Dynamic Rower for sale - has anyone tried it?

[Rockin Roland]

I would like to ask a couple questions about some of the dynamic rowers. First does the RP indoor sculler have a leveling system like the c2 dynamic and the Oartec Slider?

Second, I read in a couple places that the monitor on the Oartec can be replaced with the C2 PM4 monitor. Has anyone actually done this and if so, how exactly did you do it? Thanks!

The leveling system on the RP Indoor Sculler is next to the front wheels on the base of the feet. It requires a 13 mm spanner to adjust and rotate the brackets up or down. It differs from the Dutch RP3 which has a knob on the frame behind the seat. In any case both of the RP ergs will tolerate a certain amount of uneven ground whereas the C2 erg on slides needs to be dead level to function properly.

It is possible to fit a C2 PM4 monitor on an Oartec Slider and get perfect readings provided that you change the sensor cable. This is very easy to do. I saw it on their prototype erg when they were testing calibration to match a C2. All you have to do is purchase a model D sensor cable from C2 that suits a PM4. Then remove the Oartec sensor cable. It runs from the flywheel to the monitor and is easy to remove at the flywheel. You could then run Rowpro software and in effect race on your Oartec Slider against C2 ergs online.

The variety of dynamic options now makes for exciting times in the future and is a far cry from the bland and boring static C2 erg.

[Ultramega OK]

I would like to ask a couple questions about some of the dynamic rowers. First does the RP indoor sculler have a leveling system like the c2 dynamic and the Oartec Slider?

Second, I read in a couple places that the monitor on the Oartec can be replaced with the C2 PM4 monitor. Has anyone actually done this and if so, how exactly did you do it? Thanks!

The leveling system on the RP Indoor Sculler is next to the front wheels on the base of the feet. It requires a 13 mm spanner to adjust and rotate the brackets up or down. It differs from the Dutch RP3 which has a knob on the frame behind the seat. In any case both of the RP ergs will tolerate a certain amount of uneven ground whereas the C2 erg on slides needs to be dead level to function properly.

It is possible to fit a C2 PM4 monitor on an Oartec Slider and get perfect readings provided that you change the sensor cable. This is very easy to do. I saw it on their prototype erg when they were testing calibration to match a C2. All you have to do is purchase a model D sensor cable from C2 that suits a PM4. Then remove the Oartec sensor cable. It runs from the flywheel to the monitor and is easy to remove at the flywheel. You could then run Rowpro software and in effect race on your Oartec Slider against C2 ergs online.

The variety of dynamic options now makes for exciting times in the future and is a far cry from the bland and boring static C2 erg.

Thanks Roland. I ended up getting the Oartec. The PM4 connects with a 2.5mm mono audio plug, The Oartec uses a 3.5mm stereo plug so I tried a 3.5 stereo to 2.5 mono adapter just to see if it would be a quick easy way to get the pm4 to work.... no dice! The slider monitor actually isn't bad. There are a few things it tells you that the c2 monitor doesn't.. That said I love the way I can upload my training to Excel with the C2. Oartec says they are coming out with some new software soon that will even be mac compatible so I'll just probably wait but who knows when that'll be. To hook up the pm4 I'd at least need a new pm4 and a cable for it. Not 100% sure what I'm gonna do.

[c2jonw]

It is possible to fit a C2 PM4 monitor on an Oartec Slider and get perfect readings provided that you change the sensor cable. This is very easy to do. I saw it on their prototype erg when they were testing calibration to match a C2. All you have to do is purchase a model D sensor cable from C2 that suits a PM4. Then remove the Oartec sensor cable. It runs from the flywheel to the monitor and is easy to remove at the flywheel. You could then run Rowpro software and in effect race on your Oartec Slider against C2 ergs online.

We have not observed the use of a Concept2 monitor on an Oartech machine and therefore can not verify any aspect of its use or its compatibility both physically and electronically. We do have serious doubts to the claim of matching the calibration of a C2. The Slider has a number of additional unmeasured energy losses in the system, the most notable being that the chain is run through an idler cog under full load to be able to tuck the flywheel in closer to the rower. The C2 chain goes directly to the flywheel. We tested this type of idler cog system many years ago in an attempt to shorten the machine and discovered that there was a significant energy loss which is not measured by the monitor. C2JonW

[xenotheolympian]

Here is my humble opinion.

Any of the three dynamic rowing machines deliver a lovely stroke.
I got my C2 as a surprise gift in December and I am enjoying every stroke.

The technical drills that can be done on the dynamic can't be done to the same extend on the c-D and e because the fly wheel cage is too close to the rower.

Sweat dripping on the flywheel cover, not a problem I wear a tshirt and if I were dripping too much I change to a dry shirt.

