The Analysis of 2D Rowing with Ergometer Rowing Kinematics “Anges Muhamad Syahid, Agus Rusdima, Raden Boyke Mulyana, Dede Robmst Nurjaya and Yopi Universitas Pendcitam Indonesia, J_Dr.Seriabuahi No, 228 Bonding. Jionesia angea.msyahid@znuierap. ea Kinematic, Ergemeter. Roving. ‘This research aims to analyze the movement Kinematic berreen roring and ergometer on the sae of catch and dive when the first row is dane on the sar. The samples are $ national zoving team athletes (males) The TOvME movement as jecarded wemg slow moto video recordar. The movemeu: Kinamiic dxa wat ‘analyzed using Darsh 7 software, and hen the result of the rowing and erpometer analysis was texted using the T-est mdependent sample There i 1 seniicant difference betrecn the ane knee ota vane vith the ‘exqoueter ring te ste of cach Thee i 2 significant difference berveen the leg velocity roving and exzomer dure the drive pase. There is no siemficant iffeence between the lee velocity sowie and xzommtr during te drive phase. The mrss of movement Kinemanc shows tha there 1s 2 diferent movement the catch and drive phase of he rowing techniques Which was implemented by the campos. and leg velocity he only thing that doesnt chanee. 1 INTRODUCTION All this ime, che roving raining sims to modify the ‘taining so tht the roving technique could develop in sucrastng the spas ofthe zowbort ex the water. The -waining programonland is often designed ro simlate ‘the roving movement similar to what is done on the ‘water (Lamb, 1989), An exgometer is a simulation ‘ool on land that is offen used im predicting the ‘performance of roving movemem en the water Q\ikali, Smoljanovi, Bojani, Hanafi and Branka, 2000) and becomes « popular taining equipment ix ‘toring, The ergometer is an equipment (simulator) ‘which. 6 considered as efficient in rowing timing specifcated om land, it even can be used as media ‘alent scouting, to look far the best ower (Eliot, ‘Lyme, md Bisham, 2007). Another research shows ‘that the ergometor beips tuning the roving ‘movement using the consistent and efficient energy (Andersen, Harmison, and Lyons, 2007). ‘Unrstanding how the pbyscal and biomechanic facums affect the rowing performance is realy cuaeded, 5 roving is « measured sport in which the ‘me betvcen the Winners of the competition can only ‘have spit second difference (Aleandre Bexdoun, snd Havekins, 2004). Allis tm, thre have been so ‘many research about the sorving performance based ‘on the physical factors. (Whyte and Nevill, 2002) (Bell, Bemen, Reynolis, Syromuik, and Gervais, 2013) (Kinetics, Ii, and Training, 2014). Aside from ‘the physical factors, the success im rowing sports roads a song tological system (of therower) and a welldesigned and efficient mechanical sysem, ‘hich maximizes that biological system (A Bandowin ‘mad Hawks, 2002), Some research that have been ‘conducted sbour the mechanical and biomachanical ‘system in roving Hofimjster, Landman, Suuith, and Soest, 2007) states that the rower’s mechanical ‘movement can cause the loss of speed on the boat, (Andarvon at al, 2007) and it zo stetes that dhe rowing performance can be affected by the ‘inconsistency of the rower's mechanical movement -Arower who his a good physical ability, does not ‘necessarily have a good performance as well when thay rows on the water (Cledinav, 2009), this is ‘because the inefficient rowing technique used by the rower, Therefore, there ame oo muny revemch ‘conducted about the technique efficiency’ the toms ‘of mechanic, biorachanic, and kinematic, on rowing ‘and ergometer as the training sinmlator equipments, (Marco, Lentols, Paoli, and Petrone, 2015) state ‘hat there are diffarencat on the force raculsing from ‘the roning process using rowing and ergometer, 65s{CSSHIE 2017 - 2nd terol Coutcrn:c ca Spas Scere, Heth and Pasi Eduction (Ganchen, Manes, and Tidow, 2000) state that the acceleration from the feet section on ergometer the ‘most important part in taining the force efficiency ‘which is appliad in rowing on the water. Based on ‘performace, this research sim 10 analyze the ‘movement Kinematic berveen rowing and ergometer fon the catch and dive phase when the fist row is donein the begining. 2 METHOD 2.1 Design and Participants ‘This ratanrch wis: the dascripave comparative ‘method with the samples of 8 male athlews fom ‘Indonesian national team that have 4 years of rowing experiance: (=? year) 2.2 Measures ‘Slow motion video racorder. The claw mation video was taken using the professional camera, Panasonic ‘AC-WXO70 4k Ultra HD. ‘Rowing and Ergomater. The rowboat used was the ‘wintech single scull and ergometer used was the ergometer concept 2. 