Concept2 Forum

Has Concept2 thought about producing a cheaper version (D3?) of the erg intended for the not so serious user. I am a happy D2 owner, however I have been asked by friends if there is a cheaper version other than 2nd hand. I know Concept2 will not sacrifice quality but perhaps a home user version with reduced warranty period would have a market out there. A cheaper version that does not compromise safety & reliability?

I understand your concerns over pricing, but Concept2 makes a quality product in the US, offers outstanding support and supplies products which, when properly maintained, will literally last a lifetime. Most exercise equipment is made abroad from cheap components by a company that has crummy, outsourced 'support' and a horrible warranty. Like with a Braun razor (at least the models still made in Germany), a Mac or a Dyson vacuum, you truly do get what you pay for. Also, C2's owners are rowers, so they know the performance of the marketplace. While we all wish the products were cheaper I, for one, will continue to stump up for full price C2 gear.

The Concept 2 rower is already Cheap in Australia with the strength of you dollar better than the US dollar !

It's like asking Ferrari to make a cheaper car, they don't need to, and don't want to.

The main problem over here is the second hand prices are way to high, mainly in part to the people not being aware of the difference between a D1 and a D2 and hence paying far to much for a rower made prior to 2006 becasue they think a model D is a model D when in fact there has been a significant number of improvements that are not obvious to the average user.

Plenty of cheaper alternatives aleady on the market but the C2 is aimed at the top end of the market and it's good to be able to afford the Ferrari or Rowers !

Robbie100 wrote:Has Concept2 thought about producing a cheaper version (D3?) of the erg intended for the not so serious user. I am a happy D2 owner, however I have been asked by friends if there is a cheaper version....... A cheaper version that does not compromise safety & reliability?

How much do you value your body? The standard C2 erg is more reliable than cheaper ergs but it's no safer. There are health risks with all single action static ergs. If you want to avoid the injuries that static ergs are known for then you have no choice but to spend more to purchase any of the dynamic ergs out there on the market. Otherwise, what you save on the erg you'll only end up paying in medical bills at the Physio.

Casual uers of exercise equipment get bored very quickly and the equipment ends up collecting dust. Alternatively join a boot camp. You'll have heaps more fun without risking injury from a rowing machine.

The Concept 2 Model D is no different from any other exercise or sport for that matter, there is always the risk of injury but just because it's a static Erg doesn't automatically mean your going to get injured !

Being a non contact sport and a no impact sport like running, the C2 Model D is way down the list in your chances of sustaining an injury. The issue is correct technique and this is the really big problem because even the vast majority of personal trainers at the Gym have no idea how to use the Erg properly. Once you get into some training its a great bit of gear and rowing online with others using RowPro keeps you motivated.

Thats the Ferrari OF rowers and not the Ferrari or Rowers above !

The comments made here may hold true to a lot of existing Concept2 customers, however, it could be a different story to a business entity in today's world. Lots of big companies these days have to diversify their products in order to move on, not suggesting that C2 is struggling, all I am saying is that there may be a market niche out there for economy rowers as well as first class and business class rowers if you like, and if C2 can tap into that, then why not. I don't think it will hurt the C2 brand at all, as people know - what they pay is what they get. The upper end of the market will continue to have access to the top class product while also allowing for people at the lower end to access C2's excellent product innovation, support and network.

Carl Watts wrote:The Concept 2 Model D is no different from any other exercise or sport for that matter, there is always the risk of injury but just because it's a static Erg doesn't automatically mean your going to get injured !

Being a non contact sport and a no impact sport like running, the C2 Model D is way down the list in your chances of sustaining an injury. The issue is correct technique

Come on Carl. Get your head out of the sand. Who are you trying to kid?

The Model D with PM3 is already a bargain! I was looking at a set of "dynamic" rollers for my bike (http://www.insideride.com/). These are not nearly as complex or robust as an erg and they cost $850! You won't get the workout you do on an erg either. My neighbor gave us a treadmill when he moved. Sure it has a motor and fancy monitor deck (Star Trek anyone?) but again, not the workout you get on an erg. The cost of this better-than-average treadmill is around $1500. Finally, I have a model B I bought almost 25 years ago. It has millions of meters on it and all I've had to do to it is replace the bungee cord, and that was only two years ago. So, I say again, an erg is a bargain (I hope C2 isn't listening - they may raise their price)!

