C2 Erg Prototype

[johnlvs2run]

John,

The reality of the situation is that balance is not required on land. Unless you add a CorePerform to your rowing machine, you just row and don't have to worry about setting a boat. Again, you refuse to tell me if you have actually rowed before.

Paul,

Balance is always required, but it is not much of a factor on the grounded erg, whereas it is important on the slides. I have rowed more than 40 million meters.

Ignoring everything else

Well that makes it easy then.

I just wanted to emphasize that I did not find the prototype to be herky-jerky.

It is obviously quite herky-jerky in the video. That you find that to be good is not reassuring.

I rather appreciated it. I earnestly hope you get a chance to try one. It's not as bad as you think. The C2 representative I spoke to said the earliest it would be out is in six to nine months. Plenty of time to continue testing and 'tune' it to the feedback.

I certainly hope the product comes out well, and that they keep developing the design in the meantime.
Based on the video, there is still quite a long ways to go.

9 years ago the primary concern of C2 was establishing a base market for their machine.

Actually I first got an erg in 1994.
Since then C2 has come out with the modelC, the slides, the modelD, the modelE, and now they are working on a prototype.
I guess you are agreeing with me that C2 was not interested in developing this design 9 years ago.

Had C2 put its time and effort into a machine that was 'difficult' to row, they would have lost a huge amount of business

The machine should be balanced.

[bloomp]

Look, there is a big difference between your "amazing" work rowing on slides and actually putting a boat into the water. Just because you can't fathom it doesn't mean the difference isn't there. The only balance required on any rowing machine produced by C2 is the balance to simply sit up straight. That's pretty damn simple. Handle height makes no difference. Body position makes no difference. The machine does not wobble or move whatsoever.

The machine is balanced because it is simply sitting there with zero pitch, yaw or roll. In a boat, the stern moves down as you drive through the water and the bow thrusts out. There's yaw. On the erg, there is no downwards or upwards motion, save minimal compression from the slides. In a boat the possibility to roll to either port or starboard side is there. Just move one handle up and the other down in a single. You'll find yourself closer to the water on one side. There's roll. No such thing on the erg, unless you have a coreperform. Pitch is completely negated on the water because you are floating there. If anything, it would be comparable to turning the boat. You don't turn the erg as you row it.

If you want me to tell you the reasons you're wrong, I will, but you seem to be behaving like our other geezer here and not thinking about what you're saying. First of all, the video you saw is not the prototype anymore. The seat is not on a separate platform anymore. Maybe if you read the posts of other people here, you'd recognize that.

I'm not talking about when you bought an erg. I'm saying that 9 years ago (the model C was brand new 9 years ago) the market for a rowing ergometer was severely limited to people who cared about rowing. Since then that number has increased and C2 doesn't necessarily need to sell in bulk to health clubs or fitness centers. The demand from ROWERS is enough. And the feedback from rowers has told them they need a new model. No, this design would not have been a good business pursuit 9 years ago because there was zero demand for it. Your buddy Warren might have had a genius idea but there was no way to turn a profit off something not enough people would buy.

[johnlvs2run]

I'm not talking about when you bought an erg. I'm saying that 9 years ago (the model C was brand new 9 years ago

No, the modelC came out in 1994, right after my modelB purchase.

this design would not have been a good business pursuit 9 years ago because there was zero demand for it

Well then why come out with it now.

Based on your facts, C2 should scrap the prototype and anything else that was discovered in the 20th century.

[johnlvs2run]

The only balance required on any rowing machine produced by C2 is the balance to simply sit up straight. That's pretty damn simple.

Except that I'm able to go 3 to 5 seconds faster per 500m on slides, and you're not able to do this.

Rhythm and balance are the key.

It remains to be seen if the prototype will be balanced, but I think it will, now that this discussion has ensued.

[bloomp]

Are you actually as stupid as you sound? Have you not read what I posted? There is a MUCH LARGER MARKET for such a machine nowadays. There is MONEY in that market. Why do you think C2 SELLS machines instead of giving them away, it's a business. Why do you think they created something that is very durable, with results that can be reproduced quite readily? Why are they the only company on the market that tries to involve its customers with the company that sold them it's machines? They are a business, John. The initial machine they made was perfect for the demands of the rowing world. As Roland points out, the demands have changed now. Many teams require slide results, not stationary erg results. C2 is responding with creating an erg that functions like a stationary erg on slides but takes up a lot less space.

