Concept2 Forum

Hi Concept2 community,

I just saw this teaser from Concept2 on LinkedIn, and it looks like a new machine might be coming soon! The video hints at a reveal tomorrow, and I’m excited to see what’s next from Concept2. Has anyone heard any details or have thoughts on what it could be?

Concept2 LinkedIn Teaser: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/concept2 ... 94274-BEbR

Interesting. Their Instagram shows the same video. We'll see soon I guess...

jelekan wrote: ↑

October 17th, 2024, 1:20 pm

thoughts on what it could be?

A rower incorporating every single one of Slidewinder's suggestions over the years.

Only down side - it will cost $15,000 and weigh 800 lbs.

It is a StrengthErg, see https://www.instagram.com/reel/DBRC5MuJDJr

Looks like dyno making a comeback? (I'm not well versed in how that machine worked, apologies if I'm off-base.)

Seems interesting. Not sure we need one, but I'd love to see more about it.

Most interesting part for me is to understand ErgLink better. This would mean you can use your phone without the need for a PM5.

jelekan wrote: ↑

October 18th, 2024, 1:07 pm

Most interesting part for me is to understand ErgLink better. This would mean you can use your phone without the need for a PM5.

They use ErgData?

But I think they essentially use a stripped down PM5 where you connect to. It works with this application as movements are pretty slow. Don't know if it would work with a rower though.

With our new ErgLink technology the Strength Erg is our first erg to be available with, or without a PM5 monitor.

I wonder if the Strength Erg PM is compatible with the Dyno?

The last few years or so if your Dyno PM died you were SOL.

Ombrax wrote: ↑

October 17th, 2024, 3:00 pm

jelekan wrote: ↑

October 17th, 2024, 1:20 pm

thoughts on what it could be?

A rower incorporating every single one of Slidewinder's suggestions over the years.
Only down side - it will cost $15,000 and weigh 800 lbs.

Thanks Ombrax for remembering "every single one of Slidewinder's suggestions". Here they are: 1) Redesigned seat 2) Guard to prevent clothing from getting caught under the seat roller 3) Mechanical foot hold-down 4) Articulated handle 5) Sensor to measure force profile of the elastic cord - this data sent to PM and included in the power calculations and readout 6) Gravity take-up of the chain and handle return.
I don't understand your mirth at these sensible ideas, but I'm glad to provide you with some amusement.

Regarding the new C2 machine, an obvious reiteration of the Dyno: Several years ago a certain C2 employee commented here, with respect to the Dyno, that "the world did not beat a path to our door". Maybe things will have changed with the passage of years. I have always thought that the ergometer (vaned flywheel) was under-utilised in exercise equipment, and I thought when the Dyno was introduced that it was a good idea. I also think that this new machine is a good idea, but as with the rowing ergometer it could be greatly improved if the handles were articulated, enabling rotation of the hands. Handle articulation would offer improved bio-mechanics, would engage various muscle groups, and would add variety and interest to the workout program.

Slidewinder wrote: ↑

October 18th, 2024, 6:34 pm

I also think that this new machine is a good idea, but as with the rowing ergometer it could be greatly improved if the handles were articulated, enabling rotation of the hands. Handle articulation would offer improved bio-mechanics, would engage various muscle groups, and would add variety and interest to the workout program.

This is a good suggestion. I'm obviously not sure if it could work, but seeing the different types of handle attachments for the multi machines you see in gyms, and on pull up bars to be used at home, clearly shows that there are benefits.

A few days reflection and I now have serious doubts about the StrengthErg. John Steventon, on his 'RowAlong' YouTube channel, presents an excellent analysis. He discusses what many have pointed out - that in any one rep the resistance is only in one direction, not both concentric and excentric, as they like to call it. Many see this as a major fault, and consequently the general reaction to the sneak peek has been lukewarm.

Mechanically, it is possible to drive a flywheel continuously in one direction with a back and forth input movement. Leonardo da Vinci drew such a mechanism 500 years ago. It is a cunning arrangement of ratchets and pawls, of wooden ring gears and lantern gears. With today's technology, utilizing standard bevel gears and roller clutches (of the type used in the hub of C2's flywheel) a physical embodiment of da Vinci's concept makes a tidy package. So, if we wanted to build a flywheel-based strength-building exercise machine that provides both concentric and excentric resistance in one rep, we could do it. But should we?

