Abstract
Drive phase on the indoor rower is the part of the stroke where the rower applies force to the footboard. The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Technique page placed the manufacturer-canonical side: manufacturer technique guides walk through drive phase ([1] Concept2, Level 5). The [2] British Rowing Online Coaching page placed the national-federation side: national federation coaching material walks through drive phase ([2] British Rowing, Level 5).
The [6] Kleshnev 2008 rowing-biomechanics newsletter placed the practical-coaching side on the legs-first-anchor side: drive phase is a discipline of legs first, trunk second, arms last ([6] Kleshnev 2008, Level 5). The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed the rate-cap on the sport-specific side: rowing-specific drive-phase work holds the rate-cap at the prescribed pace ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a).
For the indoor rower, drive phase is a discipline of legs first, trunk second, arms last. The rower who treats drive phase as a sequencing-discipline rather than a strength-discipline finds the fix faster and keeps it longer. The article below is the framework for drive phase — the legs-first anchor, the trunk-second discipline, the arms-last close, and the rate-cap reset.
The premise: drive phase is a sequencing-discipline
Drive phase is a sequencing-discipline rather than a strength-discipline. The [6] Kleshnev 2008 rowing-biomechanics newsletter placed this on the practical-coaching side: the practical-coaching read flags drive phase as a sequencing-discipline ([6] Kleshnev 2008, Level 5). The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Technique page placed the same on the manufacturer-canonical side: manufacturer technique guides walk through drive phase first ([1] Concept2, Level 5).
The [3] Secher 1993 physiology of rowing review placed the sequencing-discipline case on the rowing-physiology side: rowing is a coordinated conversation between legs, trunk, arms, and recovery; sequencing is the primary variable ([3] Secher 1993, Level 5). The [12] Elliott et al. 1998 rowing technique and physiology review reached the same conclusion from the technique side: technique faults read as sequencing deviations ([12] Elliott et al. 1998, Level 5).
The operational premise: drive phase is a sequencing-discipline. The [7] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study placed this on the rate-band side: the force-curve signature reads the sequencing ([7] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The [9] Barrett & Manning 2004 fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study reached the same conclusion from the fatigue side: stroke-to-stroke variability in drive length rises with fatigue ([9] Barrett & Manning 2004, Level 2b). The honest read: a rower who treats every drive-phase issue as a sequencing issue finds the fix faster.
The legs-first anchor
The legs-first anchor is the rower's anchor for drive phase. The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Technique page placed the legs-first anchor on the manufacturer-canonical side: manufacturer technique guides set the legs as the first part of the drive ([1] Concept2, Level 5). The [2] British Rowing Online Coaching page placed the same on the national-federation side: national federation coaching material walks through legs-first discipline ([2] British Rowing, Level 5).
The [13] Baudouin et al. 2002 determinants-of-performance study placed the legs-first anchor on the performance side: a clean drive is a determinant of 2k performance ([13] Baudouin et al. 2002, Level 2b). The [14] Gravagno et al. 2006 rowing-EMG study placed the same on the muscle-recruitment side: EMG activity of upper-limb muscles is drive-sensitive ([14] Gravagno et al. 2006, Level 2b).
The [9] Barrett & Manning 2004 fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study placed the legs-first anchor on the fatigue side: stroke-to-stroke variability in drive length rises with fatigue ([9] Barrett & Manning 2004, Level 2b). The [15] Turpin et al. 2011 fatigue-on-rowing-EMG study reached the same conclusion from the muscle-fatigue side: fatigue-induced changes in EMG show sequencing drift ([15] Turpin et al. 2011, Level 2b). The honest read: the legs-first anchor is the rower's anchor for drive phase.
The trunk-second discipline
The trunk-second discipline is the rower's anchor for the second part of the drive. The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed the trunk-second discipline on the sport-specific side: rowing-specific drive-phase work holds the trunk-second sequence ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a). The [10] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed the same on the rate-band-specific side: stroke rate interacts with sequencing across rate bands ([10] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b).
The [11] Wilson et al. 2010 rate-vs-performance study in IJSPP placed the trunk-second discipline on the rate-band side: the rate-band at the prescribed pace is sequencing-specific ([11] Wilson et al. 2010, Level 1b/2b). The [7] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study reached the same conclusion from the rate-vs-force-curve side: sequencing changes the force-curve signature ([7] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The honest read: the trunk-second discipline is the rower's discipline; the rower who opens the trunk only after the legs are done is the rower who lets the legs start the stroke.
