“Moving the Rowers”: biomechanical background

Dr. Valery Kleshnev

Australian Institute of Sport
Introduction
Many rowers, rowing coaches and sport scientists believe that “moving the boat” forward is the
main target of rowing. They express this idea directly or through derivatives of this concept such as:
y Rowers should pull the handle harder (earlier, longer) and push the foot-stretcher less. Pushing the
foot-stretcher moves the boat backward.
y Pulling the foot-stretcher during the recovery phase is a way of increasing of boat speed. This
expressed in more scientific way: The power reaches a second peak during the recovery phase as
the rower exerts a propulsive force on the foot-stretcher (3).
From the first glance, the “moving the boat” concept looks like the only possible way of
explaining of what is actually happening during the rowing. Really, rowers seat in the boat and travel
in it, not vice versa. Boats are aligned at the race start not the rowers and bow-ball of the boat defines
the place in the race. So, the idea of concentrating all efforts on moving the boat as fast as possible
looks like the only way of achieving good results in rowing.
In fact, this theory is very similar to the ancient Ptolemaic theory of the universe, which
explained sunrises and sunsets by the movement of the Sun around the Earth. However, it took a dozen
of centuries to found out that the picture is reverse: the Earth goes around the Sun. A couple of
centuries after that the exact theory was developed by Newton: the Earth and the Sun go around a
common centre of mass, but position of the centre is much closer to the Sun because its mass is much
greater than the mass of the Earth.
The similar theory applicable to the rowing: when rowers move on the slides in the boat, they
mainly move the boat around themselves. The ratio of the rower’s to boat’s displacement is the
inversely proportional to the ratio of their masses (5). For example, if a 90 kg rower moves in a 15 kg
boat (masses ratio 6:1) a distance of 0.63 m, then the displacement of the rower’s centre of mass will
be only 0.09 m and the boat moves 0.54 m (displacement ratio 1:6).
However, the purpose of this paper is not to discuss theoretical concepts, but rather their
practical applications. We will try to answer the following question: How rowers should apply their
force to maximise performance?
Firstly, let’s check out in more detail what is happening with rowers’ and boat’s velocities
during the stroke cycle
Kinematic analysis
The top chart on the Figure 1 represents oar angles and the bottom chart shows velocities.
Stroke cycle timing (X axis) for both charts are relatively aligned X-axis. The red line on the top chart
shows horizontal oar angle (divided by 10 for compatibility with vertical angle). We assume that the
stroke cycle starts during recovery at the perpendicular position of the oar (zero degrees) relative to the
boat axis. Horizontal oar angle defines the following key points of the stroke cycle.
y cycle start and finish – zero angle or perpendicular position during recovery,
y catch angle - minimal negative angle,
y release angle - maximal positive angle,
y total rowing angle – difference between catch and release angles.
The blue line on the top chart represents vertical angle of the oar. We assume that its zero value
corresponds to the position of the blade centre at the water level. The blade profiles are shown at
different points of the stroke for easier understanding. Minus three degrees angle corresponds to the
blade position fully covered under the water. This value was taken as the criterion of blade depth.
Vertical oar angle defines the following key points of the stroke cycle:
 2

y vertical catch slip angle - difference between catch angle and an horizontal angle at the point
where vertical angle decreases below -3 deg.,
y vertical release slip angle - difference between an horizontal angle at the point where vertical
angle increases above -3 deg and release angle,
y effective angle – ratio of the rowing angle below –3 deg. to the total rowing angle.
6
Oar Angles (deg) Figure 1. Oar angles and relative
3 velocities (deviations of the
instantaneous velocity from the
0 average velocity during stroke
-3
cycle) of the boat, mass centres
of stroke and bow rowers, and
-6 Horiz./1 the whole rowers-boat system.
Vertical Measured data of men’s pair,
Recovery Catch Drive Release rate 34.5.
1.0 Velocities of CM (m/s)
0.5