Carl Watts wrote: The issue is correct technique .......................... and rowing online with others using RowPro keeps you motivated.

Hey Carl,
How many elite rowers use Rowpro?
How many national teams use Rowpro as a training tool?
Is the answer none? Is it?
Why Carl? Why?
Maybe it's because it does absolutely nothing to identify and correct poor technique. Or maybe it's because
serious rowers aren't into playing games when rowing.
Or is it because of some other reason Carl?

OK, so common sense indicates that a real dyanamic erg far more closely emulates rowing on water and puts less stress on the back than a static erg. And OTW professionals uniformly recommend the RowPerfect and C2 Dynamic over the statics.

But I've seen no compelling scientific studies that prove that static ergs by their very design cause serious back problems. And, with C2's static ergs having been used for other 30 years by millions of indoor rowers worldwide, you'd expect some evidence of an epidemic of crippled users if this was in fact the case. And I haven't seen that.

I've heard vague rumors of Australian studies of static erg injuries, but never been able to find anything published. So unless and until someone can point to a well-run scientific study or two with a large sample that demonstrates it, claims about the static erg's inherent dangers are little more than hyperbole. I think the dynamic can sell itself on the basis of its own advantages without resorting to unsubstantiated scare tactics.

Concept 2 doesn't really care about the "Elite" rower market, why would they ? it comproises of what 0.1% of the total users ? and if they were the only ones using the C2 Erg then Concept 2 would go out of business.

The Market is in the Gym's and recreational rowers and for your information there are faster rowers than you using RowPro so it has a good representation of the market. Rowpro also is not aimed at the Elite rowers, I wonder why ? because there are so few of them Pete would go out of business if it was specifically aimed at this end of the market.

RowPro has received plenty of feedback and actually only requires a few tweaks to cover what the Elite rowers would need and it doesn't take an Elite rower to see what they are either and then it would make the perfect training tool for crews to come together and train train online without the need to be physically all in the same location. A few changes or options in the screen layout and more information like spm results to 1/10th and live HR information on screen for all the rowers and it's there.

There has not been a new version of RowPro for quite some time now so maybe something new is afoot that even includes options to row on different lakes or race venues around the world ?

Well said Carl. I have been using my D model for a decade and dont have developed any body problem and with 54 years young feel better than when were in my 40's. The Concept2 indoor rower is targeted not to the ellites, but for the rest of us. Maybe RR has some hidden agenda.

JRBJR wrote:

But I've seen no compelling scientific studies that prove that static ergs by their very design cause serious back problems. And, with C2's static ergs having been used for other 30 years by millions of indoor rowers worldwide, you'd expect some evidence of an epidemic of crippled users if this was in fact the case. And I haven't seen that

I've heard vague rumors of Australian studies of static erg injuries, but never been able to find anything published.

You don't need a scientific study to tell us something we already know. Word of mouth amoungst on water rowing communities is generally enough to tell us that there are issues with the static erg. However in Australia there were two papers published for Rowing Australia's elite coaches. They were prompted by the alarming rate of injuries to elite rowers from training on static ergs(apparently statistics were kept for this). It was over 6 years ago though so I doubt if these papers are still available from Rowing Australia's website: http://www.rowingaustralia.com.au/hp_physiotherapy.shtm

There was also an article written by Ivan Hooper for the Nov'06 issue of Rowing MagOzine. He basically explained how when over 30 minutes of rowing was performed on a static erg the trunk muscles fatigued which then led to lower back injury. He gave recommendations on how people should train on static ergs to reduce the risk of injury.

All of these studies were done before the current crop of dynamic ergs came onto the market. There is also currently a discussion going on about static versus dynamic ergs on the rowingillustrated website in the boats & equipment section. On that website one gets the impression that on water rowers consider the humble C2 static erg a bit of a dinosaur.

Here is the link to the rowingillustrated static versus dynamic erg discussion:

http://rowingillustrated.com/boards/vie ... =10&t=4512

RockingRoland wrote:They were prompted by the alarming rate of injuries to elite rowers from training on static ergs(apparently statistics were kept for this).

No, they were prompted by what appeared to be an increasing incidence of lower back injuries among elite Australian rowers, the physiological testing of whom was being done on static C2s. 'Injuries to rowers using static ergs for team testing' is not the same thing as "injuries to ...rowers from training on static ergs." Moreover neither are the same thing as 'injuries...from static C2 ergs,' which just as clearly is how you're interpreting things.