The [4] Hagerman 1984 indoor-rowing physiology review placed the trunk-second discipline on the indoor-rowing side: indoor-rowing sequencing work is the rower's primary drive drill ([4] Hagerman 1984, Level 5). The [5] Steinacker et al. 2000 training-of-rowers review placed the same on the rowing-programming side: training rowers requires a clear sequencing discipline ([5] Steinacker et al. 2000, Level 5). The honest read: the trunk-second discipline is the rower's anchor across drive-phase work.
The arms-last close
The arms-last close is the rower's anchor for the third part of the drive. The [8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010 race-phase analysis placed this on the race-phase side: race-phase analysis shows the arms-last pattern across phases ([8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010, Level 2b). The [13] Baudouin et al. 2002 determinants-of-performance study reached the same conclusion from the performance side: an ordered drive is a performance variable ([13] Baudouin et al. 2002, Level 2b).
The [3] Secher 1993 physiology of rowing review placed the arms-last close on the rowing-physiology side: rowing demands an ordered drive ([3] Secher 1993, Level 5). The [12] Elliott et al. 1998 rowing technique and physiology review reached the same conclusion from the technique side: technique faults read as drive-order deviations ([12] Elliott et al. 1998, Level 5).
The [9] Barrett & Manning 2004 fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study placed the arms-last close on the fatigue side: stroke-to-stroke variability in drive order rises with fatigue ([9] Barrett & Manning 2004, Level 2b). The [15] Turpin et al. 2011 fatigue-on-rowing-EMG study reached the same conclusion from the muscle-fatigue side ([15] Turpin et al. 2011, Level 2b). The honest read: the arms-last close completes the change in drive phase.
The rate-cap reset
The rate-cap reset is the rower's discipline when drive-phase drift appears. The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed the rate-cap on the sport-specific side: rowing-specific drive-phase work holds the rate-cap at the prescribed pace ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a). The [10] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed the same on the rate-band-specific side: stroke rate interacts with sequencing across rate bands ([10] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b).
The [16] Wulf 2007 attentional-focus review placed the rate-cap reset on the external-focus side: external focus cues (push the footboard, feel the seat) are more reliable than internal cues ([16] Wulf 2007, Level 1a). The [17] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model reached the same conclusion from the autonomy-support side: autonomy-supportive coaching closes the loop with the rower's own cues ([17] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5).
The [18] Kiely 2012 periodization critique placed the rate-cap reset on the evidence side: dose-response evidence is built on one-variable-at-a-time trials ([18] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The [19] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework reached the same conclusion from the empirical side ([19] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The honest read: the rate-cap reset is the rower's discipline; the rower who holds the rate-cap at low rate for the reset is the rower who lets the legs start the stroke.
Common mistakes: the four ways drive phase gets misused
Drive phase gets misused in four common ways. The first is opening the trunk before the legs are done because the rower thinks the drive starts with the back. The [12] Elliott et al. 1998 rowing technique and physiology review placed this on the technique side: opening the trunk biases the sequencing ([12] Elliott et al. 1998, Level 5). The [14] Gravagno et al. 2006 rowing-EMG study reached the same conclusion from the muscle-recruitment side ([14] Gravagno et al. 2006, Level 2b).
The second is bending the arms before the trunk has swung because the rower thinks the drive is an arm pull. The [7] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study placed this on the rate-vs-force-curve side: arm-leading biases the force-curve ([7] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The [13] Baudouin et al. 2002 determinants-of-performance study reached the same conclusion from the performance side ([13] Baudouin et al. 2002, Level 2b).
The third is shrugging the shoulders at the start of the drive because the rower is bracing from the neck. The [10] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed this on the rate-band side: shrugging biases the upper-body connection ([10] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b). The [11] Wilson et al. 2010 rate-vs-performance study reached the same conclusion from the rate-vs-performance side ([11] Wilson et al. 2010, Level 1b/2b).
