different concept2 models?

[nnn]

hey, i used to train at a different gym(different city) and they had both the rowers with wooden handles and the ones with plastic handles(newer models). i mostly used the wooden ones and got better results with them. it seems that the handle is narrower so the arm movement is easier. and i also suspect the chain is shorter or something. basically i can generate a stronger lower pull. i havent rowed now for about a month(though i cycled a lot) and i might not be in the same shape. but now that the new gym only has the plastic rowers my low pull went from a 1:25 to 1:32. and it's the same way for longer distances... basically i can get the same spm, but i cant get the same power with my legs.. it seems like the plastic rowers are bad for shorter guys. any solution to this? thanks. also since i did a 10k yesterday after a 1month break, my legs arent even sore today(might be partly because of the cycling). but yesterday i almost had cramps in my calves and my biceps.

[Citroen]

If you set the drag factor to the same level. There is no real difference between a model C and a model D - except the ambient sound level.

I did that in the gym the other day when I rowed 8*4min30 intervals on five out of the eight machines (2 Ds, 6Cs) while I was updating the firmware. Got equivalent results on each machine.

So what you're experiencing is probably due to lack of training or inefficient technique.

[nnn]

but maybe this plastic model is designed for taller people because indeed i feel that i am much more inefficient on it. on the wooden model i can definitely feel my quads with every stroke. but here even when i try to do low pull, it feels like the drive with my legs is too short. also even when i set the intensity to 10, i dont think the drag factor was very high on this plastic machine. i dont know how to set it higher. i mean it's sufficient for doing steady state rowing but if i want to do high intensity at 20spm or just very short sprints, i want high drag:(

[Citroen]

but maybe this plastic model is designed for taller people because indeed i feel that i am much more inefficient on it.

NONSENSE.

All machines fit all folks unless you're massively over 6ft6in tall.

The model E is 6in higher off the floor, but the other dimensions match the model C and model D.

i want high drag:(

In that case take the fan cover off. Or spend some time learning how to row and how to fix your technique. High drag is for brain-dead meat heads only.

You may want to ask the gym to clean the machines to get the dust and crud that's accumulated removed.

[paul s]

Here is a good video from the UK Forum on proper form.

http://www.concept2.co.uk/training/technique_video.php

And another one from YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXnKyJdA01w

[nnn]

Here is a good video from the UK Forum on proper form.

http://www.concept2.co.uk/training/technique_video.php

And another one from YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXnKyJdA01w

thank you. i've followed the video. i tried to exagerrate this as in the 2nd video. so i locked out my knees and on the recover i moved my hands over my feet before i started moving forward. and after doing this for a while i could consistently row at around 22-24spm and the chain no longer feels loose. so ive been trying to follow pete's plan. i dont follow it exactly, i just try to do long distance on some days, and 1 short sprint-interval day and 1 long interval day. so far i am not able to row every day, as i dont recover, but i think i could overcome this.

but my performance is still below what it had been in May (and i dont think i was in greater shape really). today i tried to do intervals of 1min on(as hard as i can), 4minutes off (very low pace equivalent to walking around a track) x10. during the 1st set i tested my low pull and it was still at 1:31 (my PR in May was 1:25). i did first 5sets at 35+ spm and my pace was generally 1:35 at first but slipped to 1:40 towards the end. i was completely out of breath.
during sets 6-10, i just tried to pull as hard as i could at 30spm and i could maintain a consistent 1:39-1:41. it didnt even feel very difficult but on the 10th set i tried to continue for 90seconds and my pace eventually dropped to 1:45. so i thought those sets made a productive workout. for my future long distance workouts i think i'll try to do something like 2:00-2:10 at 23spm. but i am unhappy that my low pull is so pathetic. i'd like to at least get it to where it was before. i mean if i go >30spm then i recover quicker but my pull is weaker. and when i was doing those 30spm i couldnt get <1:38 not even for 1 stroke.

[nnn]

also i did some cycling throughout the summer; absolutely no weight lifting. and i tested how i would do in other sports. and in running my results are also a bit weaker than before. but i tried weight lifting, including deadlift and cleans and i could do as much as before(though i could never lift much weight).

[johnlvs2run]

There are some differences between the modelB and the later models of the erg, in addition to the chain being shorter.

1) The modelB railing was more level, which resulted in a better leverage as compared to the axle of the fan. The railing on the later models points downward at the front, which increases the distances from the line of force at the axle by several inches. I did the measurements several years ago and don't recall what they were but the difference was something like 13 inches for the modelB, and 16 inches for the C and later models. This is a huge difference, though it doesn't affect rowers as much who have tall torsos and long arms.

2) The modelB foot plates were flat and set at a lower angle, as compared to the later models, which resulted in a greater range of motion, more natural positioning and drive with the feet. The same foot angles are not possible on the later models of the erg. I have changed the foot plates on my erg, by cutting off the toe pieces and attaching two pieces of hard wood. Now the foot plates are similar to what they were on the modelB, and I am enjoying my rowing much more again like before.

3) The modelB was much smoother. I'm not sure why that was exactly, but one thing is the cogwheel was straight. I've noticed on both the C and D I've owned since that the cogwheel is not perfectly round on them, but rather rotates from side to side with each stroke. This creates a lot more noise and vibration in the chain. I don't know if that makes any difference to the speed, but the vibration is annoying.