And my performance on slides has never been brought up. In fact, I do enjoy rowing on them, but it is impossible to find any near where I live. I cannot fit them in my room at home, and the varsity womens team here doesn't have any. I have used them at the HOTC display and found it much easier to maintain a lower pace. I used them at rowing camp several years ago and did not struggle at all.

Have you ever noticed the fact that I primarily row OTW? I row a single and have mostly spent time in boats through my five years in the sport. You are as foolish as ranger to write somebody off without ever seeing what they can do.

[NavigationHazard]

Cheers, the 'kink' visible in the force curve I posted is because I did something with my body to break momentarily my connection to the handle. That can happen when you go from a paddle to 1:22 pace r47 in the space of about two strokes, in street clothes and shoes that slid around in the footstretcher.

I do not for an instant believe it's inherent in the design. At other stroke ratings and pressures my force curve looked as normal as it does on any other erg/monitor combo.

[macroth]

It seems to me that Paul and John have to very different concepts of "balanced" in mind. Paul's is pretty clear. I have no idea what John is talking about.

John, why don't you tell us what you mean by "balanced"?

[jliddil]

OK from a totally different prospective. I have not rowed but I have ocean kayaked a fews time all day long. So yes a C2 doesn't pitch yaw etc. It would be damn hard to flip a C2.

And I look at the erg as a piece of exercise equipment so I belong to the non-rowing community. I still need to "balance" when I ride a Lifecycle or on the Elliptical or when I used to use a Nordic Track.

For me is the C2 a easy to use and maintain piece of equipment? Does it provide a killer workout?

I assume C2 will make the new one as bomb proof as the Model C/D/E.

Technique wise you see it across all equipment. People don't know how to lift weights even on machines. The have the seat height all wrong on the exercise bike.

[eldberg@cstone.net]

Guys,

As I said before, the first prototype required considerable concentration to keep the seat stationary. Adding bungees felt great, and greatly reduced the vague feeling. Was this an improvement, or a less authentic feeling? It depends on who you ask, and frankly I don't care.

Paul seems to think the market for this machine is far larger than it was a decade ago. If ergs are anything like bicycles, I can tell you from much personal business experience that is definitely not the case. The market for any nonessential is greatly reduced. The time of easy credit, and pie-in-the-sky is over. The shake-out is far from over, but at this point it appears the 'stupid old geezers" may be the only group with any disposable income left. If that is the case, this erg with its much lighter action, which is easier on the back, and knees should be a winner.

I don't know if Concept's machines are still built in the USA, as my old model B was. If they are, this would make it doubly good. Now that the working class can no longer live on credit, we must go back to making things here. Having half the "redundant" working class guarding the other half in prison won't work.

Warren

[johnlvs2run]

John, why don't you tell us what you mean by "balanced"?

Sure, as mentioned here:

The CofG should move in the same direction as the upper body, the opposite direction of the legs.

Because the CofG moves only a small amount, any leeway in the seat should be likewise,
as well as being in the same direction as the upper part of the body - rather than bouncing around aimlessly.

See the photos of Warren on the erg to see excellent illustration of this.
http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=127898#127898

I am not disagreeing that there could be some play in the seat, as well as that the seat could be fixed.

It takes a little imagination to "see" the CofG, but doing so should not be difficult.

[macroth]

Because the CofG moves only a small amount, any leeway in the seat should be likewise,
as well as being in the same direction as the upper part of the body - rather than bouncing around aimlessly.

Otherwise, the seat would go, for example, the same direction as the legs when pushing with the legs.

See the photos of Warren on the erg to see excellent illustration of this.
http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=127898#127898

I am not disagreeing that there could be some play in the seat, as well as that the seat could be fixed.

It takes a little imagination to "see" the CofG, but doing so should not be difficult.

First of all, your entire point about the seat bouncing around is based on a video of a prototype that is quite different from the current version, correct? So in fact, you have no idea whether this is an issue with the latest prototype?

Second, of course fixing the seat prevents the CoG from moving much. But why is this a requirement? PROPER TECHNIQUE should ensure that the CoG remains stationary, if the goal is to better approximate OTW rowing. With a fixed seat, just like with fixed footrests, you can wail away without having to worry about technique. On slides or on a Rowperfect, "balance", as you call it, is achieved mainly by the rower, not the design.