"lack of resistance" or inability to find torque? That is due to a lack of technique that Ian not going to get into.

Alternative to the three dynamic machine? Any static c2 on slides. It looks ugly and requires a flat floor and the foot print is huge.

All three machines have an awfully loud noise coming from the cage.

If noise is an issue you can get the water rower, but don't get excited about your new found digital speed, it is pure digital propaganda you are not suddenly that fast. Lovely machine to row if you have to go static.

Final comment, I love dynamic.

[James Befry]

We have not observed the use of a Concept2 monitor on an Oartech machine and therefore can not verify any aspect of its use or its compatibility both physically and electronically. We do have serious doubts to the claim of matching the calibration of a C2. The Slider has a number of additional unmeasured energy losses in the system, the most notable being that the chain is run through an idler cog under full load to be able to tuck the flywheel in closer to the rower. The C2 chain goes directly to the flywheel. We tested this type of idler cog system many years ago in an attempt to shorten the machine and discovered that there was a significant energy loss which is not measured by the monitor. C2JonW

Both the new Rowperfect and the Oartec Slider both have the flywheel placed lower and run with this idler system as the first pulley. It doesn't seem to affect the pull, both feel quite smooth and effective, but these machines differ vastly in their monitors and scores. I tried the Slider for some time the other day and the scores seem spot on with the C2 to me.

It would seem to me that C2 are contradicting themselves by saying this about the Rowperfect and Slider, when the design on the new dynamic erg clearly uses more complicated idler cog system using a number of pulleys and links to drive the flywheel at the back of the machine. What does this mean for the scores on the dynamic, are they slower? How does the PM4 account for this significant energy loss?

[Ultramega OK]

Thanks for all the interesting discussion on this topic. In my limited experience with my Slider I have found it to deliver similar scores to the C2 so long as I maintain good technique. It seems to punish any departure from good technique with poor splits or if the stroke is not kosher you will drift all over the place and your splits will be even worse. One thing that has been mentioned before with other dynamics that is definitely true for the slider is that going from a lower rating to a higher one is easy to do. In fact if you aren't careful you will find yourself overshooting your desired rating. This erg makes you pay more attention to all aspects of technique. That is definitely a good thing.

I emailed Oartec and they told me there is no simple way to hook a pm 3 or 4 up to the Slider. They specifically mentioned what Roland witnessed and they told me it was just a quick set up to test the calibration. In order to use a Pm3or4 you would have to manually install a model c C2 sensor by drilling through side plate and flywheel housing and mounting the model C sensor so it can read the magnets. No way am I going to do that.

In my opinion the Slider overall is great. I am very happy with mine and I feel these dynamic machines are vastly better than the static erg just like Xeno and everyone else say. I think the C2 monitor is the best in the business. Hopefully someone will come up with a decent piece of software for the oartec soon because their monitor while adequate does not meet the standard set by C2 currently.

[packrat]

I am very interested in trying ANY of the dynamic options. I live in Kansas City, though. Are there any opportunities for me nearby?

[c2jonw]

It would seem to me that C2 are contradicting themselves by saying this about the Rowperfect and Slider, when the design on the new dynamic erg clearly uses more complicated idler cog system using a number of pulleys and links to drive the flywheel at the back of the machine. What does this mean for the scores on the dynamic, are they slower? How does the PM4 account for this significant energy loss?

Sorry I didn't mean it that way. What I was trying to point out is that the idea of hooking a C2 monitor up to some other system (different flywheel, magnets, drive means, etc) and expecting an equivalent score is a bit unrealistic. As for the comparability of scores between the C2 Dynamic and a C2 stationary erg, we're doing tests and gathering field information. The C2 Dynamic uses the same flywheel, magnet, monitor, sprocket and flywheel cover as the D & E. There are likely some areas of efficiency gain (less moving mass) and loss (indirect drive) that may net out in favor of some individuals. Similar to our findings with the slides, because one can rate higher it is likely that most people will be able to score better at shorter distances but at some point this catches up with you. C2JonW

[xenotheolympian]

Short distances on dynamic I feel blazing fast.
HOWEVER longer than 750 oulala!

[James Befry]

Sorry I didn't mean it that way. What I was trying to point out is that the idea of hooking a C2 monitor up to some other system (different flywheel, magnets, drive means, etc) and expecting an equivalent score is a bit unrealistic.

I asked the Oartec guy the same thing and he said that the flywheel, magnets, drive sprocket and range of resistance in drag factor are the same as C2 so it would be possible to make this claim. He even said that in the early prototypes that they showed around had all of these C2 parts installed before they tooled up and made their own. Then they reverse engineered the algorithms in the monitor I guess. So if you look ' under the hood' you will find that these things are the same, just that the flywheel position is different.

