The Analysis of 2D Rowing with Ergometer Rowing Kinematics

Angga Muhamad Syahid, Agus Rusdiana, Raden Boyke Mulyana, Dede Rohmat Nurjayaand Yopi

Kusnidar

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung, Indonesia

angga.m.syahid@student.upi.edu

Keywords: Kinematic, Ergometer, Rowing.

Abstract: This research aims to analyze the movement kinematic between rowing and ergometer on the state of catch

and drive when the first row is done on the star. The samples are 8 national rowing team athletes (males). The

rowing movement was recorded using slow motion video recorder. The movement kinematic data was

analyzed using Dartfish 7 software, and then the result of the rowing and ergometer analysis was tested using

the T-test independent sample. There is a significant difference between the angle knee joint rowing with the

ergometer during the state of catch. There is a significant difference between the leg velocity rowing and

ergometer during the drive phase. There is no significant difference between the leg velocity rowing and

ergometer during the drive phase. The analysis of movement kinematic shows that there is a different

movement during the catch and drive phase of the rowing techniques which was implemented by the samples

and leg velocity is the only thing that doesn’t change.

1 INTRODUCTION

All this time, the rowing training aims to modify the

training so that the rowing technique could develop in

increasing the speed of the rowboat on the water. The

training program on land is often designed to simulate

the rowing movement similar to what is done on the

water (Lamb, 1989). An ergometer is a simulation

tool on land that is often used in predicting the

performance of rowing movement on the water

(Mikuli, Smoljanovi, Bojani, Hannafin, and Branka,

2000) and becomes a popular training equipment in

rowing. The ergometer is an equipment (simulator)

which is considered as efficient in rowing training

specificated on land, it even can be used as media

talent scouting, to look for the best rower (Elliott,

Lyttle, and Birkett, 2007). Another research shows

that the ergometer helps training the rowing

movement using the consistent and efficient energy

(Anderson, Harrison, and Lyons, 2007).

Understanding how the physical and biomechanic

factors affect the rowing performance is really

needed, as rowing is a measured sport in which the

time between the winners of the competition can only

have split second difference (Alexandre Baudouin

and Hawkins, 2004). All this time, there have been so

many research about the rowing performance based

on the physical factors. (Whyte and Nevill, 2002)

(Bell, Bennett, Reynolds, Syrotuik, and Gervais,

2013) (Kinetics, Iii, and Training, 2014). Aside from

the physical factors, the success in rowing sports

needs a strong biological system (of the rower) and a

well-designed and efficient mechanical system,

which maximizes that biological system (A Baudouin

and Hawkins, 2002). Some research that have been

conducted about the mechanical and biomechanical

system in rowing (Hofmijster, Landman, Smith, and

Soest, 2007) states that the rower’s mechanical

movement can cause the loss of speed on the boat,

(Anderson et al., 2007) and it also states that the

rowing performance can be affected by the

inconsistency of the rower’s mechanical movement.

A rower who has a good physical ability, does not

necessarily have a good performance as well when

they rows on the water (Kleshnev, 2009), this is

because the inefficient rowing technique used by the

rower. Therefore, there are so many research

conducted about the technique efficiency in the terms

of mechanic, biomechanic, and kinematic, on rowing

and ergometer as the training simulator equipments,

(Marcolin, Lentola, Paoli, and Petrone, 2015) state

that there are differences on the force resulting from

the rowing process using rowing and ergometer,

136

Syahid, A., Rusdiana, A., Mulyana, R., Nurjaya, D. and Kusnidar, Y.

The Analysis of 2D Rowing with Ergometer Rowing Kinematics.

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education (ICSSHPE 2017) - Volume 2, pages 136-141

ISBN: 978-989-758-317-9

(Janshen, Mattes, and Tidow, 2009) state that the

acceleration from the feet section on ergometer is the

most important part in training the force efficiency

which is applied in rowing on the water. Based on

many literature discussing mechanics, biomechanics,

and kinematic on the rowing and ergometer

performance, this research aims to analyze the

movement kinematic between rowing and ergometer

on the catch and drive phase when the first row is

done in the beginning.

2 METHOD

2.1 Design and Participants

This research uses the descriptive comparative

method with the samples of 8 male athletes from

Indonesian national team that have 4 years of rowing

experiences (± 2 years).

2.2 Measures

Slow motion video recorder. The slow motion video

was taken using the professional camera, Panasonic

HC-WX970 4k Ultra HD.

Rowing and Ergometer. The rowboat used was the

wintech single scull and ergometer used was the

ergometer concept 2.