23° Procedure ‘Data collection. The video was taken vertically when ‘the athlews ware doing the rowing and ergometer ‘igre 1: The angie ofthe slow motion video recording. ‘Tho ergometer and rowing tess. The athletes start rowing with efforts and strokes when they are oa the game, whereas om the ergometer he aihleis are 556 owing for 1 mime in accordance with the stroke ‘stant When they are in a game, on the water. The analysis of the video dats that was inken is chat the ‘fest row on the stan. (24° Data Analysis “The data isthe slow motion video that was analyzed ‘using the Dartfich 7 Motion Analyzer. Attar that, © ‘analyze the differences statistically, independant ‘sample T-test was used through SPS$ 21 with the ‘evel of probability of 05% (alpia level ret 0.05). Figure 2: Angie ne jot ergometer androwing. ‘There is 2 significant difference on the am ‘velocity rowing with the ergometer on the drive phase (@ = 15887 p = 0.000). There is no significant difference on the leg velocity rowing with the -exgomater on the chive phase (t= 1,228 = 0.249). ‘Table 1: Dama descriptive, Eigen agi ioe jomt =A) ‘Roving mgle nee joa =H) Arm ela ergometer (FA) “rm elacy roving 3) Tegrelocny zane 2) Teg ela rowing =A) 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ‘From. the research’s result, mt ts discovered that the ‘Gifsrence berveen ang Knee joint tha as formed ‘during the catch phase on the ergometer and rowing, i timficmt Thi hows tit the movemet ‘echnique thats done by the ates onthe catch ‘hase hado't shored the real movement of roving. “This remit can also identify that force (efor) tat ‘yas generated by tho alters no more than that on ‘the rowing because th average angle formed on the -ergomiter (25.S°) 1s smaller than the average angle on ‘he rowing G0 5°) This is related to dhe explanation ‘that the bigger the anzle formed by the knees on the catch phase, the more the energy that can be generated ‘by the anscles thar wack ap the lover on th lage(Nolte, 2011), Figure 3 shows that norall abletes can make Imees’ anzies that tend to be smaller on the ergometer thm the rowing. Some aihletes cet Sects angel ergometer 205 tee angst wang a8 “Tee Aulycls of 29 Rowing with Eporeor Rowing Kites different results but the sngles formed on the esgometer come close to the anzles on the rowing (std dev 46) wos m3 306 304 39 02 ani Figure 3: The corporation of nee jeint angle on cach pase Ir shows that samples mumiber 3,4, and Shave the Innees" angles that are almost the same between the exgomete: and rowing, itis indicated the technique efficiency for sample 3, 4, $ beter than the other samples in accordance vith the theoretical review in ‘which the bigger knees" angles can generate bigzer force on legs pash on the drive phase. Moreover, samples number 3, 4, and S are national athlotes hat ‘had gotten achievements on the international level, gold medals on the SEA GAMES 2013 and 2015, compared to samples mumber 1, 2. 6, and 7 who just igpt achievements on the national level. Ir is discovered thet the difference berreen arm ‘velocity on the drive phase that was ganerated on the 1a ae Speed nh ‘ergomater and rowing it quite significant. Tt indicates ‘that technique movemens that tras being done by the ubletes during the ceive phase when they did the ‘hands pull had time incerval and space differences (v ‘= spaceftime). This result has an important affect om ‘the drive phase in which the long interval of time give: large resistance affect om the boat's speed, ‘pacause 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 Figae 4: Am velocity rowing and ergometer, Figure 4 shows that the pullimg speed on the ‘ergometer has a greater speed (cus) compared to the sowmg, This result also supports the research that states that anskropomerric (am's length) also bas 657CSSHPE 2017-2 lassmaional Confeence oa Sports Ssieses, esi and Physdcal Eaucsian effect on the speed, as the arm's length become famber when the drive is done on stoke. This comparation of length can be seen in Figure 5. a Aes leet pene saw ag ‘Figue 5: The oomparation ofthe arm's lengih. ‘Figure § shows that the amm’s length on the ‘rowing is gresten/farther compared fo the ergometer. This data also identify that there will be differences of force on rowing and ergometer because the Gistmce and speed thatare generated are different ‘The former tro kinematic indicators shorr state ‘hat the difference on angle knee joint and arm ‘velocity, whereas ou the leg