Concept2 /first Degree "fluid Rower"/waterrower

[[old] michael]

Lisa,<br /><br />The black hard material that accumulates on the rail is from dust and grime present directly on the rail that is being worked over by the rollers. About every third or fourth rowing session I wipe down the rail but also add a household cleaning solution to a paper towel and apply it firmly to all four rollers while simultaneously moving the seat up and down the rail to clean the entire roller circumference. This should hopefully minimize your ride bumpiness.

[[old] H33]

Obviously in a C2 forum you are going to get a preponderance of opinion in favor of it.<br /><br />I have used both machines and think each has qualities which will lend themselves to a favorable impression depending on what the purchaser values.<br /><br />Personally my experience is as follows:<br /><br />Build Quality - C2 is better but WR is quite solid, if it doesn't break after many years the difference is not readily apparent.<br /><br />Electronics - Again the C2 holds the edge here but the WaterRower hooked up to PC software is not bad at all, especially the visuals (NetAthlon).<br /><br />Aesthetics - I favor the WR here, it doesn't look like an "ugly" piece of gym equipment, but that is personal taste.<br /><br />Feel - I find the C2 really lacking as compared to the WR. It has a harsh mechanical aspect and none of the fluid feel I associate with on the water rowing that the WR does a very respectable job in emulating. This is what convinced me to buy one. <br /><br />Competition - Without a doubt the market for the C2 is far more developed and if this is a big motivator, then buy the C2. If not, you can still find competition with the WR, the process just requires a little creativity.<br /><br />I think a simple way to make a choice is to do a 5,000 meter row on each machine. Since the goal is fitness (and perhaps weight loss) consider which machine does a better job of motivating you, all else taken into account...<br /><br />As to the poster who said:<br /><br />"The splits on a fluid rower do not compare to the C2 though. My Mrs can pull a 1:38 split on a C2 but can get down to a 1:08 on the fluid rower." <br /><br />Not a very scientific comment, no specifics here but mere generalities. Using a WR SIII v2.5 with 19 liters and the NetAthlon software my time is 4:30.30 for 1,000 meters vs a much faster 3:29 for a C2 at resistence level 7. <br /><br />I don't think there is a human alive who can do a 2:30 (or even close to it) for 1,000 meters on my WR, good luck. The fastest recorded speed I was ever able to obtain in an all out sprint of 50 meters was 5 mps at 40 strokes per minute, which translates into a 3:20 time for 1,000 meters.

[[old] akit110]

I genuinely like the idea of the WR - the wood aesthetic, its storability, it's water based resistance, low noise. And I have used one at a high end hotel gym before. In some ways, it reminds me of my Nordictrack ski machine (wooden, amenable to home use, limited performance monitor, no virtual community or competition). <br /><br />This is a bit OT, but from a marketing point of view, Waterrower needs to do 3 things to make it truly a contender for the mass market, in my humble opinion:<br /><br />1) Also offer an affordable steel framed version of their machine (<$1000US) <br />2) Get a better and more accurate onboard performance monitor<br />3) Start a company sponsored online forum on their website for their WR enthusiasts to congregate electronically.<br /><br />Ashwin

[[old] brianric]

<!--QuoteBegin-Sir Pirate+Feb 9 2005, 08:51 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Sir Pirate @ Feb 9 2005, 08:51 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have done a few sessions on the fluid rower. It is very smooth and quiet, a lot more effortless than the C2.<br />But.......<br />The C2 is far more better in build quality and I can not imagine any company (not just a rowing one) having better customer support.<br /><br />The splits on a fluid rower do not compare to the C2 though. My Mrs can pull a 1:38 split on a C2 but can get down to a 1:08 on the fluid rower.<br /><br />The C2 is the best indoor rower on the market. FACT!!  <br /><br />Sir Pirate <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I agree with you, but the number one reason I bought a C2 (my third, having owned a Model B, C, and now D) is support. Can't beat it.

[[old] zim32805]

<!--QuoteBegin-GoPack+Jan 25 2005, 02:57 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(GoPack @ Jan 25 2005, 02:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Any advice/counsel for this novice (albeit 42-year-old) rower as to which of the above-referenced machines would be the best overall choice would be appreciated.... Thank you. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I own both Concept and Waterrower and adore both. While I do agree on the "rowing family" thing, it seems that one shouldn't need group motivation to exercise. I prefer to have solitude and music while I row. I don't really care about ergs, calories, or what somebody 1200 miles away is doing with his/her rower. I just get on either and row for 45 minutes or so. <br /><br />I would suggest starting out with either machine very gradually and learning perfect form first in order to save your lumbar spine. You also may want to check with your GP if you've had any lumbar pain in the past. (Most males in their 40s have). The repetitive stress on the vertabrae can cause some significant aches if you're form is off at all or if you go too long without prior conditioning. It is a wondeful exercise and will yield terrific results over time. Best of luck.

[[old] Laupi]

<b>Agree - the best of it is the million meter gifts they distribute - I am already half way there and would like to have my first trophy in Feb. 06! <br /><br />Nothing keeps me more motivated as these little things in life like gifts.....</b>