Dynamic Rower versus the Static ones

[pj7]

I've used the static C2s for years in local gyms and have debated for a while purchasing one for home use. My use is just for basic fitness. My theory is that a session on one of these plus sets of push ups is a pretty complete total body work out. I now see that the dynamic type rowers have become very popular as trainers. If I were to purchase one of those it would be from Concept 2 because of my familiarity with the equipment and the company.

However I'm interested in opinions of the Dynamic model. I realize it takes up less floor space which is a consideration. I've also read that many experience less or no lower back pain on this type of rower. But I wonder if the same total body effect is possible on these as compared to the static ones. I'm familiar with the different movements of the two models. I don't have one of these in my area to make my own comparison. And again I'm not a competitive rower and the "on the water" feel is not really important to me.

Thanks for any advice.

[Carl Watts]

Lower back pain is the result of the rower not being set-up correctly. The Concep t 2 Erg is the LEAST UNDERSTOOD piece of equipment you can find in the Gym and most personal trainers have no idea how to set it up either.

If you not OTW and want just general fitness and weight loss then I would go static. It comes appart easily and is light to move even in one piece if you just lift up the end. It's been arround for years in the same basic design and is practically maintenace free.

Learn about the "Drag Factor" and how to set-up this up with the damper on the fan and the actual numbers of importance on the rower and run between 110-130 and you will have no problems.

[Slidewinder]

Dear pj7:

I do not share Carl Watts opinion that dynamic rowing ergometers are primarily training tools for OTW rowers. It is my view that dynamic rowing ergometers represent the future direction of rowing machines. Stationary devices (ie: Model D & E) are already dinosaurs. In a few years, I predict, they will be completely eclipsed by rowing ergometers that incorporate a dynamically balanced action.

I cannot offer advice as to whether you should purchase the RowPerfect, the Oartec Slider, or the C2 Dynamic. There are online reviews and comments about all of these machines. Aesthetically though, I would rank the Oartec Slider as the best looking device, the RowPerfect I would place next in a beauty contest, and on the C2 Dynamic I would bestow the ugly duckling award.

The C2 Dynamic appears to be patched together from spare parts, because that was how it came into being. Concept 2 didn't have time to worry about looks. They had to get it done. Why so? Let's turn back the clock.

RowPerfect was the first dynamic ergometer available. Its patent dates from 1995. Owners love it, but in market share it has never been a threat to Concept 2. The Oartec Slider though, changed things. For years, Concept 2 had sleepily basked in success, confident in its unchallenged position, but the sudden appearance of the Oartec Slider shook Concept 2 out of its lethargy. At that time (2009 - 2010), Concept 2 was still peddling its slides as an add-on to its stationary models, but the Oartec Slider brought everything together in a compact, elegant package. It looked great, it was receiving rave reviews, and it was about the same price as a C2 machine.

Concept 2 was caught off guard by this development. They had to scramble. The Oartec Slider was a real threat. Something had to be done to neutralize Oartec's initial marketing campaign.

Concept 2 had nothing remotely comparable to the Oartec Slider, but they announced to the public that they too would soon introduce a dynamic model. This was a strategy calculated to persuade people to postpone their purchasing decision ("Let's wait and see what Concept 2 is going to offer"). Concept 2 was at risk of losing not just their market share, but also their long nurtured image as an innovative company. Now here they were, chasing rather than leading an innovation. It must have been a bitter pill. A C2 newsletter from that period describes the development of the C2 Dynamic as "exciting". Well, desperation undoubtedly could be characterized as "exciting".

Concept 2 quickly cobbled together spare parts from the attic into a workable dynamic prototype. It was presented as "The Dynamic Indoor Rower Redefined". Over the course of several months they issued press releases, photos, and updates of the various tweaks to the prototype. Then after they had milked the last drop of publicity from the development process, they took the device on the road to clubs and regattas, further delaying the roll-out of the final product. All this was carefully timed to correspond to the estimated duration of Oartec's initial marketing campaign - so as to inflict maximum damage on the newcomer.

When the dust had settled there were few signs of the Oartec Slider - at least not in North America. Concept 2's strategy had worked.

In summary, although Concept 2 had no competing product to offer when the Oartec Slider appeared on the scene, by the use of brand recognition and loyalty, calculated publicity, and tactical delays, Concept 2 was still able to stomp on the competition. Should this elicit our admiration or contempt? They did nothing illegal, and the outcome certainly benefited Concept 2. Whether it benefited the rest of us is doubtful.

The only Oartec Slider I have seen, a beautiful looking machine, is on YouTube. But Concept 2 did not deliver a knock out punch to Oartec. Apparently, in Australia, the situation is quite different. There C2's tactics were less effective. I have heard that certain rowing clubs in Australia have removed all of their stationary C2 machines and re-equipped their facilities completely and exclusively with Oartec Sliders. The story is not done.

I am not a competitive rower, but I nevertheless appreciate the superiority of a dynamic rowing ergometer to a stationary device.

I own three dynamics. One is a Model D which I extensively modified to obtain the dynamic action. The other two are prototypes which I designed and built from scratch. All three utilize gravity and inertia for dynamic balance and handle return. For thirty years, starting with Concept 2, rowing ergometers have been using an elastic cord to take up the chain and return the handle. These three machines, in my studio, demonstrate that gravity will more simply and elegantly accomplish the same thing. Thirty years of using an elastic cord! Is this innovation?

