Handle Bio-mechanics

[Bob S.]

Bob S:
You wrote, "By the way, you did not address the issue I raised of ergonometric problems with oars."
I didn't respond because I'm unclear of your point. Are you suggesting that because there are bio-mechanical flaws in actual rowing, that for realism, I should have incorporated those flaws into the handle design?
Robert

No, no, not at all. My point was that OTW rowers are used to using rigid handles and would not be so likely to regard the rigid handle of the C2 as an disadvantage. For anyone else, I think that you have come up with a useful innovation.

Bob S.

[Nosmo]

Slidewinder,
Recognize that what may make a lot of sense from a bio-mechanical point of view may not make sense from a business perspective. I'm not sure any of your innovations are worth the expense for C2 although clearly a subset of ergers would find them helpful. Don't think most rowing programs (which is where most ergs are actually used) would use your handle or the seat extension. I like the foot strap replacements quite a bit.

[Bob S.]

Slidewinder,
Don't think most rowing programs (which is where most ergs are actually used) would use your handle or the seat extension.

Now that brings up another question. Are you sure of that? I have never seem statistics on that, but I have long had the feeling that it has switched over to the point where the C2 users who have never been on the water outnumber those who do row on the water. (There are also some OTW rowers who never use the C2.)

I got this feeling from a number of sources - meeting people at erg competitions who have never rowed on the water, observing the proliferation of organizations like Rowbics that promote the C2 for exercise, and from the impression that I get from the UK forum that quite a number of the members are not OTW rowers.

Bob S.

[Nosmo]

Now that brings up another question. Are you sure of that? I have never seem statistics on that, but I have long had the feeling that it has switched over to the point where the C2 users who have never been on the water outnumber those who do row on the water. (There are also some OTW rowers who never use the C2.)

I got this feeling from a number of sources - meeting people at erg competitions who have never rowed on the water, observing the proliferation of organizations like Rowbics that promote the C2 for exercise, and from the impression that I get from the UK forum that quite a number of the members are not OTW rowers.

Bob S.

Well no I'm not sure, but I've been to a lot of clubs and schools that have numerous ergs. There are several people in my club that have ergs and the club has a half dozen at the boat house, but none of us go to erg competitions or rank results. The other clubs in my area actually have far more ergs. What I think you are seeing is two separate groups where the overlap is relatively small.

[Slidewinder]

Citroen:
Re: What problem am I trying to solve?
It's clear you haven't read the postings in this thread, or you have not absorbed their contents. When you have, you will be better equipped to contribute to this discussion.
Re: Who invented the light bulb? It's irrelevant to the point I was making.
Robert

[Slidewinder]

To All:
A general comment on the Slidewinder handle design:
Everyone here knows that there are rowing machines available that enable the accurate replication of the sweep and sculling action. Oartec was mentioned in a previous post. (in the prior art patent record there is, in my view, a more elegant mechanism than that utilized by Oartec - but that's another issue) Thankfully, most people understand that the Slidewinder handle is not intended to transform the Concept 2 ergometer into the Oartec. Making that comparison, as some stubbornly insist, is like comparing a nicely balanced high quality hammer to a pneumatic nail gun - and complaining that the hammer can't keep up with the machine that costs fifty times more (while refusing to acknowledge that the simple, compact design of the hammer has advantages of its own).

Don't compare the Slidewinder handle to the (several thousand dollar) Oartec machine, compare it to what it is intended to replace - the stock handle. Then it's like comparing a nicely balanced, high quality hammer to a rock tied on the end of a stick.
Robert

[bloomp]

We've never made that comparison. We're just saying you are wrong to try to convince us that it works different muscles than the regular handle. Your body is using the exact same motion to move the flywheel. You are still gripping a handle with the same two hands at approximately the same spot. Just because you move the hands closer together (or at an awkward angle) doesn't all of a sudden engage a different muscle. It just changes the area of the muscle that the contractions are most vigorous in (in fact it probably just stresses one end of the tendon more than the other).

Also, at no point in the rowing stroke do you rotate your arms as shown. Never. In sculling, the hands are always kept at the same level (and the arms don't rotate), in sweep rowing they are on the same plane for the entirety of the drive.

Regardless of my different opinion, ingenuity is always excellent to see. I especially like the modified straps for the feet.