[Nosmo]

1) The modelB railing was more level, which resulted in a better leverage as compared to the axle of the fan. The railing on the later models points downward at the front, which increases the distances from the line of force at the axle by several inches. I did the measurements several years ago and don't recall what they were but the difference was something like 13 inches for the modelB, and 16 inches for the C and later models. This is a huge difference, though it doesn't affect rowers as much who have tall torsos and long arms.

From the point of view of physics, this doesn't make any sense the way it is explained. If one keeps ones hands at the same level relative to your butt or equivalently the railing, it does not matter what the slope is. If the perpendicular distance between the line of natural hand movement (or equivelently the railing or the motion of the top of the seat) is significantly different between the two models then there may be some small effect. Perhaps this is what is John is noticing. Of course if one keeps the hands level relative to the ground no matter what the slope of the rail is then it would matter, but I doubt anyone rows that. I've row on a few surfaces including my driveway and front path and garage. the slope is differenet on each. It doesn't seem to make much of a difference. (although it you use slides, they really do need to be level.)

EDIT: in the paragraph above it shoudl have read: "If the perpendicular distance between the line of natural hand movement and the cog is significantly different between the two models then there may be some small effect"

3) The modelB was much smoother.

This is not my experience. Maybe there is manufacturing variation or I was lucky with my D or unlucky with my B, or maybe John had the opposite luck.

[PaulS]

1) The modelB railing was more level, which resulted in a better leverage as compared to the axle of the fan. The railing on the later models points downward at the front, which increases the distances from the line of force at the axle by several inches. I did the measurements several years ago and don't recall what they were but the difference was something like 13 inches for the modelB, and 16 inches for the C and later models. This is a huge difference, though it doesn't affect rowers as much who have tall torsos and long arms.

From the point of view of physics, this doesn't make any sense the way it is explained. If one keeps ones hands at the same level relative to your butt or equivalently the railing, it does not matter what the slope is. If the perpendicular distance between the line of natural hand movement (or equivelently the railing or the motion of the top of the seat) is significantly different between the two models then there may be some small effect. Perhaps this is what is John is noticing. Of course if one keeps the hands level relative to the ground no matter what the slope of the rail is then it would matter, but I doubt anyone rows that. I've row on a few surfaces including my driveway and front path and garage. the slope is differenet on each. It doesn't seem to make much of a difference. (although it you use slides, they really do need to be level.)

3) The modelB was much smoother.

This is not my experience. Maybe there is manufacturing variation or I was lucky with my D or unlucky with my B, or maybe John had the opposite luck.

[Nosmo]

why the ?

[PaulS]

why the ?

I didn't use a , did I?

My humorous surprise is that you are apparently assuming that there should be some sense being made. And in light of the very narrow band of experience from which declarative statements are being made, regarding various models, that would be a strange assumption indeed.

In any case, the handle will likely fall nicely in line with the cog and shoulder, making small differences in cog height completely irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that people will vary far more individually than any difference in the geometry of the Erg itself. which brings us back to the idea that a sample of one, making generalizations to a larger population, is ridiculous.

Better?

[johnlvs2run]

The slope certainly matters, as it fixes the direction of force generated by your body, in relation to the line of force to the handle. The farther the axle from the direction of the slope of the railing, the lower the performance.

Consider the slope being the same as now, but the axle being 36 inches from the ground instead of the current 24 inches (model D), the slope remaining in it's current position, pointed downward to the ground. Your hands would move to the new direction of force to the handle, but would this equalize and make no difference to performance? If you think not, then move the axle to 48 inches from the ground, the slope of the railing in relation to the ground remaining as now.

If you still fail to see this simple rule of physics then consider lifting a bar from the floor, with some significant weight. Certainly you want your shins to be as close as possible to the bar, and to pull the bar as close to your body as possible, so the line of force to the bar and the line of force generated by the body are as close as possible. The farther the line of force to the bar, the lower your performance. In fact, by moving the weight 2 feet in front of your shins, you would probably not be able to lift it from the floor.

The same is true on the rowing machine. For example if the axle on your erg was set at 48 inches from the floor, and the axle of my erg set at 14 inches from the floor, instead of the current 24, the railing slope and position from the ground being the same as now, then your performance would be significantly worse and mine would be better, due to the lines of force being closer on my erg and farther on yours. This was illustrated in detail several years ago, when I posted the example of the modelJ rowing machine.

To understand this, you need to realize that the slope of the ground makes NO difference when considering the two lines of force, as it doesn't change them at all. Only the relation between them is what matters. The lines of force were closer on the modelB, which is one reason it was slightly faster than the subsequent models.

Maybe there is manufacturing variation or I was lucky with my D or unlucky with my B

My modelB was well maintained. Maybe yours wasn't. There is no reason why the D would be faster.

[Nosmo]

I didn't use a , did I?

......

Better?

Oops. I meant why the

Got to use preview more. Agree completely.

[johnlvs2run]

Tug of War video
Average weight 154 pounds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L-aeZsgwZs

The athletes are leaning back, to bring the lines of force closer together.