2.3 Procedure

Data collection. The video was taken vertically when

the athletes were doing the rowing and ergometer

movement in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The angle of the slow motion video recording.

The ergometer and rowing tests. The athletes start

rowing with efforts and strokes when they are on the

game, whereas on the ergometer the athlets are

rowing for 1 minute in accordance with the stroke

start when they are in a game, on the water. The

analysis of the video data that was taken is that the

first row on the start.

2.4 Data Analysis

The data is the slow motion video that was analyzed

using the Dartfish 7 Motion Analyzer. After that, to

analyze the differences statistically, independent

sample T-test was used through SPSS 21 with the

level of probability of 95% (alpha level set 0.05).

Figure 2: Angle knee joint ergometer and rowing.

There is a significant difference on the arm

velocity rowing with the ergometer on the drive phase

(t = 15,887 p = 0.000). There is no significant

difference on the leg velocity rowing with the

ergometer on the drive phase (t = 1,228 = 0.240).

Table 1: Data descriptive.

Mean ± SD

Ergometer angle knee joint (n=8)

25.89 ± 4.641

Rowing angle knee joint (n=8)

30.34 ± 0.226

Arm velocity ergometer (n=8)

1.16 ± 0.103

Arm velocity rowing (n=8)

0.48 ± 0.064

leg velocity ergometer (n=8)

0.298 ± 0.072

leg velocity rowing (n=8)

0.265 ± 0.030071

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From the research’s result, it is discovered that the

difference between angle knee joint that was formed

during the catch phase on the ergometer and rowing

is significant. This shows that the movement

technique that was done by the athletes on the catch

phase hadn’t showed the real movement of rowing.

This result can also identify that force (effort) that

was generated by the athletes is no more than that on

the rowing because th average angle formed on the

ergometer (25.8°) is smaller than the average angle on

the rowing (30.3°). This is related to the explanation

that the bigger the angle formed by the knees on the

catch phase, the more the energy that can be generated

by the muscles that work as the lever on the legs

The Analysis of 2D Rowing with Ergometer Rowing Kinematics

137

(Nolte, 2011). Figure 3 shows that not all athletes can

make knees’ angles that tend to be smaller on the

ergometer than the rowing. Some athletes get

different results but the angles formed on the

ergometer come close to the angles on the rowing (std

dev 4.6).

Figure 3: The comparation of knee joint angle on catch phase.

It shows that samples number 3, 4, and 5 have the

knees’ angles that are almost the same between the

ergometer and rowing, it is indicated the technique

efficiency for sample 3, 4, 5 better than the other

samples in accordance with the theoretical review in

which the bigger knees’ angles can generate bigger

force on legs push on the drive phase. Moreover,

samples number 3, 4, and 5 are national athletes that

had gotten achievements on the international level,

gold medals on the SEA GAMES 2013 and 2015,

compared to samples number 1, 2, 6, and 7 who just

got achievements on the national level.

It is discovered that the difference between arm

velocity on the drive phase that was generated on the

ergometer and rowing is quite significant. It indicates

that technique movement that was being done by the

athletes during the drive phase when they did the

hands pull had time interval and space differences (v

= space/time). This result has an important affect on

the drive phase in which the long interval of time

gives large resistance effect on the boat’s speed,

because with the longer the athletes do the pulls on

the drive phase, the longer the oars stay in the water,

Figure 4 shows the arm velocity for each athlete on

the drive phase.

Figure 4: Arm velocity rowing and ergometer.

Figure 4 shows that the pulling speed on the

ergometer has a greater speed (m/s) compared to the

rowing. This result also supports the research that

states that anthropometric (arm’s length) also has

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

knee angel ergometer

20.5 20.3 29.2 30.6 30.2 21.3 25 30

knee angel rowing

30.6 30.5 30.3 30.6 30.4 30 30.2 30.1

ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education

138

effect on the speed, as the arm’s length become

farther when the drive is done on stroke. This

comparation of length can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5: The comparation of the arm’s length.

Figure 5 shows that the arm’s length on the

rowing is greater/farther compared to the ergometer.

This data also identify that there will be differences

of force on rowing and ergometer because the

distance and speed that are generated are different.

The former two kinematic indicators show state

that the difference on angle knee joint and arm

velocity, whereas on the leg velocity, the result is that

there is no difference on the speed between rowing

and the ergometer. There are just some athletes that

generate different speed between rowing and

ergometer, and that result can be seen in Figure 6. If

it’s linked to the angle knee on the first hypothesis,

the leg velocity result can indeed be a concern, since

the greater angle can generate greater force.

Figure 6: The comparison of leg velocity on drive phase.

