 secs quicker on sliders (n=11)
– Mean 5.3 points higher in rate on sliders (n=11)
• Mahony et al, 1999
– No physiological differences during incremental rowing on
a fixed and dynamic ergometer
• Kane et al, 2008
– No significant differences in physiological variables with
altering drag factors

28. What Would Change?
• Perhaps a test that is more predictive of on
water performance??
• A training tool that may be closer to
enhancing the correct skill pattern??
• Likely decrease in low back injury rates!!

30. Reference List
1. Bernstein, I. A., O. Webber, et al. (2002). "An ergonomic comparison of rowing machine designs: possible
implications for safety." Br J Sports Med 36(2): 108-12.
2. Colloud, F., P. Bahuaud, et al. (2006). "Fixed versus free-floating stretcher mechanism in rowing ergometers:
Mechanical aspects." Journal of Sports Sciences 24(5): 479 - 493.
3. Dudhia, A. (1999). "The physics of rowing: dynamic vs static ergometers." from
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/physics/index.html.
4. Elliott, B., A. Lyttle, et al. (2002). "The RowPerfect ergometer: a training aid for on-water single scull rowing." Sports
Biomechanics 1(2): 123-134.
5. Hollinger, N. R., I. Marchand, et al. (1995). A comparison of kinematic and kinetic performance among athletes
during ergometer rowing. Aviron Canada Rowing. 1995: 9-13.
6. Holt, P. J. E., A. M. J. Bull, et al. (2003). "Kinematics of Spinal Motion During Prolonged Rowing." International
Journal of Sports Medicine(8): 597-602.
7. Howell, D. W. (1984). "Musculoskeletal profile and incidence of musculoskeletal injuries in lightweight women
rowers." Am J Sports Med 12(4): 278-82.
8. Kane, D. A., R. L. Jensen, et al. (2008). "Effects of Drag Factor on Physiological Aspects of Rowing." International
Journal of Sports Medicine(5): 390-394.
9. Kelshnev, V. (2003). Discussion of ergometer rowing vs on water rowing. Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter. 3: 1.
10. Kelshnev, V. (2005). Discussion of ergometer rowing vs on water rowing. Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter. 5: 1.
11. Kleshnev, V. (2001). Discussion of ergometer rowing vs on water rowing. Rowing Biomechanics Newsletter. 1: 1.
12. Lamb, D. H. (1989). "A kinematic comparison of ergometer and on-water rowing." Am J Sports Med 17(3): 367-73.
13. Mahony, N., B. Donne, et al. (1999). "A comparison of physiological responses to rowing on friction-loaded and air-
braked ergometers." J Sports Sci 17(2): 143-9.
14. Marsden, J. (2006). 2 in 1 Results: Slider vs fixed Concept II. NSWIS Rowing Coaches Workshop. Sydney.
15. Reid, D. A. and P. J. McNair (2000). "Factors contributing to low back pain in rowers." Br J Sports Med 34(5): 321-2.
16. Rumball, J. S., C. M. Lebrun, et al. (2005). "Rowing injuries." Sports Med 35(6): 537-55.
17. Teitz, C. C., J. O'Kane, et al. (2002). "Back pain in intercollegiate rowers." Am J Sports Med 30(5): 674-9.
18. Wilson, F., C. Gissane, et al. (2008). "A 12 month prospective cohort study of injury in international rowers." Br J
Sports Med.