Concept2 Forum

A few yrs. back, SkiErg results were accepted for monthly submission to CTChallenges. I assume that the large disparity of distance calculation between BikeErg and Indoor Rower (2:1 favoring BikeErg) precludes use of the former in C2CTC but maybe worth asking? Anyone heard murmers or susurrations pro or con?

Following excerpt from promotional material @ Concept2 blog of 30 April:

The wattage required to go at a given pace per 500m on the indoor rower is the same wattage required to go at that pace per 1000m on the BikeErg. However, the “meters” traveled has been given a value that more closely simulates biking on the road, and has been pegged at 2X for the same power.

Meters on the Bikeerg for a given wattage are 2x that of the Rowerg, and there is NO adjustment made for the difference between them. Thus someone riding at 2:00 pace for 40 minutes on the Bikeerg gets twice the meters of someone rowing at 2:00 pace on the Rowerg, i.e. 20,000 vs 10,000 meters, which is exactly how meters are added to Annual Meters Board. They should have made the meters the same instead of doubling them. The explanation of making the pace like the road is way off.

Likewise for a given pace and weight, the Skierg pace is 10 percent slower than the Rowerg.

When I was running a lot, I calibrated my bicycle cyclometer to show a similar pace compared to my effort when running. Thus instead of showing 24 mph (or whatever), the readout would be 10 mph. I don't recall the exact conversion, but I likewise kept track of the distance the same way - separate to my running of course.

Yeah started looking at the problem recently with those on a Concept 2 Erg joining the cyclists on Zwift.

Pretty much came to the conclusion its going to be just about impossible to get a decent cross comparison calculation.

Yes cycling along the flat road at 30km/hr corresponds nicely to the Erg at 2:00.0 pace but at higher speeds on the bike and then the introduction of hills and gears and it all goes to the weeds really badly.

Take the example of going downhill on a bike at 50km/hr or even the flat if your really fast for a sustained period, that kind of average power is impossible to generate on the Erg for anything other than massive guys at WR pace for the 500M.

The Concept 2 website has both the Erg and the Bike in the pace calculator, try a few numbers in it and see the results.

https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/ ... calculator

The current arrangement on the multi-machine CTC is nominal segregation of ski ergers in a single Skierg team and assignment to “boats” labeled Skierg I, II, III, and so on. It appears that SkiErgers are not in competition with indoor rowers for places in “boats”. But this is not the case with ordinal ranking of filled boats in the challenge. Despite the absence of a handicap or compensation factor for ski ergers (if John’s estimate is correct, 1.1 x monitor av. pace to produce a measure of skierg performance on parity with indoor rower), in the last completed CTC in April, a skierg boat came 31st of 96 floated boats. A very strong result for the boys in that skiboat, but this mashup of results is not the outcome one would expect of two separate classifications of racers running concurrently on the same track or virtual patch of digital or or whatever.

The ancient CTC coding does not offer a dropdown filter menu as found in (authentic) Concept2 open (to “all types”) challenges. Would it be possible and perhaps wise to develop a handicapping system for all C2 erg designs and adopt as standing rules of engagement for use in the CTC game? Thoughts?

I created a CTC BikeErg team about a year ago. You'll see it if you look in the drop down list when you register a new profile on the website. At the time I jokingly floated the idea of its inclusion in the CTC, knowing that it's my strongest piece of equipment and I would get near the top of the board for many of the longer distance challenges.

It does work in /1000m pace as opposed to the row & ski in /500m pace, so any distance challenges would need to be doubled on the BikeErg, and any timed challenges you'd need to halve your metres.

Tbh, I think including it would be unfair to the rowers. From what I've seen, the majority of people with at least a moderate amount of BE training are able to achieve faster paces than their equivalent on the rower. SkiErg is fine, as generally it's a much slower machine for 95% of people (compared with the rower) but the BikeErg would be faster for many.

CaseyClarke wrote: ↑

May 10th, 2019, 2:23 pm

I created a CTC BikeErg team about a year ago. You'll see it if you look in the drop down list when you register a new profile on the website. At the time I jokingly floated the idea of its inclusion in the CTC, knowing that it's my strongest piece of equipment and I would get near the top of the board for many of the longer distance challenges.

It does work in /1000m pace as opposed to the row & ski in /500m pace, so any distance challenges would need to be doubled on the BikeErg, and any timed challenges you'd need to halve your metres.

Tbh, I think including it would be unfair to the rowers. From what I've seen, the majority of people with at least a moderate amount of BE training are able to achieve faster paces than their equivalent on the rower. SkiErg is fine, as generally it's a much slower machine for 95% of people (compared with the rower) but the BikeErg would be faster for many.

There was a good deal of interesting and heated debate before the present compromise was reached allowing a SkiErg team on the CTC. Underlying this was the assumption that a SkiErg team would never be competitive with the rowers at the top level. So far, this has been the case. If ever a SkiErg team became a real challenger, I suspect that the current arrangement would be examined again.

In short, the SkiErg team is tolerated unless or until it challenges for the top positions in the CTC.

The BikeErg is a completely different matter; it would not be easy to post relevant times or distances on the CTC. Sophisticated calculations would have to be made and who knows if these would be applied correctly.

C2 already allow BikeErg metres to be used in their distance challenges. I can see the commercial sense in this but feel that it skews performances in favour of the bike. Personally, 100km on a bike seems a much easier task than a 50km erg.

Regards,
Joe

Personally, 100km on a bike seems a much easier task than a 50km erg.

You’re not alone there. 60 miles on a road bike is easily within the comfort zone of most weekend warriors. Not uncommon for sport tourists to ride 60-80 miles a day on supported camping or hotel tours. Even back to back centuries on a weekend are a lot more fun than 30 virtual miles on a RowErg (or on a mag trainer, Airdyne, or rollers for that matter).