0.0

-0.5 T (s)
Rowers
-1.0 Boat
System

All three lines on the bottom graph represent deviations of the instantaneous velocity from the
average velocity during the stroke cycle. Zero value means travelling with the velocity equal to the
average during stroke cycle, positive values correspond to faster speed and negative values means
slower speed. Let us analyse each of the three lines:
y Boat shell velocity (blue line) has the maximal value at the end of recovery and then it drops down
very quickly at catch having minimal value at early drive phase. The boat speed is quite far from
their maximum at the end of the drive and it accelerates during recovery.
y The velocity of the centre of mass of the rowers-boat system (black line) decreases all the way
through recovery and even during the significant sections of the drive at its beginning and end,
when the blade is not fully covered. It accelerates only during drive phase when blade is covered
enough (centre of the blade a bit below water level) to provide sufficient propulsive force.
y Velocity of the rowers centre of mass (red line) crosses the other two at catch and release, when
rowers change the direction of the movement and their speed is equal to the boat speed and,
therefore, to the total system speed. During recovery the rowers’ speed is slower than the boat and
whole system speeds and it is faster during the drive phase.
Fluctuations of the velocities confirm our above considerations about displacements. The
ranges of velocity fluctuations were: 2.1 m/s for boat, 0.7-0.9 m/s for rowers, and 0.6 m/s for whole
system.
Kinetic analysis
Now, lets try to find out how we can increase rowers’ performance, i.e. average speed of the
rowers-boat system. Rowers cannot do much with the system speed during recovery phase, because its
deceleration is effected by such environmental factors as water and air resistance. We assume these
factors as constants, because their mechanics lies outside the scope of this paper, in the area of rowing
 3

equipment development. We only can suggest here: do not rush at the recovery beginning; this
increases boat speed fluctuations and drag (3).
The only time when rowers can increase the system speed is during the drive phase (more
precisely, only that part of the drive when more than half of the blade is covered by water). The more
acceleration of the system during this period, the higher average speed and performance. From another
point of view, the system accumulates kinetic energy during the supported drive phase and loses it
during the unsupported recovery phase.
Let’s consider kinetic energy of the rowers-boat system (Figure 2), which is defined using
simple equation:
E = m v2 / 2 (1)
, where m is a active mass of the body and v is velocity of its centre of mass.
3000
Kinetic Energy (J) Figure 2. Kinetic energy of the
2500
boat, rowers’ centre of masses,
2000
D rowers and the whole rowers-boat
Rowers
1500
Boat system. Measured data of men’s
1000 D boat System pair, stroke rate 34.5.
Drive
500

0
T (s)
The average kinetic energy of the rowers is much higher than the boat energy, which once
again confirms our considerations about displacements and velocities. The kinetic energy of the
rowers is the major component of the whole system energy (2).
The gain of the energy during the drive phase is much higher for rowers than for the boat. In
practice, the rowers’ mass accumulates 82-90% of the system kinetic energy during the drive phase
and the boat acquires only 10-18%. During recovery the boat shell receives nearly the same amount of
energy from the rowers as during the drive phase, but this exchange of energy between boat and
rowers does not affect deceleration at the whole system.
All of the above considerations allow us to consider the acceleration of the rowers’ mass as the
most important factor of increasing of the average speed. The main slogan of rowing can be
transformed in the following way:
“Moving the rowers”
Let’s try to think about how can we move the rowers in the most efficient way. To do so, let’s
examine the mechanics of rower-boat-oar system using both concepts.
From the “Moving the boat” point of view, force Fboat must be applied to the shell to propel it
(Figure 3). This force called “Net propulsive force” is equal to the difference between the gate
propulsive force Fgate and foot-stretcher force Ffoot:
Fboat = Fgate – Ffoot. (2)
The main target of the “Moving the rowers” concept is developing the Frower force, which is
applied to the rower’s centre of mass. This force is equal to the difference between foot-stretcher
reaction force Fr.foot., which pushes the athlete forward, and handle reaction force Fr.handle, which
pulls the athlete backward:
Frower = Fr.foot. – Fr.handle (3)
Both these reaction forces have the same magnitude and opposite direction relative to the
action forces: Ffoot. and Fhandle.
Notice, that different concepts produce different recommendations on the emphasis of the force
application. “Moving the boat” concept requires rowers to produce a higher gate force (and a
 4

correspondingly higher handle force) and to push the foot-stretcher less. “Moving the rower” concept
needs to maximise foot-stretcher push and minimise handle pull.

Fhandle
Frower
Fr.handle M

Fgate Fgate
F foot. Fr.foot. m
Fboat

Fblade Fr.blade
Fulcrum

Figure 3. The main forces of the rower-boat-oar system.