[johnlvs2run]

First of all, your entire point about the seat bouncing around is based on a video of a prototype that is quite different from the current version, correct? So in fact, you have no idea whether this is an issue with the latest prototype?

My comments are based on what always happens, regardless of how far along c2 is with the prototype.
And is this not a recent photo of the prototype. One can easily see the length of the bungees.

Second, of course fixing the seat prevents the CoG from moving much. But why is this a requirement?

Fixing the seat would NOT prevent the CofG from moving. It would ensure the CofG moved the same direction as the torso.
In fact, fixing the seat would ensure the CofG always moved MORE in balance than it does in the prototype shown.
I did not say that fixing the seat is a requirement, but that it would stop the wrong movements.
It would be a big improvement to the prototype and, who knows, maybe to anything else they'd come up with.

PROPER TECHNIQUE should ensure that the CoG remains stationary, if the goal is to better approximate OTW rowing.

The CofG should NOT be stationary, nor should it go the opposing direction to the torso.

With a fixed seat, just like with fixed footrests, you can wail away without having to worry about technique.

That is not so. With a fixed seat, the CofG is in the center near the seat.
Anyone would still need to develop a good rhythm and technique, the same as on slides.

The grounded erg does not move at all!!! Big difference.

On slides or on a Rowperfect, "balance", as you call it, is achieved mainly by the rower, not the design.

Well if you jump off a cliff, the action was done by you, not the cliff.

But if you instead sat on the ground, this would still be your doing, but you would not fall off the cliff.

[Yankeerunner]

There is an old saying, "A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are for."

I've always looked upon the C2 as a Rowing machine, to do Indoor Rowing races. Not as an exercise machine that should be refined until it stops being a rowing simulator. Refinements should be made to more closely resemble rowing, such as slides, tippy seats, etc. if it is to remain useable for Indoor Rowing competitions. If the prototype passes muster with the OTW rowers then it's all right by me.

[bloomp]

John,

I posted that video well before crash-b's. I have no alternative video of the new prototype. You say that you want the machine to be balanced but for the center of gravity to move more. Because the center of gravity of the rower moves on a fixed plane (the erg doesn't bobble) it is balanced. The center of gravity of the rower has no lateral motion with proper technique. Hell, for the center of gravity to move the most, it's best to row on a stationary erg and have to move your entire mass around!

The center of gravity remains practically THE SAME regardless of whether the seat moves. The motion of the seat has zero effect on where the rower's mass is located. Now if there was roll induced by the seat, sure you would see it change. If there was pitch, it would change. But because you get motion on a single plane, there is a minimal change in the center of gravity. The change that may occur is that of the shoulders moving from over the thighs to over the slide - and that only moves it slightly through the trunk. From the inguinal area to around the lumbar vertebrae.

[Nosmo]

A few things:

1)
C2jon said the new prototype is more forgiving of bad technique. NOt sure what he means by more forgiving. Seems like bad rowing would result in less injuries and less movement of the erg when thrashing or perhaps complete novices just row better when they get on it.

2)
Quite clearly Paul and John have different definitions of Balance. Paul's definition is what OTW rowers would commonly use. It is how I would use the term and quite clearly he is correct in that rowing on an erg requires almost no balance by that definition.
Johns definition seems to have more to do with movement of the Center of mass and how Smoothly one applies power. I think he may be correct by his definition but I'm not really sure what he means so I will reserve judgement for the time being. However what ever he means we/he needs to come up with a better term or miscommunication will continue.

3)

The only disadvantage to heavyweights would be having power outputt based on weight.

What you want to say is the velocity or pace to be based on rowers weight. This sloppy language and as such completely wrong. Power is the amount of work a rower does period. Power output should not be scaled based on the rowers weight. It needs to be measured consistently and hopefully accurately.

4) As an experimental physicists, if people who row this machine find it to be smoother and not herky-jerky then I take that as evidence that it is not. Obviously it can be rowed in a herky-jerky fashion but any rower can be.

5) There are all sorts of Business reasons that C2 may not have been interested in Warren's Prototype years ago and would be now. Perhaps they just didn't have the money to commercialize it or the free human resources to develop it. We just don't know.

6) the C2 people are very smart and very good engineers. They are also very good rowers. They do care very much about making the rowing community and any new model will not be less like rowing a boat.