Interchangeability of C2's in terms of performance

[Cyclingman1]

Consider the first case of identical models and monitors. Both machines clean and drag factors equal.
Has anyone ever experienced different performance on two seemingly similar C2's? I think this would show up more on fast stuff. Let's say one can without too much trouble do 1:35 for a min on one machine, but it feels like a struggle to do 1:40 on another. There are no obvious noises, bindings, etc. Is this even possible? If so, what could be reasons?

A second case is different models; C, D, E? With probably different PMs. Same setup on machines. Is there anything inherent in these models that favors one over the other in terms of performance?

I hate to be the weird one, but I use/have used several different machines and I can just about line them up in terms of which ones feel faster. I can't be the only one who has suspicions about this. I would appreciate a real world answer.

[jackarabit]

All the later models have monitors which record torque and decay of rotational velocity of the flywheel/fan shaft. They are represented as capable of compensating for all significant variables. Self-calibrating iow. There are always those willing to postulate variations of unmeasured energy demand on the monkey pulling the handle: frictional resistance of rusty chains or worn bearings, reduced elasticity in stretched chain return cords--all unverified or unquantified at current date. (These influences would be minimized in short efforts I think.)

Ye shall know them not by what they say (or leave unsaid) but by what they do. New machines always at WIRC. Best seat-of-the-pants promise of identical performance of mechanical and instrumentation components I can think of. And they "all provide a workout" so likely the best case is a beater machine at home and a nice smooth new one for comps. I see no reason to look under the skirts of all these old ladies to find the ones with thick ankles! .

[Citroen]

Walls and other things that block fans are the biggest enemy. The self-calibrating monitor works for most of the use cases.

[c2jonw]

Walls and other things that block fans are the biggest enemy. The self-calibrating monitor works for most of the use cases.

The PM compensates for "walls and other things that blocks fans" much as it does when you change the damper setting. C2JonW

[Citroen]

True until the point where the damping is so bad that you can't catch the flywheel because the drag is so low.

[Cyclingman1]

New machines always at WIRC. Best seat-of-the-pants promise of identical performance of mechanical and instrumentation components

I wonder if that is part of C2 thinking? I suspect moreso that a lot of almost new machines can be sold at a decent price. But just maybe performance differences creep into machines not handled by the electronics. I would really like for C2 people to weigh in on my original question(s). Are C2 machines totally interchangeable in terms of the same energy output equals the same pace for the same person on different machines?

[Citroen]

It's all a case of perception. The indoor rowing champs are in a big arena with dry air and a bucket load of adrenaline in your system (due to being away from home, the ambient temp, the spectacle, the nerves and the excitement).

Rowing at home or rowing at your regular gym are in no way the same experience (you could be better rested, better hydrated, the ambient temp may be better suited to you). You're also rowing on familiar equipment that may be ideally set-up for you (if it's a home machine).

There's always talk about bungee cords, chains, lubrication, etc. but they're minor variables in the bigger picture.

Most of it happens in the wet-ware between your neck and your forehead.

[jackarabit]

Similar thread from 2014: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=52407&hilit=Slidewinder

Will be interesting to see the direction this thread takes cf. to linked.

[Carl Watts]

The differences are psychological and small mechanical differences.

My Model C is modified and equipped with two tach pickups and I use it for testing the repaired monitors against my PM4 and the results on the PM2's are near identical. There is a small difference over say a 30 minute of 5 meters on one I tested but not the variances you mentioned.

The bungee cord argument is rubbish, you need to consider the bio-mechanics of the human body, a bungee cord of the right tension is actually ASSISTING you not hampering you. There are crossfit gyms over here that fit even stronger cords, this would help those with poor technique or really high ratings.

Ambient temperature and the thing everyone forgets HUMIDITY has a massive effect on performance.

[Anth_F]

Thats nearly C2 to Waterrower difference

[Cyclingman1]

I figured this topic would have come up previously, but could not find it.

Obviously, one has to get past very real reasons in the machines for performance differences: rust, dirt, binding, sensor misreporting, etc. Of course, environmental conditions and the state of the rower are big factors. Could be that is all it is.

However, I think that an old Model C, PM2 machine that I use seems faster than a couple of Model D, PM3, PM5 machines I use. After using the Model C, the others seem sluggish. I really don't believe that there are any defects in the Model C. The readings are consistent at all times.

Also, I will note that when going to C2 competitions, the new ergs seem fast to me. I guess that new car smell makes one drive fast.

[Anth_F]

The model C is probably clogged up with dust and the DF's way down making it feel easy/speedy. The newer machines are likely much cleaner and sluggish feeling to you means they are actually working efficiently.

[Cyclingman1]

Consider the first case of identical models and monitors. Both machines clean and drag factors equal.
Has anyone ever experienced different performance on two seemingly similar C2's?

[Anth_F]

I still don't see how there could be such a difference as that, in performance from machine to machine. C2's are acclaimed for their accurate measures of performance readings.

Like Carl said, the differences are psychological and small mechanical differences.

Take Nick Rockliffs C2 for example! 62 million+ meters... never replaced a thing on it, looks like it's been through hell and back yet still works like a charm. And i bet operates and gives just as accurate a reading as my immaculate 2 million meter machine.

[Carl Watts]

There can be a big difference between a new erg and a really used and poorly maintained erg. I remember getting on an old model C at a gym once and basically I couldn't row on it because it was such a mess.

Huge difference between what I use at home which I consider to be up to "Race Specification" compared to the hacks at many Gyms.

There is a reason they use all new ergs at big race events.

You can obviously improve your time using an erg in good condition, its no different from anything else mechanical.