Water rower vs Concept 2

[TheBigGuy]

I am curious about the difference between a water rowing machine and a concept 2.

Water rowers can vary depending on the water level, but assuming it is filled properly, are there major differences between the two as it relates to training?

I rowed my first 10k the other day and I got a 35:34, which looking at comparing times was really good, however, I am curious if it translates to the gold standard.

I started out on a C2 for a few years and the new gym I go to only has water rowers.

[winniewinser]

I am curious about the difference between a water rowing machine and a concept 2.

Water rowers can vary depending on the water level, but assuming it is filled properly, are there major differences between the two as it relates to training?

I rowed my first 10k the other day and I got a 35:34, which looking at comparing times was really good, however, I am curious if it translates to the gold standard.

I started out on a C2 for a few years and the new gym I go to only has water rowers.

Water rowers report notoriously 'faster' times than the gold standard C2....I don't think there is a comparison tbh.

[JaapvanE]

There are some thing to unpack here. For my background, I'm one of the developers of OpenRowingMonitor, so I deal with the metrics of a large variety of machines, including water rowers.

I am curious about the difference between a water rowing machine and a concept 2.

Water rowers can vary depending on the water level, but assuming it is filled properly, are there major differences between the two as it relates to training?

The machine feels different. This is in fact true for most rowing machines: it is about the balance between drag (the tendency of the flywheel/impellor to slow down due to air/water resistance) and inertia (the tendency to resist speed changes). When this balance changes, it can feel heavy at the start and easy to pull through, or vice versa. So the excercise and where the brunt of the work is done, differs from machine to machine. And some "profiles" fit a specific individual better than others.

I rowed my first 10k the other day and I got a 35:34, which looking at comparing times was really good, however, I am curious if it translates to the gold standard.

I started out on a C2 for a few years and the new gym I go to only has water rowers.

In my experience, most monitors (except some noteable exceptions like C2 and RP3) deliver bad metrics. Even good monitors differ slightly, so results aren't directly comparible. The guys from EXR (a rowing game) are developing a race mode, and found great difficulty in making results more comparible across brands. So best way to compare is to sit on a C2 and row a 10K again.

[jamesg]

are there major differences between the two as it relates to training?

Depends on your style. If you use your legs as hard as you can and long enough, you'll get fit, whatever you do and wherever.

On the C2 you can adjust the speed of the pull using the damper. On WR by adjusting the water level (I guess). A stroke should take about 0.7s so that there's plenty of rest time before the next while still pulling at a speed that allows high force.

To compare the two and indeed any other machine, you'd have to do say 20 minutes at the same HR and check the readings. Use of HR as a proxy for something or other is a well known ploy in some sports I believe, failing anything better.

The C2 is unique, in that it measures power in the ISO unit Watt. If you multiply your average Watts by time, you know exactly how much work you've delivered to the flywheel. Your power can also be directly related to HR, using a C2, so that if you do any exercise without direct and accurate power control, your historical HR data can tell you roughly what you're doing.

For example, right now I can only do no-load squats (I'm 80+ kg and years so don't need any extra) alternating with a sort of inclined pressup, both at about 22 a minute. I keep HR 90 to 100 by adjusting pauses, until the legs or shoulders give up, almost. On the C2 erg I stay between 120 and 130 for both HR and Watts; the rowing style engages more muscle.

[JaapvanE]

The C2 is unique, in that it measures power in the ISO unit Watt. If you multiply your average Watts by time, you know exactly how much work you've delivered to the flywheel.

In all honesty, the C2 isn't unique in that at all. Most rowers can display it. What it is unique in, is that the displayed watts make any sense.

For example, I owned a NordicTrack, which displayed watts as well (no speed, but total distance). I could very easily pull a constant 400 Watt on that machine. With much training and improved technique, I'm still never made it past the 300W mark on a C2. Looking the inner workings of a lot of monitors, I come to conclude that most monitors are an afterthought in the design, and most mechanical designers mimmic a C2, but are totally clueless how an Erg should feel. The monitors basically are glorified pulse counters. As an illustration, the NordicTrack says in the manual that its watts are only valid at damper setting 10. Please note that is DF450 (!), a very unhealthy setting which was introduced by a designer after complaints from users that the DF was too light for crosstraining powerlifters....

Your power can also be directly related to HR, using a C2, so that if you do any exercise without direct and accurate power control, your historical HR data can tell you roughly what you're doing.

In my experience, that doesn't work. It makes machines more comparable, but the mechanical behaviour is too complex to do this on a simple comparison. After a year of weekly comparing my NordicTrack with the local Gym's C2, I got close. But once I got my own C2, I noticed there was a 2 seconds pace difference between my C2 and NordicTrack when put really side-by-side.

[jamesg]

That's why I call it ISO. If quoted but inaccurately, there is fraud.

We know HR is lousy as a measurement, I'm just suggesting something that might make it slightly less lousy. Conconi plotted Watts agains HR, why shouldn't we if we want to? There's no criminal intent in applying it to ourselves, only illusion as to accuracy.