Although the flywheel is fixed. There is mass added to the stretcher to give it more inertia. This would more closely simulate the inertia of a boat. That would be some arbitrary figure, like the total weight of a 1x, 1/2 the weight of a 2x or a 2-, 1/2 the weight of a 2+ and cox, 1/4 of the weight of a 4x and so on. I am not sure if this was C2s goal, but I once heard a figure quoted for the mass of the moving part. I don't remember what it was, but it was in the ball park of the possibilities I mention above. That was for the second version of the new model which was on display in Boston last season. Since that was still in development stage, the current test version by be different. In regard to C2s goal, I believe that they are relying of feedback from users to determine the optimum mass for the average user.Carl Watts wrote:The Rowperfect however is the right approach, get the flywheel to move as this is lighter than moving your bodyweight. In theory the new concept 2 is better still as there is no mass of even the flywheel to move.
It just occurred to me: since there is such a wide variety, not only in boat weights/rowers, but also in the weights of the rowers themselves. Since a shell designed for lwtW is much lighter than one designed for hwtM, perhaps the new erg could have a way of varying the mass of the moving part to match the preference of each user.
Bob S.
