Fun with Slides

[jag]

I’ve been rowing for a LONG time now, and have had some flavors of C2’s since they were first put on the market. Currently have a C, D and E. But just got some Slides for the first time so set them up on the E, and I have to say I REALLY like them. I haven’t been on the water since college crew, but the slides are surprisingly reminiscent of that feeling, most noticeable at the catch.

Wackiest thing is when your feet are on the floor and you first sit on the seat, and suddenly the whole rower starts moving towards you! Really disorientating - you have to try it to believe it. Once you pick your feet up it all makes sense again.

I’ve only used the slides a few times, and still need to figure out how to keep from bumping at the rear on the first couple strokes. So far it works to slow down the first few strokes while accelerating - which is also reminiscent of on the water rowing, getting a boat moving from a dead stop. Anyone else had to deal with this?

Still more things to try, like whether to start with bungees neutral or pretensioned. And I need to spend more time ensuring my rower is sufficiently level, given I’m on the third floor of a 130 year old house with hardwood floor. Anyway, if you haven’t had a chance to try slides yet, I think it is well worth giving it a go.

[Slidewinder]

Your experience with slides is the reason static rowing ergometers such as the Model D and others, are dinosaurs. Casper Rekers, a Dutch engineer, was the first to integrate the dynamically balanced action into the design of a rowing ergometer. The RowPerfect is the commercial embodiment of his invention. Dynamically balanced rowing ergometers are the future, but Concept 2 wants to hold off that future as long as possible. It is in C2's interest (not the user's interest), to have everyone sitting on the static Model D forever.

[jag]

Let’s not go overboard. I’ve been rowing with a C2 since they first came out, and the difference in the feel is subtle. If I had never rowed on the water I doubt I would have noticed it. Whether on slides or not, the C2 is by far the best rowing machine I have used, and I have gone through several different companies products. As an exercise machine, it is unmatched in my opinion.

I suspect some of what is fun for me is simply the novelty of it after so many years of using a traditional grounded C2. And it is certainly the case that the exercise I am getting with a C2 on slides is no different than the exercise I get without slides. Is it worth the added expense, complexity and moving parts of the slides? So far it is, for me, but I have plenty of room and many people don’t. Hard to say if I will still think so after a few months of using them, but so far I am having fun with them.

[JaapvanE]

Dynamically balanced rowing ergometers are the future, but Concept 2 wants to hold off that future as long as possible. It is in C2's interest (not the user's interest), to have everyone sitting on the static Model D forever.

Although I like the RP3 a lot, the static C2 has an important place in training. A lot of high end teams (Olympic Dutch team included) in fact row on both machines as they provide different aspects of the same motion. Although the RP3 is closer to OTW, the C2 forces a stronger leg drive, which is an asset for OTW as well. So as an excercise machine, it is quite valuable due to its static behaviour.

Going beyond the top teams, most C2's are found in boathouses and gyms. Neglected, badly maintained, but used daily. The static C2 handle this quite well. In all honesty, the dynamics are too fragile to take that abuse as there are too many moving parts that all have to work. The dynamic machines are beauties of engineering but especially the RP3 has a bad reputation when it comes to field reliability.

[Slidewinder]

"In all honesty, the dynamics are too fragile to take that abuse as there are too many moving parts that all have to work."

Nonsense. The only additional moving parts in a dynamic are the wheels/rollers that enable the flywheel/footrest assembly to move freely fore and aft. This is the twenty-first century. We know how to build long-lasting, reliable wheels/rollers.

[Slidewinder]

Jag:
The problem with the C2 Dynamic is that instead of the flywheel/footrest assembly as the moving mass, only the footrests are the moving mass. In Casper Rekers original patent he recommended the moving mass approximate that of a rowing shell, to replicate the OTW feel.

Concept 2 never wanted to build a dynamic. They only did so in response to the launch of the Oartec Slider. The "Slider" was perceived as a genuine threat by C2. It was a good looking, competitively priced dynamic, and it was getting rave reviews. In a panic C2 hastily cobbled together parts from the attic - parts left over from a project abandoned decades before. They put together a prototype dynamic and took the prototype on a roadshow that lasted months. Prior to this C2 had always kept new projects under wraps. Purportedly the prototype roadshow was to get potential buyer feedback. In reality it was to maximize damage to Oartec. People said, "I was going to buy the Oartec, but now I'll wait to see what Concept 2 offers."