In fact, there is nothing controversial in both concepts if rowers are considered at a constant
velocity within the boat, i.e. with the same acceleration of all parts of the system. This acceleration can
be defined as a function of applied force and the system mass Msys:
a = Fblade / Msys = Fhandle * (Lin. / Lout) / Msys (4)
, where Lin. is the oar inboard lever length measured between points of handle and gate forces
application, and Lout. is the outboard oar lever length measured between points of gate and blade
forces application. Rowers’ and boat forces are functions of applied handle force, leverage and share
of active mass of the components in the total system mass:
Fboat =Fgate – Ffoot = Mboat * a = Fhandle * (Lin. / Lout)* (Mboat / Msys) (5)
Frower = Ffoot. – Fhandle = Mrower * a. = Fhandle * (Lin. / Lout)* (Mrower / Msys) (6)
In this case, it does not matter, which concept we are using. Everything is very simple: if
rowers apply a bigger force and leverage is easier then the acceleration of the system and its
components will be faster.
However, the situation when rowers move with a constant speed within the boat occurred quite
rare: only occurring for a few moments in the middle of the drive. Rowers have to change the direction
of their movement at the beginning and the end of the drive; they also change speed of the movement
during the drive and recovery phases, plus crewmembers could have different speeds and accelerations
of movements. For these circumstances the choice of the right rowing theory could be critical.
Let us compare accelerations of the boat, each rower in the pair and the whole system for two
examples of rowing technique of different levels: Figure 4 represents data of the World Champions in
this boat type and Figure 5 shows data of a finalist in the National Championship.
At catch, acceleration of the rowers is higher than boat acceleration and they use the kinetic
energy of the boat shell to stop their recovery movement and accelerate their body mass before
placement blade into the water. Notice, that the peak boat deceleration of the best rowers is much
deeper at the same stroke rate (-10.1 and –6.9 m/s2, correspondingly), but its time period is much
shorter (0.48 and 0.59 s). This means better rowers accelerate their body mass more effectively at
catch. Another difference is in the uniformity of the rowers’ CM motions: the champions do it
together, but bow rowers in another crew push the foot-stretcher much earlier and harder preventing
his partner from catching the water properly.
 5

2
Accelerations (m/s ) Figure 4. Boat, rowers CM and
4
the system CM accelerations of
2
World Champions (M2-, stroke
0
rate 34.9).
-2 Stroke T (s)
-4 Bow
Boat
-6
System
Recovery Release Recovery
Phase Catch Phase Drive Phase Phase Phase
2
4 Accelerations (m/s ) Figure 5. Boat, rowers CM and
2 the system CM accelerations of
0 national level rowers (M2-,
stroke rate 35.0).
-2
Stroke T (s)
-4 Bow
-6 Boat
System
Recovery Release Recovery
Catch Phase Drive Phase Phase
Phase Phase
After placement of blade into the water the champions accelerate their body masses very
quickly together with the boat that leads to a fast acceleration of the whole system, which became
positive 0.11s after the catch moment. Another crew accelerates themselves and the boat much slower
causing a slower acceleration of the system (0.18s after catch).
Symptomatically, the lower level rowers have a higher maximal positive acceleration of the
boat shell (5.05 m/s2) compared to the World Champions (4.60 m/s2). This also means that they apply
more “net propulsive force” to the boat shell. In the same time better rowers accelerate their body
masses more, which significantly increases the speed of the whole rowers-boat system.
Conclusion
Advocating our “Moving the rowers” concept we do not pretend to invent anything new. We
are just trying to apply scientific base to what the best rowers and coaches knew for ages. More than
70 years ago great rowing coach Steve Fairbairn said: “Find out how to use your weight and you will
have solved the problem of how to move the boat” (1). We put the same idea in another wording:
“Move you body mass and accelerate it as much as possible during drive phase by means of a
hard and long push against the foot-stretcher. Just do not forget to cover your blade during this push.”
References
1. Fairbairn S. 1951. On Rowing. Nickolas Kaye Ltd. pp.574.
2. Kleshnev V. 2000. Power in rowing. Proc. of XVIII, Hong Kong, Vol.II, 662-666.
3. Sanderson B., Martindale W. 1986. Towards optimizing rowing technique. Medicine and science
in sports and exercise, 18, 454-468.
4. Smith R., Loschner C. 2000. Net Power Production & Performance at Different Stroke Rates &
Abilities During Sculling. http://www.education.ed.ac.uk/rowing/papers/sl.html
5. Zatsiorsky V.M., Yakunin N. 1991. Mechanics and biomechanics of rowing: a review.
International journal of sport biomechanics, 7, 229-281.