The second Hooper paper is still on the RowingAustralia site. The secure certificate for the thing expired on 12/2 and has not been renewed so your browser may give you warnings if you try to look at it at https://rowingaustralia.com.au/docs/ssm ... c_ergo.pdf

What Hooper actually concludes, as opposed to what he's imputed to have said, is:

Hooper 2006 wrote:In conclusion, the information that is currently available supports the idea that ergometer use is a
risk factor for lumbar spine injury. It also suggests that the Row Perfect places much lower detrimental forces on the rower than the Concept II. It seems that placing the Concept II on sliders is also a way of reducing these detrimental forces, but this is probably not as effective as the Row Perfect.

He's not saying that C2 ergs cause lumbar spine injuries and that RowPerfects don't. He's saying that to the limited extent anyone really knows squat about lower-back problems in rowing, all ergometer training seems to be a risk factor. He goes on to say that the RP apparently reduces the end-of-stroke momentum that must be absorbed by the lower back when compared to a C2 on slides or a static C2. He does NOT say the RP eliminates it. Nor does he say that the RP somehow eliminates associated injury.

I should add that 1) 100% exclusive OTW rowing also is a 'risk factor' for lower-back problems, as some rowers suffered from them long before the invention of ergs; 2) there was absolutely zero statistically valid data at the time comparing the rate of lower-back injury from athletes using RPs as part of their training on land as opposed to static C2s as opposed to C2s on slides. AFAIK that's still the case, since the plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data." It's impossible to sort out epidemologically what's actually causing reported problems because too many variables -- what rowers are doing biomechanically at the time of an injury and what they were doing previously that might have created the possibility of injury being two -- can't be known. What you're left with is statistical inference of the "Europeans who go into tropical swamps are getting malaria, we don't know why, therefore let's limit exposure to tropical swamps" variety. And just as people before germ theory and modern medicine wrongly concluded that "bad air" (found in tropical swamps) was the cause of malaria, you seem to want to believe that C2 ergs (found in training programmes) are what cause lower-back injuries in rowing.

If you actually read carefully what Hooper recmmends, it's a set of common-sense responses to what looked at the time to be a worrisome rate of injury among elite athletes in whom significant time and national-federation money were invested. He DOESN'T say 'let's ban C2 static ergs because they cause lumbar injuries.' Here's what he DOES say:

Hooper wrote:At this point in time, the Concept II is the standard for conducting physiological testing of the elite rower. I do not propose that this change immediately, but I do think that what machine we test on in the future needs further examination and evaluation. Issues such as injury risk and physiological specificity need to be considered when selecting the most appropriate way to test our athletes.

In summarising the information that is currently available regarding ergometer use and its effects on injury, I would like to make the following recommendations:

! Reduce the volume of work done on Concept II ergometers in the stationary setting.

! Keep the maximum length of a piece on an ergometer less than 30 minutes. If more than 30 minutes is to be done in a session, make sure that the session is broken up into shorter pieces with appropriate rest and stretching in between the pieces.

! Where appropriate, use either the Row Perfect or Concept II ergometer on sliders.

! Where appropriate, use other forms of cross training. Consider using cross training in conjunction with ergometer training in order to achieve the necessary training volume.

! Endeavour to place ergometer sessions and weights sessions on separate training days, or at least several hours apart.

! Provide good supervision of technique while athletes train on an ergometer. The level of attention to technical detail on an ergometer should be no different to when training on water.

! Ensure that athletes understand that the need for good technique while training on an ergometer is as important as when on water.

! Be aware that some people will never have problems on an ergometer, while others may have significant problems.

Coaches should be prepared to individualise training programs to suit each athlete.

The recommendations made in this article are based on a balance between possible injury risks, and the acknowledged benefits of ergometer training. Ideally these recommendations are designed to stimulate thought when devising training programs. I would encourage coaches to consider both the potential benefits and the potential risks of all forms of training.

Finally I would like to remind everyone that coaches have a duty to make their crews as fast as possible, without causing damage to the people for whom they are responsible (Stallard, 1994). An ongoing challenge for all coaches is to minimise the potentially detrimental aspects of their training programs.

In other words, take sensible steps on a wide variety of fronts to minimize what we think to be possible contributors to increased risk of lower-back problems.