Did you know these five key principles of effective rowing technique?
- During recovery, the trunk angle should be constant after the “transition position” (90° knee angle), avoiding any further “diving” into the catch.
- The later the rowers begin to push on the stretcher and slow down the seat before the catch, the better.
- An appropriate Catch Factor and a sharp legs “bounce” at the catch enable effective acceleration of the rower’s mass and a powerful, well-connected drive.
- A fast leg drive, with an emphasis on stretcher force application, produces a front-loaded, high, and full force curve.
- Quick blade insertion after the catch is crucial for harnessing the hydro-lift effect and improving blade propulsion efficiency.
During our recent BioRow testing, we obtained some interesting data that required further in-depth analysis. Two M2- crews were tested consecutively using the standard BioRow test protocol (a step-rate over a total distance of 2000m), with a 10-minute interval between them, under the same favourable weather conditions (light tailwind). The boats, oars, and rigging were identical (Empacher, Concept2 Skinny Smoothie2, 116/376/85 cm), and both crews had similar average physical parameters and ergometer scores. Crew 1 consistently outperformed Crew 2 and, at the racing stroke rate of 36–37 spm, was 2.1% faster (7.9 seconds over 2 km). Naturally, the rowers and coaches sought an explanation for this performance difference, so we decided to publish this as a case study on rowing efficiency.
The most obvious difference between the two crews was in the timing of boat acceleration at the catch: in Crew 1, the negative acceleration peak occurred after the catch, while in Crew 2, it occurred before the catch. When plotted relative to oar angles, the acceleration curve of Crew 1 formed a small loop at the catch, which was absent in Crew 2. During the drive phase, Crew 1 had a higher first positive acceleration peak and a shallower dip following it.
The force curves were similar after the catch and before the finish, but differed in the middle of the drive: Crew 1 produced more force, with a higher and earlier peak. Stroke lengths were also quite similar between the two crews.
Seat velocity revealed the most pronounced differences. During the recovery, Crew 1 had a later negative peak than Crew 2, indicating a later transition from pulling to pushing on the stretcher. At the catch, Crew 2 reversed seat movement earlier, resulting in a more negative Catch Factor (–30 ms), compared to Crew 1 (–16 ms). This was mainly due to the bow rower in Crew 2 having an excessively negative Catch Factor of –40 ms combined with upper body movement to the stern before the catch, often referred to as “diving with the trunk into the catch.” In the first half of the drive, Crew 1 achieved a significantly higher peak seat velocity, which helped them produce considerably more force, and completed the leg drive earlier developing greater trunk velocity.
Crew 1 also showed more efficient blade work. They inserted the blade quicker at the catch, resulting in a shorter catch slip (7.9°) compared to Crew 2 (12.2°). Crew 2’s issue likely stemmed from “skying” the blade before the catch, caused by lowering the handle too much. During the second half of the drive, Crew 1 maintained a shallower but sufficient blade depth, which ensured good water connection and resulted in a longer effective drive length (62.5%) compared to Crew 2 (59.1%) and higher blade propulsive efficiency.
Ultimately, despite a slightly lower stroke rate , with similar stroke length and physiology, Crew 1 generated 5.9% higher force and 5.7% higher power. Combined with 1.9% greater blade efficiency, this translated into a 2.1% higher boat speed.
This is a short version of the Newsletter. To access the full text, please subscribe to BioRow membership here: https://biorow.com/membership/
©2025 Dr. Valery Kleshnev