To me the scores don't so much matter as long as they are consistent. What is important is what each of these machines feels like to row and now having tried them all I am in favour of my next purchase being the Oartec Slider, or if Rowperfect could match the price of the Slider and C2 dynamic, I would have a difficult decision on my hands.

[Ultramega OK]

Ok I did some experimenting. my results support what Xeno and c2jonw have alluded to. A few days ago I did the Rojabo power test and endurance test on my static C2. Based on my results, my numbers predicted a current 2k time of 6:40 and a potential of around 6:22. My recent and current PR is just under 6:40 so the Rojabo numbers are accurate. I'd like to think I'm capable of sub 6:20 with some hard work but I can dream... Anyway I retested on the Oartec dynamic. The results are interesting. On the power test my numbers are similar. The endurance test was was a different story. I only finished the 24 spm step. I was smoked. Current results read out to 7:05 and potential 6:58. Interesting!!

I think this correlates with what the experts are saying. First there may be unmeasured loss on this dynamic, second maybe it is technique but I think a lot has to do with the fact that there is no free ride on the recovery unlike the static. You can't let your body just ride down the slide. You have to reel it in with your hamstrings. I think overall to cover the same distance on the monitor you are doing more work. In any case I am having a blast with this thing. Between this and my skiErg, let's just say I have no trouble falling asleep at night

[xenotheolympian]

I want a ski erg.

[carlb]

I want a ski erg.

FYI article on SkiErg..."31 December 2010 The latest Newsletter: Using Concept2 Skierg for cross training in rowing. "
http://www.biorow.com/RBN_en_2010_files ... News12.pdf

"their shares in power were 20%:36%:44% (legs/trunk/arms). This looks like a mirror to rowing, where segments’ shares were 46%:31%:23%"..."These movements make a workout on the Skierg a great full body exercise."

Sounds to me like the SkiErg complements the rower nicely.


They also have an article on the Dynamic
4 November 2010 The latest Newsletter: Biomechanical features of Concept2 Dynamic Indoor Rower
http://www.biorow.com/RBN_en_2010_files ... News10.pdf

The discussion on "What sort of interpretation can be given for the seat movement on DIR?" looks interesting as this machine's technique is new.

Within 10 minutes of first being on the DIR the inside tendon at the bottom of my hamstring (both sides but more on left) had an unpleasant feeling, I might say pinched (hmmm maybe I have an impingment). After 30 minutes of rowing the next day it was a little sore. 2nd row not as unpleasant during, not as sore after, but still sore and a problem. I'm not a water rower, I've never had that pain on the D. I need to study the technique videos, I may be compressing too much or not aligning my knees squarely.

[pittsjock]

This thread is a total disappointment. I came expecting useful information. Instead, I read multiple posts from the trolls (read Rockin Roland et. al) whose vitriole can be explained by self interest or ignorance and a scattered few posts from folks like Jon and Xeno who are actually trying to highlight the differences between these machines.

I think C2 is to be commended on one hand for being so committed to free speech, but some effective moderation, like no bashing C2 machines because this is, after all C2's forum, would be appreciated by those of us who are both happy with our C2 products and tired of seeing all this blatant troll marketing.

Thanks.

[xenotheolympian]

IMHO all three dynamic machines do a beautiful job.
In the end it is a matter of proper training. You may use any of the static machines and then jump on any of the dynamic machines and pull a pretty descent score without having "acclimated" on it. The dynamic systems of all three manufactures recreate the concept of moving on the water in rowing boat. I can really care less if there is a slight weight difference between the foot boards. There is NO DOUBT that a dynamic rowing machine will make you aware of hamstrings and hinging at the hip joint. IF YOU DON'T FEEL the difference, that means you don't get the forward body angle at the hip joint and you VERY LIKELY draw the foot board back by lifting the knees and not contracting the hamstrings.
I watched the CRASH-B online, I watched the "technique" vid on the concept2 website, and neither showed the fine technical nuances of hinging at the hip joint and contracting the hamstrings, even less hanging from the handle and using your skeleton strength to hang from the leg drive.
I was appalled, but not surprised, to see the type of lumber jack technique at the CRASH-B. This brings me to the next point, I don't know when the DYNAMIC will take over the job of the static for racing. You can throw down a static machine on pretty much any ground and put a lumber jack on it and let him puke his gut out without needing to adjust the level of the machine or worry about the little bungee that holds on to the rolling seat.
But if you want to get the best possible health effect from your rowing workout, DYNAMIC is the way to go, and NO I am not paid by Concept2 . C2 makes a great product, so does Rowperfect, and so does Oartec, and my positive comments come because I love the sport of rowing and what it can do for people who seek a solution to improving their health and mobility.
Xeno