velocity, dhe results that ‘there 1s no difference on the speed bermean rowing, ‘and the ergometer. There are just some athletes that generte differnt speed berrem sowing and ‘ergometer, and that result can be seen in Figure 6. If 4's Linked to the angle knee om the first hypothesis, ‘the leg velocity result can indeed be a concer, since ‘he greater angle can generate greater force. oa velocity mvs ‘Sampel op 12345678 — Speedieg ergomaier (m/sec) Speed leg rowing (mee) Figure 6, The comparison of leg velociy oa drive phase. ‘Having a great angle 2s possible can lengthen the feet dive and increase the muscle mechanism in, generating farce (Nolte, 2011). So that basically, athletes that make lire angles cam generate ereater force if they are capable of making the greater angles ‘since there is no speed difference berwaen the rowing sand the ergometer. Next, Figwe 7 Delow shows the average result ftom the lez velocity on the drive phase.£ 026 2 2s 08 Speed growing (med) Speed sqerane (me) ‘The Analyst af 2D fomiog with Enger owing Kurc: Sot = ego =) sa Sed rowing (mie “Figure 7: The average of eg velocity on the drivephse. From Figwe 7 above, it is discovered that the avenge result of the speed of the fest on the esgomieter is greater (0.3056 ms). It is because the spied of each athlete's fact whan they puck on the Catch phase are different, so that the average obtained ‘ale difterene, even chowgh the result of each adhlete’s speed don't have any differences. This is cused by the different feet's lmgth of the different sdhletes and is supported by the first research’s ‘hypothesis stating that the zestlt of the angle formed ‘byeach sthlet is also different. 4 CONCLUSIONS ‘This research analyzes the Kinematic of singlerowing snd exgomter rome in tre dimanstons, te body": sezments and velocity in a simple way, analyzed on ‘the catch and drive phase, This research is one of the -reviews that suppor the efectvity ef the techniques done om the rowing a the evaluation technique fot ‘both coach and athletes or for the parameter in ‘measuring the abiity of the athlete: breed om Ge ‘technique. This research concludes that there are dsferences om lense angle jm that wat formed on the ergometer and rowing on the catch phase, bur there is vno difference on leg Velocity that 18 done mu the next ‘phase (drive). This is caused by the athlete's fest ‘postions that differed when they were doing the stoke oa the catch phase. Some siletes made ‘munimumn angle by bending heir knees as high as ‘posubla, but some of them didn’t bend their inees ‘umumally, Wheres: on the am veloary (dive ‘phase) beciveen the ergometer and rowing, there is 2 difference. Next, 2 firther resewch needs to be conducted, about the commibuion of spasd and sezments for each body, aswell asthe actinaty of the dominant muscle using the aloctromiography.. REFERENCES Apderon, R, Haan. A, Lyous @. M. 207. Roving Acdeeame-toed Fetinck = CG. nore ‘Movement Consistacy and Performance in Rowing” ‘December 2014). 37-41. ‘Boudoun. A. Havians. D. 2002, A biomechanical vier” ‘Bal, G., Bennet I. Rey. W. Syromk. D.. Gers ‘2013. Payoioge ond Kime Companion of sro Dien Lem Buck Posttos damng Sreomasy Rowing on a Concept Il Machine by. 37(Iune), 99-106. ‘oe: B. Lytle. A. Bihar. 0.2007 Rovmg The Row art A Tring Add fr Onc Waar Suzie Scull Rowing, (November 2014), 37-41. “Hofinijster, M. J. Lamdmam. EH. J. Sumith RM. Soest. “ATK Vin 2007 Etec of srole me on tbe ‘Gichome ef na mebiicn power: coma December 2014). 3741. Jase L. Mover. Tidor, G 2009, Miscale “Cocrdstion of the Lover Exveniges of Oxsaen orm Ergotar Roving. 000), 156-6, Menetics His S. Tame 5.2014 PredcaonofReving ‘Erpomeier Peckimunce tom Fincoml amet Dover Some. maf aatipomsne Composers. 41 @umg). 133-142. ‘esha. 2009 Bowtacelenton texpont stuctre of "be obs cle mad eecvenes in owing. 74.62 7 Lanb. D. H. 1969. Reving. The Amercer Jounal of Spor: Maing 3.361973 Marcon G. Lou A. Dood, A. Parone, N. 2015, “Roving su bent rus roving on m expose. ‘biomechanical and electromyographical study. Procedia Engineering. 117. 461466. ‘Minit D. Sanysooe, 1. Bo. T. Ramat. 1A. ‘Baaia 2000 Restionshpbetvems 2000-07 ‘spomre peformmce tm md Word Roving ‘Gropp sag inci cove ‘Reanensip beraen erie sxeomstr petaunae ie wa (Graber 015) SALCSSHPE 2017 - 2d lnsrmtcs!Couferemenn Span: Slee, Heath and Pia! Educaoa ‘Nal, V. 2011. Rowing Fest, Thaining, Rigging. ‘Technigue, and Racing. Human. Kinesct Pubisber INC. Champsiza Time. Wine SALE G2. Neul SKI AM 2002 ‘Deemimaas of 3. O00 m forme agomeer ‘performance in elteZomers, 243-244