dynamic vs static training

[Dreadnought]

I have used all types of rowers, most frequently the standard or static c2.

I have also used the C2 dynamic as well as other dynamic rowers.

I have not really seen a major benefit of using a dynamic rower. I actually find it harder to maintain a consistent pace with a dynamic. I have actually gone back to doing most of my training on the stsndard 'static' rowers.

Is it my technique? I've had it evaluated by experience rowers who said it was good.

Has anyone else had a similar experience?

[gvcormac]

In theory, dynamic should be more efficient because you move less mass in recovery.

It is debatable whether this results in improved numbers.

The main selling point of dynamic is that it more closely resembles the on-water feel.

[Ombrax]

These days all of my erging is at the gym, but eventually I'll probably start using my Model C at home too. When that happens I've been thinking about getting some slides, of only to "try it out."

[mict450]

My times are slightly faster on a static. However, my back feels better post-workout on a dynamic. I feel like Quasimodo after a session on a static, as it takes me a little while before I can fully straighten out.

[jamesg]

The static erg needs a different technique at the catch, to reduce the slack and so avoid too much loss of length.

Dynamic machines reduce inertial losses and can allow much higher ratings, as afloat.

Results depend on what we do, not on the machine.

[Tsnor]

...I have not really seen a major benefit of using a dynamic rower.
...Has anyone else had a similar experience?

Major benefit of dynamic seems to be less impact, especially on back. Ergs are already very low impact, but dynamic is believed better. There is also a minor increase in training legs/core associated with the lower return pressure "..there is less return force on the handle on the Dynamic than on the Model D. This means there is less assistance on the recovery, so as in a boat, you are fully responsible for pressing the handle away, setting a forward body lean, and moving up the slide to full compression...."

Not much "efficiency gain" if any based on the times in the C2 rankings, so do not expect significant split time difference. There have been arguments made that moving your body mass back and forth on a regular erg uses more energy than using the dynamic.

I've occasionally used slides on standard erg. The coach wanted people to smooth out their strokes a bit, and slides had some novelty benefit. In a club you can also hook more than one erg together with slides. You do need a different/smoother technique on slides. Suspect its the same on dynamic. There have been a number of threads on slides/dynamic vs standard and the net seems to be personal preference and the possible lower injury risk.

If you have both, swap between them. If you plan to sell one, keep whichever you prefer -- but decide after having both 6 months or so if you have the room. If you are grooved for a model D stroke it might take a while for the different feel of the dynamic to become good vs strange.

[Slidewinder]

Casper Rekers, a Dutch engineer, was the first to patent a rowing ergometer that integrated a dynamically balanced action (US Patent 5382210, 1992). He specifies in the patent document that "the mass of the energy dissipating unit is preferably equivalent to the mass of the specific boat" on which the user is training. The energy dissipating unit is described in the Claims as being comprised of a frame, a flywheel, a handle, footrests, a take up means... said energy dissipating unit being free to slide fore and aft on a horizontal beam. The RowPerfect is the commercial embodiment of Rekers' invention.

Rekers' patent would still have been in effect when C2 was developing its dynamic unit in 2010. Possibly to get around the Rekers patent C2 decided that in its design, instead of an energy dissipating unit moving fore and aft during use, only the footrests would move fore and aft. By doing so C2 ignored the recommendation in Rekers' patent that the moving mass should approximate the mass of a rowing shell in order to obtain a realistic OTW feel. This, I submit is the root of the problem with the C2 Dynamic. Someone described it as being more of a leg-press exercise machine than a rowing machine.

[Dreadnought]

Rekers' patent would still have been in effect when C2 was developing its dynamic unit in 2010. Possibly to get around the Rekers patent C2 decided that in its design, instead of an energy dissipating unit moving fore and aft during use, only the footrests would move fore and aft.

Hmm, so the patent was the reason for the peculiar design?

That didn't prevent another company from making a dynamic rower similar to the RowPerfect.

[JaapvanE]

There are even better models available, for example the BioRower (see https://biorower.com/) that can simulate the complete movement in a very natural way. It is all about footprint and how realistic you want to be and how much you are willing to spend to get there. What I learned is that a dynamic puts less stress on the lower back, potentially making it more appropriate for gyms and recovery institutions. But the pricetag associated with them makes them less attractive. But people are familiar with the static machine and the static machines are nearly indestructable (making them very low maintenance equipment). The dynamic machines are quite decent, but in general more fragile so maintaining them is more labour intensive.

I found a pretty decent video by Cameron Buchan (former? member of the GB Eight+) who describes the differences and use pretty well, from a national team member perspective (he trained on the RP3 and C2 dynamic): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffUjx5PaivE

[Slidewinder]

Dreadnought:
Your quote: "Hmm, so the patent was the reason for the peculiar design? That didn't prevent another company from making a dynamic rower similar to the RowPerfect."

A patent doesn't prevent others from utilizing the patented design, but if utilized, it must be done with permission (and probable payment) to the inventor. When the Reker patent expired (around 2012) it then became in the public domain. The C2 dynamic was based on an abandoned C2 project from decades ago. With the launch of the Oartec Slider in 2010, C2 pulled the abandoned dynamic prototype out of the attic, had another look at it, and modified it to make it workable. The possible market threat posed by the Oartec unit, and a desire to neutralize that threat, was the motivation behind the development of the C2 dynamic.

[Slidewinder]

JaapvanE: Your quote:
"There are even better models available, for example the BioRower (see https://biorower.com/) that can simulate the complete movement in a very natural way."

In reference to patents: The BioRower is a knock-off of the Calvin Coffey design. Calvin Coffey has been quietly building his superb sculling simulator for decades. When the Coffey patent expired, BioRower introduced its copy.

[matthew92]

The main selling point of dynamic is that it more closely resembles the on-water feel.

That really is the main point

[Slidewinder]

The main selling point of dynamic is that it more closely resembles the on-water feel.

That really is the main point

Yes, the on-the-water feel of a dynamic is a selling point, but it is also a selling point that an on-the-water feel happens to feel better than an off-the-water feel, regardless of whether the user is an OTW rower. An off-the-water feel is the feel of flinging one's body mass up and down the rail. An on-the-water feel is the rowing machine moving under the user.