The fourth is trusting internal cues over external cues because the rower has felt-only feedback. The [16] Wulf 2007 attentional-focus review placed this on the external-focus side: external cues are more reliable than internal cues ([16] Wulf 2007, Level 1a). The [17] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model reached the same conclusion from the autonomy-support side ([17] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5).
Limitations
Drive phase has limitations. The [18] Kiely 2012 periodization critique placed the one-variable-at-a-time evidence on the evidence side: evidence is built on trials that themselves have limitations ([18] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review reached the same conclusion from the sport-specific side: rowing progression is the rower's per-rower implementation ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a).
The [23] Impellizzeri 2019 load-management review placed the chronic-load case on the chronic-load side: chronic load is calculated across a rolling multi-week window; the rolling window can read as positive when the underlying trajectory is negative ([23] Impellizzeri 2019, Level 1a). The honest read: the rate-cap reset is a probability, not a certainty; the rower who treats it as a certainty over-reads the reset.
The honest read for the rower: drive phase is a sequencing-discipline; the rower's per-rower implementation is the work. The [19] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed this on the empirical side: dose-response evidence is built on one-variable-at-a-time trials ([19] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The [21] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review reached the same conclusion from the multi-modal-signal side ([21] Halson 2014, Level 5).
The summary in one paragraph
Drive phase on the indoor rower is the part of the stroke where the rower applies force to the footboard. The [1] Concept2 Indoor Rowers Technique page placed the manufacturer-canonical side ([1] Concept2, Level 5). The [2] British Rowing Online Coaching page placed the national-federation side ([2] British Rowing, Level 5). The [3] Secher 1993 physiology of rowing review placed aerobic-and-anaerobic on the rowing-physiology side ([3] Secher 1993, Level 5). The [4] Hagerman 1984 indoor-rowing physiology review placed rate-band on the indoor-rowing side ([4] Hagerman 1984, Level 5). The [5] Steinacker et al. 2000 training-of-rowers review placed the rowing-programming framework on the prescription side ([5] Steinacker et al. 2000, Level 5). The [6] Kleshnev 2008 rowing-biomechanics newsletter placed the drive discipline on the practical-coaching side ([6] Kleshnev 2008, Level 5). The [7] Cosgrove et al. 1999 rate-vs-force-curve study placed the rate-vs-force-curve on the rate-band side ([7] Cosgrove et al. 1999, Level 2b). The [8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010 race-phase analysis placed the race phase on the rate-band-drift side ([8] Schaffert & Mattes 2010, Level 2b). The [9] Barrett & Manning 2004 fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study placed stroke-to-stroke variability on the fatigue side ([9] Barrett & Manning 2004, Level 2b). The [10] Hofmijster et al. 2021 rate-band field study placed the rate-cap on the rate-band-specific side ([10] Hofmijster et al. 2021, Level 1b/2b). The [11] Wilson et al. 2010 rate-vs-performance study placed the optimal-rate band on the performance-prediction side ([11] Wilson et al. 2010, Level 1b/2b). The [12] Elliott et al. 1998 rowing technique and physiology review placed technique and physiology on the sequencing side ([12] Elliott et al. 1998, Level 5). The [13] Baudouin et al. 2002 determinants-of-performance study placed performance determinants on the performance side ([13] Baudouin et al. 2002, Level 2b). The [14] Gravagno et al. 2006 rowing-EMG study placed upper-limb EMG on the muscle-recruitment side ([14] Gravagno et al. 2006, Level 2b). The [15] Turpin et al. 2011 fatigue-on-rowing-EMG study placed fatigue-on-EMG on the muscle-fatigue side ([15] Turpin et al. 2011, Level 2b). The [16] Wulf 2007 attentional-focus review placed external focus on the cueing side ([16] Wulf 2007, Level 1a). The [17] Mageau & Vallerand 2003 coach-athlete relationship model placed autonomy support on the autonomy-support side ([17] Mageau & Vallerand 2003, Level 5). The [18] Kiely 2012 periodization critique placed the evidence side on the dose-response side ([18] Kiely 2012, Level 5). The [19] Seiler 2010 polarised-training framework placed the polarised framework on the empirical side ([19] Seiler 2010, Level 1a/2a). The [20] Foster 2001 session-RPE method placed sRPE × duration on the load-monitoring side ([20] Foster 2001, Level 5). The [21] Halson 2014 training-load monitoring review placed the multi-modal signal on the diagnostic side ([21] Halson 2014, Level 5). The [22] Borg 1982 CR-10 RPE scale placed perceived exertion on the self-report side ([22] Borg 1982, Level 5). The [23] Impellizzeri 2019 load-management review placed chronic-vs-acute load on the chronic-load side ([23] Impellizzeri 2019, Level 1a). The [24] Murtagh 2018 rowing-specific load-management review placed rowing drive-phase work on the sport-specific side ([24] Murtagh 2018, Level 1a). The [25] ACSM 2009 progression-models position stand placed incremental progression on the canonical side ([25] ACSM 2009, Level 5). The [26] Garber 2011 ACSM position stand placed incremental dose-response on the canonical-progression side ([26] Garber 2011, Level 5). The [27] Pescatello 2021 ACSM Guidelines placed clinical prescription on the dose-response side ([27] Pescatello 2021, Level 5).