One poster on another social media site wrote, "I don't want a flywheel just for the sake of having a flywheel." This person, I think, understood intuitively that a spinning vaned flywheel has resistance characteristics that make it inherently suitable for certain exercise machines, but not all. C2 has had such success utilizing a vaned flywheel in rowing, cycling, and skiing machines because the resistance is 'alive'. In all of these activities, flywheel resistance provides that important feeling of building up momentum. One can 'glide' for some moments and then resume. and it does not feel like starting again from a complete stop, as it does when using piston or weight based machines.

But in a strength-building machine - a machine in which the user does slow, high-resistance reps, the special characteristics of the resistance of a spinning flywheel do nothing to enhance the workout. The user movement is so slow, there will be little or no feeling of picking up momentum. Taking a reasoned guess, I imagine on the StrengthErg that every slow, high resistance rep feels the same as the last. If so, then what is the point of the flywheel resistance? Piston and weight based machines can provide the desired pushing and pulling resistance, and the mechanics are simpler. I'm afraid that Concept 2, so enamoured of its flywheel technology, has failed to see that this technology has no advantage in a strength building machine. My advice to C2 is to eat the R&D that went into this project, and shelve it. People are not excited about it. Maybe a RunningErg is something C2 should explore. Maybe too, C2 should make some long overdue improvements to the RowErg.

A few days reflection and I now have serious doubts about the StrengthErg. John Steventon, on his 'RowAlong' YouTube channel, presents an excellent analysis. He discusses what many have pointed out - that in any one rep the resistance is only in one direction, not both concentric and excentric, as they like to call it. Many see this as a major fault, and consequently the general reaction to the sneak peek has been lukewarm.

Mechanically, it is possible to drive a flywheel continuously in one direction with a back and forth input movement. Leonardo da Vinci drew such a mechanism 500 years ago. It is a cunning arrangement of ratchets and pawls, of wooden ring gears and lantern gears. With today's technology, utilizing standard bevel gears and roller clutches (of the type used in the hub of C2's flywheel) a physical embodiment of da Vinci's concept makes a tidy package. So, if we wanted to build a flywheel-based strength-building exercise machine that provides both concentric and excentric resistance in one rep, we could do it. But should we?

One poster on another social media site wrote, "I don't want a flywheel just for the sake of having a flywheel." This person, I think, understood intuitively that a spinning vaned flywheel has resistance characteristics that make it inherently suitable for certain exercise machines, but not all. C2 has had such success utilizing a vaned flywheel in rowing, cycling, and skiing machines because the resistance is 'alive'. In all of these activities, flywheel resistance provides that important feeling of building up momentum. One can 'glide' for some moments and then resume. and it does not feel like starting again from a complete stop, as it does when using piston or weight based machines.

But in a strength-building machine - a machine in which the user does slow, high-resistance reps, the special characteristics of the resistance of a spinning flywheel do nothing to enhance the workout. The user movement is so slow, there will be little or no feeling of picking up momentum. Taking a reasoned guess, I imagine on the StrengthErg that every slow, high resistance rep feels the same as the last. If so, then what is the point of the flywheel resistance? Piston and weight based machines can provide the desired pushing and pulling resistance, and the mechanics are simpler. I'm afraid that Concept 2, so enamoured of its flywheel technology, has failed to see that this technology has no advantage in a strength building machine. My advice to C2 is to eat the R&D that went into this project, and shelve it. People are not excited about it. Maybe a RunningErg is something C2 should explore. Maybe too, C2 should make some long overdue improvements to the RowErg.

Every time I read one of Slidewinder's posts criticizing C2 for this or that problem he's identified with one of their products (in this case something he hasn't even used himself, nor apparently, has he used a Dyno) I ask myself why does he even bother to post here?

Clearly the rest of us have either drunk the C2 Kool-Aid, or aren't intelligent enough to recognize how inadequate the products are, so his posts continue to fall on deaf ears. I will say this - one has to respect his persistence - he's been at it for a long time.

Ombrax wrote: ↑

October 22nd, 2024, 11:19 pm

"Slidewinder's...posts continue to fall on deaf ears."

Are you, Ombrax, excited about the StrengthErg?