When you hear a lead engineer from Concept 2 say “the best thing about the Vortex strip is that it protects the blade from damage” you start to think that something has changed at Concept 2.
In a recent podcast on Faster by Will Chambers Concept 2 marketing representative Meredith Breiland and lead engineer Kevin Stevenson presented an ‘everything you needed to know about oars’ segment, featuring enthusiastic discussions on how to select an oar that is just right for you down to the importance of regularly washing your grips.
They started talking about the importance of choosing a ‘soft’ shaft so as not to cause back injuries. I was alarmed by this for two reasons. In my view, on-water rowing does not cause back injuries and ‘soft’ oars are slow oars. Now, join me as I explain why.
In my view, on-water rowing does not cause back injuries and ‘soft’ oars are slow oars.
The research investigating injuries in rowing show that they are overwhelmingly caused by land training, particularly the overuse of direct pull rowing machines. There is now a large body of research into the biomechanical stresses caused by direct pull rowing machines and the injuries they cause. We have lost many promising junior rowers to rib stress and back injuries due to the demands of having to train and perform on direct pull rowing machines. Why are Concept 2 not discussing some of the obvious stress-related issues with direct-pull rowing machines? What I read into this podcast is that Concept 2 may be trying to protect its machine-focused business model, by reframing how we think about oars and how they should feel and perform.
As for “soft” shafts … any deflection of an oar represents a loss of energy. Even when a Concept 2 engineer says it, any energy lost due to a flexible shaft is not returned to you at any point in the stroke. This is something that the cycling industry has known for decades. A stiff bike is a fast bike. Cycling engineers are doing everything they can to ensure that all energy from the athlete is transferred directly into forward momentum. Just like a high-performance aero time trial bike, our oars need to be stiff to counter the softness of the water. In rowing, water has a soft liquid state and oar designers have been trying to overcome this for over 2000 years. Why on earth, with all of our modern material science at our disposal, are we negating all the benefits of our super stiff and strong composite materials to make oars underperform? It begs broader reflection on why Concept 2 appears to be changing their language around oars, taking theoretical steps away from evidence-based, data-driven design innovations?
Just like a high performance aero trial bike, our oars need to be stiff to counter the softness of the water
When rowers invest in high-performance equipment they assume the manufacturers are invested in high-performance also. We want to know that our new oars are actually faster and that companies like Concept 2 are doing the hard science and quantifying developments. The history of Concept 2 is rich with innovation and mythical stories of the Dreissigacker brothers rigorously testing new blades to ensure they were delivering performance outcomes.
Meredith and Kevin didn’t even talk about their oars from a performance perspective or that they even show better results. At no point in the conversation did they talk about the innovations that improve boat speed or the testing that they are doing. Their advice is to go and conduct your own tests and to find the oar that “feels right for you.” Meredith suggested that you should do your own speed testing but the conversation kept coming back to the feeling that is right for you. Since when has high-performance sport been about feelings?
They went on to talk about the development of the COMP blade and I thought we might be about to touch on hard science. But again, the dialogue was predicated on feeling instead of the research and development that will surely have gone into blade design. Designers were aiming to recreate the feeling of the low-cost Bantom with the feeling of the highly successful Fat blade. The entire research was expressed in feelings and not about speed, data or high-performance science. Kevin said that trials of an early prototype found that the first third of the stroke felt “mushy” so they added the Vortex strip. The use of that word struck me as odd, in the broader context of research.
Since when has high-performance sport been about feelings?
Will pressed Kevin about the science behind the Vortex strip, especially as so many elite rowers are not using them. “The best thing about the Vortex strip is that it protects the oar from damage” and then he touched on some historical science that the strip was based on. “The design is to simulate the aeroplane wing so as to create turbulence on the back side of the blade. The result of the strip is to increase the stall angle resulting in a more efficient first third of the drive. At the time of development, they were seeing speed increase close to 0.25 – 0.5%.”
We all know that our boats, oars, clothing, instrumentation and racing rules have a long way to go if we were to achieve the same standards of other equipment-based sports like cycling and sailing. To my horror, Kevin said that if anyone claimed a new design innovation had a 2-5% speed increase it would most likely be bogus. I believe I can point to the science and data that proves such speed increases are possible and that rowing is not yet in the era of small marginal gains as there is so much low-hanging fruit to pick. Besides my own Randall foil design, I can point to two innovations that have shown performance gains; the Whale blade and the Oscar blade.
I encountered this feelings-focus attitude when athletes were testing the Randall foil. Rowers would comment that the foil feels very different to row with, a little heavier (“because you have more grip on the water”) and that they could not bury the blade as deeply in the water (“that’s what it’s designed to do”). I would then pose the question, “what were your numbers like? Did you compare your power, catch slip and speed data?” Most couldn’t get past their subjective feelings and didn’t bother even looking at the numbers. Then the argument I get from the coaches is that the athletes need to feel comfortable with their equipment if they are to perform at their best. Since when has winning a race not been about speed? The problem is that the data does not lie and needs to be held in higher regard than our subjective feelings. This issue is compounded when representatives from our sport’s most prominent brand seemingly support this feelings-first approach.
Ricardo Cardoso at the University of Porto Department of Sport Science is one who holds science in the highest regard and is focused on measuring the performance capabilities of our equipment. He recently concluded a two year study looking at the “Mechanics and energetic analysis of rowing with Big blades with Randall foils” and the results were published in the International Journal of Sports Medicine. The numbers are all there; the performance advantage of the design quantified shows that “the Randall foils can positively affect rowing performance.” The data he gathered was also able to differentiate the performance advantages for both male and female athletes of using Randall foils.
The science shows that adding foils will positively affect your rowing performance, it will feel different, and like the vortex strip you will be faster, much faster.
All of this leads me to ask why our sport has nominally fallen behind competitors in terms of progressive science and data. A science-driven sport looks fundamentally different, holding performance data in the highest regard and drilling into the numbers to ask how peak performance is achieved. Science-driven sport matters because it determines the basis of high performance. Concept 2 are not alone in displaying this attitude in certain forums. To further demonstrate my point, consider that we don’t even conduct tank testing of our boats to determine drag ratings at various speeds. How do we know that we are even rowing in the fastest boat available or using the oars with the most hold on the water? The answer is we simply don’t. Some of us personally like Empachers. Others Filippis. Although these boat-builders undoubtedly invest in the science that goes into their shell (a cursory glance at Filippi’s website will give you a sense of their focus on marginal gains), the consumer still largely predicates their choice on feeling.
Concept 2 has given us a rich history in oar and rowing machine development but the question remains as to where this great brand is taking us next. It also opens up the debate on whether Concept2 possessing an essential monopoly on the indoor rowing market is the best outcome for our sport as a whole. Through innovation and science we learn about our world and can progress our designs into the future. Our feelings will only keep us in the dark.
About The Author