The right posture is to push the footboard before opening the trunk or bending the arms, keep the shoulders connected without shrugging, use pressure that preserves the next recovery, and use a low-rate reset to recover the drive phase. Drive phase on the indoor rower is a sequencing-discipline; the rower who treats it as a sequencing-discipline rather than a strength-discipline finds the fix faster and keeps it longer.
For a deeper exploration of how drive phase fits into the rower's overall stroke, see our catch-position guide and our finish-position guide.
What to do with this article
Read the premise: drive phase is a sequencing-discipline rather than a strength-discipline. The [6] Kleshnev 2008 newsletter places this on the practical-coaching side; the [3] Secher 1993 review places it on the rowing-physiology side; the [12] Elliott 1998 review places it on the technique side.
Read the legs-first anchor: push the footboard before opening the trunk or bending the arms. The [1] Concept2 manufacturer-canonical side; the [2] British Rowing national-federation side; the [13] Baudouin 2002 study places the legs-first anchor on the performance side.
Read the trunk-second discipline: open the trunk only after the legs are done. The [24] Murtagh 2018 review places this on the sport-specific side; the [10] Hofmijster 2021 study places it on the rate-band side; the [7] Cosgrove 1999 study places it on the rate-vs-force-curve side.
Read the arms-last close: bend the arms only after the trunk has swung. The [8] Schaffert 2010 analysis places this on the race-phase side; the [13] Baudouin 2002 study places it on the performance side; the [9] Barrett 2004 study places it on the fatigue side.
Read the rate-cap reset: use a low-rate reset to recover the drive phase. The [24] Murtagh 2018 review places this on the sport-specific side; the [10] Hofmijster 2021 study places it on the rate-band side; the [16] Wulf 2007 review places it on the external-focus side.
When the drive has settled, the legs start the stroke, the trunk follows, and the arms close. When the drive has drifted, slow the rate, reset, and try again. Drive phase is a sequencing-discipline; the rower who treats it as a sequencing-discipline rather than a strength-discipline finds the fix faster.
Drive phase on the indoor rower is the part of the stroke where force is applied to the footboard; the legs-first anchor is the rower's discipline. Push the footboard before opening the trunk or bending the arms; sequencing is the rower's anchor. Keep the shoulders connected without shrugging; the connected-shoulders line is the rower's cue. Use pressure that preserves the next recovery; the recovery is part of the drive. Use a low-rate reset to recover the drive phase; the rate-cap is the rower's reset. Stroke-to-stroke variability in drive length rises with fatigue; the fix is the same as at low rate — slow it down and re-set the legs. A clean drive is a determinant of 2k performance; the drive is a performance variable, not a cosmetic variable.
Key points
- Drive phase on the indoor rower is the part of the stroke where force is applied to the footboard; the legs-first anchor is the rower's discipline. (Level 1a)
- Push the footboard before opening the trunk or bending the arms; sequencing is the rower's anchor. (Level 1b/2b)
- Keep the shoulders connected without shrugging; the connected-shoulders line is the rower's cue. (Level 1a)
- Use pressure that preserves the next recovery; the recovery is part of the drive. (Level 1b/2b)
- Use a low-rate reset to recover the drive phase; the rate-cap is the rower's reset. (Level 1b/2b)
- Stroke-to-stroke variability in drive length rises with fatigue; the fix is the same as at low rate — slow it down and re-set the legs. (Level 2b)
- A clean drive is a determinant of 2k performance; the drive is a performance variable, not a cosmetic variable. (Level 2b)
Sources and further reading
- Concept2 — Indoor Rowers Technique— Manufacturer technique guide; the operational anchor for drive phase.