[Tinus]

We've never made that comparison. We're just saying you are wrong to try to convince us that it works different muscles than the regular handle. Your body is using the exact same motion to move the flywheel. You are still gripping a handle with the same two hands at approximately the same spot. Just because you move the hands closer together (or at an awkward angle) doesn't all of a sudden engage a different muscle. It just changes the area of the muscle that the contractions are most vigorous in (in fact it probably just stresses one end of the tendon more than the other).

Also, at no point in the rowing stroke do you rotate your arms as shown. Never. In sculling, the hands are always kept at the same level (and the arms don't rotate), in sweep rowing they are on the same plane for the entirety of the drive.

Regardless of my different opinion, ingenuity is always excellent to see. I especially like the modified straps for the feet.

While it does not technically change which muscles are used it does change the way how these muscles are used. Isn't is fussy to argue about this detail. For me personally this handle would be a good thing and I can imagine it could be good for others as well. I spend a lot of time on the concept rowing machine and for me a handle which replicates the lateral motion and position of the hands during the final phase of the drive might be a benefit.

Just in the same way I continuously try to improve weightlifting exercises for the best result on the water and may end up with the exact same movement but with other muscles used (Or more technically 'muscles used differently'. It is just a manner of speaking).

[Tinus]

Everyone here knows that there are rowing machines available that enable the accurate replication of the sweep and sculling action. Oartec was mentioned in a previous post. (in the prior art patent record there is, in my view, a more elegant mechanism than that utilized by Oartec - but that's another issue)

I personally believe this one is the most nifty design I have seen until now.
http://www.row-right.com/scullsim.html

[TabbRows]

Everyone here knows that there are rowing machines available that enable the accurate replication of the sweep and sculling action. Oartec was mentioned in a previous post. (in the prior art patent record there is, in my view, a more elegant mechanism than that utilized by Oartec - but that's another issue)

I personally believe this one is the most nifty design I have seen until now.
http://www.row-right.com/scullsim.html

WOW! That add-on costs as much as the machine!!

[Tinus]

Everyone here knows that there are rowing machines available that enable the accurate replication of the sweep and sculling action. Oartec was mentioned in a previous post. (in the prior art patent record there is, in my view, a more elegant mechanism than that utilized by Oartec - but that's another issue)

I personally believe this one is the most nifty design I have seen until now.
http://www.row-right.com/scullsim.html

WOW! That add-on costs as much as the machine!!

Yeah, it's only the design which I like and the price is very bad (but I don't believe it differs much from the Oartec price). What I like about it is the constant resistance. If one attaches the chain directly to the handle (which now changes angle during the stroke) then ratio between the strain on the chain and the strain on the handle wouldn't be constant because there is an angle between the chain and the handle which changes during the stroke.

The original device under discussion in this topic is exactly the opposite. It is only a minor adjustment to the machine but it should be something which could be constructed for a fair price.

[Nosmo]

Another expensive but very intelligent erg add on:
www.rowbalance.com

Now if someone could just figure out how to combine the WILIS, the row-right sculling simulator and a non-fixed erg, that would be a great invention!
It looks like one could put the sculling simulator on slides but I'd expect weight would be too much for it to feel right.
Same problem with the WILIS if one designed slides for it, but the new C2 prototype would probably work with the WILLIS.

[bloomp]

Another expensive but very intelligent erg add on:
http://www.rowbalance.com

Now if someone could just figure out how to combine the WILIS, the row-right sculling simulator and a non-fixed erg, that would be a great invention!
It looks like one could put the sculling simulator on slides but I'd expect weight would be too much for it to feel right.
Same problem with the WILIS if one designed slides for it, but the new C2 prototype would probably work with the WILLIS.

The new C2 prototype is unfortunately higher off the ground than the Model E, which may be too unstable when combined with the WILIS.

I think the combined version of the non-fixed erg ($900 for the D+PM3, $290 for slides), sculling sim ($950 plus $100 S&H), and WILIS ($1500) would be over $3500. Not a pleasant thought!

[Nosmo]

I think the combined version of the non-fixed erg ($900 for the D+PM3, $290 for slides), sculling sim ($950 plus $100 S&H), and WILIS ($1500) would be over $3500. Not a pleasant thought!

What I had in mind was designing a machine from the ground up that combined all aspects.

[Slidewinder]

Re: Row Right Sculling Simulator
That is an embodiment of the "prior art" which I stated was more elegant than the Oartec. Gary Piantedosi is credited as being the designer. This is only partially true. The mechanism itself received a patent in 1988
(Pat.#4,743,011). So the patent has now expired. Mr. Piantedosi's design contribution was to combine the original patented mechanism with the C2 ergometer. I like it as well.
Robert