Having a great angle as possible can lengthen the

feet drive and increase the muscle mechanism in

generating force (Nolte, 2011). So that basically,

athletes that make little angles can generate greater

force if they are capable of making the greater angles

since there is no speed difference between the rowing

and the ergometer. Next, Figure 7 below shows the

average result from the leg velocity on the drive

phase.

The Analysis of 2D Rowing with Ergometer Rowing Kinematics

139

Figure 7: The average of leg velocity on the drive phase.

From Figure 7 above, it is discovered that the

average result of the speed of the feet on the

ergometer is greater (0.3056 m/s). It is because the

speed of each athlete’s feet when they push on the

catch phase are different, so that the average obtained

is also different, even though the result of each

athlete’s speed don’t have any differences. This is

caused by the different feet’s length of the different

athletes and is supported by the first research’s

hypothesis stating that the result of the angle formed

by each athlete is also different.

4 CONCLUSIONS

This research analyzes the kinematic of single rowing

and ergometer rowing in two dimensions, the body’s

segments and velocity in a simple way, analyzed on

the catch and drive phase. This research is one of the

reviews that supports the efectivity of the techniques

done on the rowing as the evaluation technique for

both coach and athletes or for the parameter in

measuring the ability of the athletes based on the

technique. This research concludes that there are

differences on knee angle joint that was formed on the

ergometer and rowing on the catch phase, but there is

no difference on leg velocity that is done in the next

phase (drive). This is caused by the athlete’s feet

positions that differed when they were doing the

stroke on the catch phase. Some athletes made

maximum angle by bending their knees as high as

possible, but some of them didn’t bend their knees

maximally. Whereas on the arm velocity (drive

phase) between the ergometer and rowing, there is a

difference. Next, a further research needs to be

conducted, about the contribution of speed and

segments for each body, as well as the activity of the

dominant muscle using the electromiography.

REFERENCES

Anderson, R., Harrison, A., Lyons, G. M. 2007. Rowing

Accelerometry-based Feedback - Can it Improve

Movement Consistency and Performance in Rowing ?,

(December 2014), 37–41.

Baudouin, A., Hawkins, D. 2002. A biomechanical review

of factors affecting rowing performance, 396–402.

Baudouin, A., Hawkins, D. 2004. Investigation of

biomechanical factors affecting rowing performance,

37, 969–976.

Bell, G., Bennett, J., Reynolds, W., Syrotuik, D., Gervais,

P. 2013. A Physiological and Kinematic Comparison of

two Different Lean Back Positions during Stationary

Rowing on a Concept II Machine by, 37(June), 99–108.

Elliott, B., Lyttle, A., Birkett, O. 2007. Rowing The Row

Perfect Ergometer : A Training Aid for On-Water

Single Scull Rowing, (November 2014), 37–41.

Hofmijster, M. J., Landman, E. H. J., Smith, R. M., Soest,

A. J. K. Van. 2007. Effect of stroke rate on the

distribution of net mechanical power in rowing,

(December 2014), 37–41.

Janshen, L., Mattes, K., Tidow, G. 2009. Muscular

Coordination of the Lower Extremities of Oarsmen

during Ergometer Rowing, (1991), 156–164.

Kinetics, H., Iii, S., Training, S. 2014. Prediction of Rowing

Ergometer Performance from Functional Anaerobic

Power, Strength, and Anthropometric Components,

41(June), 133–142.

Kleshnev, V. 2009. Boat acceleration, temporal structure of

the stroke cycle, and effectiveness in rowing, 224, 63–

74.

Lamb, D. H. 1989. Rowing. The American Journal of

Sports Medicine, 3, 367–373.

Marcolin, G., Lentola, A., Paoli, A., Petrone, N. 2015.

Rowing on a boat versus rowing on an ergo-meter : a

biomechanical and electromyographical preliminary

study. Procedia Engineering, 112, 461–466.

Mikuli, P., Smoljanovi, T., Bojani, I., Hannafin, J. A.,

Branka, R. 2000. Relationship between 2000-m rowing

ergometer performance times and World Rowing

Championships rankings in elite-standard rowers

Relationship between 2000-m rowing ergometer

performance times and, (October 2014), 37–41.

ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education

140

Nolte, V. 2011. Rowing Faster, Training, Rigging,

Technique, and Racing. Human Kinetics Publisher,

INC, Champaign, Illinois.

Whyte, S. A. I. Æ. G. P., Nevill, Æ. K. J. Æ. A. M. 2002.

Determinants of 2, 000 m rowing ergometer

performance in elite rowers, 243–244.

The Analysis of 2D Rowing with Ergometer Rowing Kinematics

141