When Concept 2 finally did bring its Dynamic to market, the advertising campaign tried to convince people not to buy it! Potential customers were told that the Dynamic was specifically designed for competitive OTW rowing athletes, and it required a level of balance and co-ordination beyond that of the average user. This is nonsense, as anyone who has tried a dynamic knows. But the static Model D was recommended as the better choice, and trusting Concept 2, that is what people continued to buy.

It was an unsavoury (but completely legal strategy). C2 spread the message far and wide that dynamics were not for the average user. This had the effect of sabotaging Oartec's launch of the "Slider", and also harmed those companies that had a dynamic as their primary product. Concept 2 didn't want to sell its own dynamic.That was obvious. It wanted to sell the Model D. That is the model used in international indoor rowing competitions, Concept 2 big money-maker, and Concept 2 does not want that to change. Quite something that Concept 2, once as innovative company, now actively opposes advances in rowing exercise technology.

[jag]

Slidewinder:
I don’t know what I did to make you start posting again but I am sorry I did, and hope you’ll stop unless you’re willing to keep your comments related to the C2 Slides.

Your timeline is BS. In fact, C2 started selling their first dynamic rower in the year 2000 when they started selling their Slides, long before Oartec was founded. And it is the Slides that I recently purchased and started this thread to discuss. So please keep other dynamic rowers, from C2 or any other company, out of this discussion.

One of the things I appreciate most about the C2 Slides is that it was a relatively low cost upgrade to the Model E that I already own. Ease of setup means I can trivially choose to configure my existing rower as either a static or dynamic. For now I’m looking forward to getting more workout time with the Slides installed.

[JaapvanE]

Your timeline is BS. In fact, C2 started selling their first dynamic rower in the year 2000 when they started selling their Slides, long before Oartec was founded.

I agree, straight from the horses mouth: https://youtu.be/sFkfcxZS58w.

And C2 always worked close together with launching customers, mostly university teams.

[JaapvanE]

Nonsense. The only additional moving parts in a dynamic are the wheels/rollers that enable the flywheel/footrest assembly to move freely fore and aft. This is the twenty-first century. We know how to build long-lasting, reliable wheels/rollers.

There is more than a bunch of rollers. A RP3's flywheel housing has to remain light as it needs to move in a certain way and behave like a boat. A C2 housing can be built like a tank as it isn't moving anyway. Looking at the stresses put on the rollers, they are quite different as the forces aren't nice at a 90° angle of your surface and any unbalance in leg force will torque there. Mechanically, these machines suffer a lot more, especially when highly trained powerfull are pushing. I haven't seen any RP3 that had some issues due to abuse.

[Slidewinder]

To Jag and Jaapvane: You are both incorrect. The YouTube video you reference is "Peter Dreissigacker: Speaking from Experience". C2 developed its dynamic erg in 2010. At 48:21 in the video an image of the production prototype is shown. It is dated Fall 2010. The C2 dynamic was developed in direct response to the threat of the Oartec Slider, introduced earlier that year. A bit later in the video, between 1:00:14 and 1:00:00, Peter Dreissigacker describes, with evident satisfaction, the success of C2's strategy to hurt the sales of the Oartec Slider. He says that in response to the C2 dynamic prototype road show, people would say, "I was thinking of getting the Australian one (the Oartec), but I think I'll wait."

You are also incorrect that a dynamic machine with a floating flywheel has to have the flywheel assembly made light weight and flimsy in order to replicate the OTW feel of a rowing shell. The best replication is when the mass of that assembly approximates the mass of a rowing shell. As I wrote, one of the problems with the C2 dynamic is that the footrests are the only moving mass.

The other obvious problem with the C2 dynamic is that it is ugly. Design aesthetics has never been Concept 2's strength. The static Model D is passable. The up front flywheel housing can be visualized as the prow of a boat. But the the dynamic has no visual coherence. it is all straight lines and angles. The flywheel hangs off the bottom like an after thought. Aesthetically it is just a mess. Who would possibly want to look at such a thing every day? At least Concept 2 is consistent. The C2 slides are ugly too.

[Carl Watts]

Ok who released the Kraken ?

Thread lock time.

[JaapvanE]

Slidewinder,

I don't know what your problem is with Concept2, and why you decide to just disturb threads here, but to be honest, you derail a quite an interesting thread completely by starting to discuss a completely unrelated product when someone is discussing slides. If you have an issue with what they did over a decade ago, send their headoffice a letter. But here, we are rowers among each other discussing what works best for us. So I am out of this discussion as you have nothing constructive to contribute.