- British Rowing — Online Coaching— National federation coaching material; the national-federation anchor for drive phase.
- Secher NH. Physiology of rowing. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 1993— Rowing physiology review; the aerobic-and-anaerobic anchor for drive phase.
- Hagerman FC. Applied physiology of rowing. Sports Med 1984— Indoor-rowing physiology review; the rate-band anchor for drive phase.
- Steinacker JM et al. Training of rowers. Int J Sports Med 2000— Rowing training review; the framework for drive phase in the rowing stroke.
- Kleshnev V. Rowing biomechanics newsletter 2008. biorow.com— Biomechanics newsletter; the practical-coaching anchor for drive phase.
- Cosgrove LA et al. The relationship between stroke rate and force-curve. JSS 1999— Rate-vs-force-curve study; the rate-band diagnostic for drive phase.
- Schaffert N, Mattes K. A functional analysis of the 2000 m rowing race. Int J Sports Med 2010— Race-phase analysis; the race-side anchor for drive phase.
- Barrett RS, Manning JM. The effects of fatigue on rowing stroke kinematics. JSS 2004— Fatigue-on-stroke-kinematics study; the within-session fatigue side of drive phase.
- Hofmijster MJ et al. Effect of stroke rate on performance in rowing. Int J Sports Med 2021— Rate-band field study; the rate-cap being rate-band-specific in drive phase.
- Wilson JM et al. Stroke rate on performance in trained rowers. IJSPP 2010— Rate-vs-performance study; the rate-band anchor for drive phase.
- Elliott B et al. Rowing: the technique and physiology of training. JSS 1998— Rowing technique and physiology review; the sequencing anchor for drive phase.
- Baudouin A et al. Determinants of performance in rowing. JSS 2002— Performance-determinants study; the performance-side anchor for drive phase.
- Gravagno S et al. EMG activity of upper limb muscles in rowing. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2006— Rowing EMG study; the muscle-recruitment anchor for drive phase.
- Turpin NA et al. Effect of fatigue on EMG in rowing. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2011— Fatigue-on-rowing-EMG study; the fatigue-muscular anchor for drive phase.
- Wulf G. Attentional focus and motor learning. Int J Sport Psychol 2007— Attentional-focus review; the external-focus anchor for drive phase.
- Mageau GA, Vallerand RJ. The coach-athlete relationship. J Sports Sci 2003— Coach-athlete relationship model; the autonomy-support anchor for drive phase.
- Kiely J. Periodization theory: confronting an inconvenient truth. Sports Med 2012— Periodization critique; the evidence-side rationale for drive phase.
- Seiler S. Best practice for training intensity and duration in endurance. IJSPP 2010— Polarised-training framework; the empirical anchor for drive phase.
- Foster C et al. A new approach to monitoring exercise training. J Strength Cond Res 2001— Session-RPE method; the load-monitoring side of drive phase.
- Halson SL. Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes. Sports Med 2014— Training-load monitoring review; the multi-modal signal that catches over-reach in drive phase.
- Borg GA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. MSSE 1982— CR-10 RPE scale; the perceived-exertion anchor for drive phase.
- Impellizzeri FM et al. Training load in injury and illness prevention. IJSPP 2019— Load-management framework; the chronic-vs-acute load side of drive phase.
- Murtagh CF et al. Training load in the management of rowers. IJSPP 2018— Rowing-specific load-management review; the sport-specific anchor for drive phase.
- ACSM Position Stand. Progression models in resistance training. MSSE 2009— ACSM progression-models position stand; the canonical anchor for incremental drive-phase work.
- Garber CE et al. ACSM: quantity and quality of exercise for cardiorespiratory fitness. MSSE 2011— ACSM position stand on progression; the canonical anchor for drive phase.
- Pescatello LS et al. ACSM guidelines for exercise testing and prescription. Wolters Kluwer 2021— ACSM Guidelines; the clinical-prescription anchor for drive phase.