During use, all three of these gravity driven devices rhythmically rise and fall in sync with the fore and aft sliding of the seat, further replicating the effect of on-the-water weight transfer in an actual rowing shell.

After using these, a stationary machine is a lifeless thing - a water logged scow stuck in the mud. I strongly advise you to purchase a dynamic rowing ergometer. You won't regret it.

[pj7]

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm still looking at the options. I have no way currently to compare any of the dynamic rowers and my long term experience with C2 ( the static ones) and my familiarity with the company draws me to them when it comes to purchasing. My one question regarding any of the dynamics and especially the C2 is about the resistance at the beginning of the drive, if that's the correct term. I've read that there is low to minimal resistance and perhaps a bit of "slop" with the C2 dynamic when initiating the drive with your legs.

Since I'm using my gym's C2 rower in combination with some other exercises as essentially a total body workout and find this to be effective, I might be disappointed in the possible lack of resistance, at least for the legs. For now that still has me leaning towards their static rowers but I will be following the development of both Oartec's and C2's machines. The Rowperfect ones are priced at more than I could justify for my purposes.

[Carl Watts]

Blah, blah, blah some of us don't bother going on and on we just want something ultra reliable and interactive to row on 4 or 5 times a week, cover 50Km+ and worry about other things that are a bigger problem in life.

The Rowperfect ones are priced at more than I could justify for my purposes.

And this is the main reason as to why they are never going to dominate the market.

Just set-up the static properly and you will be away. Your not even going to have the initial problem of sore muscels you didn't know you had because your alrerady using one at the Gym. The biggest problem long term is motivation (Static or Dynamic it's going to make no difference)for most people so look at getting RowPro and row live online with others if the useage of it drops off to near zero.

[Slidewinder]

Prospective purchasers of dynamic rowing ergometers should understand that Concept 2 does not want them to purchase the C2 Dynamic. The singular purpose of the development of the C2 Dynamic, as explained in my previous posting, was to neutralize the initial marketing campaign for the Oartec "Slider". Mission accomplished, now Concept 2, in a kind of poetic justice, is burdened with the necessity of persuading people not to purchase the C2 Dynamic. Why? Because the Model D and E are the money makers. If everyone were to purchase the C2 Dynamic, Concept 2's profits would plummet.

Although the smooth, flowing, balanced movement enabled by a dynamic rowing ergometer is immediately experienced as an enormous improvement over a stationary unit, a future in which dynamics replace stationary ergometers is a future Concept 2 doesn't want to see. Concept 2 wants everyone to continue to fling their body mass up and down the seat rails of the Model D and E forever.

Many posters on this forum actually believe the carefully nurtured marketing mythology that they and Concept 2 are "family". They are still waiting for an invitation to a Dreissigacker backyard barbecue. Therefore it's difficult for these deluded souls to grasp that it is of no concern to Concept 2 whether "family" members are provided with a device that enables a bio-mechanically correct exercise. It's all about the bottom line.

In one of C2's newsletters, Concept 2 almost begs potential customers not to purchase the C2 Dynamic. Under a bold heading, "Reasons Why the Model D or E Might be a Better Choice for you", Concept 2 argues that the C2 Dynamic is more complex, that it has more moving parts, that it needs to be leveled, that it is narrowly sport-specific, that it provides no physical benefits that couldn't be obtained on the Model D or E.

Imagine if General Motors told potential customers that a particular model car was "more complex", and had "more moving parts", and therefore the purchase of that model should be re-considered. It would make you wonder...

The assertion by Concept 2 that dynamic rowing ergometers are more "sport-specific", and therefore not suitable for the general user, is nonsense. This is misinformation calculated to serve Concept 2's financial interests - to discourage people from purchasing any dynamic machine, either their own or a competitor's. But dynamic ergometers are not going away. Despite C2's assertions to the contrary, people will come to know that it is entirely unnecessary to be a rowing athlete or to possess any special level of co-ordination and/or athleticism to appreciate the superiority of a dynamic rowing ergometer over a stationary unit. Dynamic machines need just one additional improvement - the replacement of the stone-age, rigid handle with the articulated handle I developed. When that is done, both rower and non-rower will finally be brought together in their shared experience of bio-mechanical nirvana.

In my last posting, pj7, I declined to give advice as to which dynamic rowing ergometer to purchase. On re-consideration, I will offer my advice. Since Concept 2 doesn't want you to purchase the C2 Dynamic - then don't; and since the RowPerfect doesn't fit your budget, the choice is simple. Purchase the Oartec Slider. You can be confident you are purchasing quality. There were good reasons, when the Oartec Slider first appeared, why it scared the wits out of Concept 2.

[JRBJR]

I don't know if the motives you ascribe to C2 with respect to the Dynamic erg are correct or not. But I do know that when I queried C2 about their plans for building a dynamic erg back in 2009, they stated there was no need for one and therefore no plans. One year later and we're getting videos of the Dynamic betas at rowing events around the world. I've been using a Model C on slides for several years and, aside from the huge footprint this consumes on my office floor, I'm relatively happy with its feel, performance, and obvious lesser strain on my back, and would certainly never go back to a static erg. I've never located an Oartec Slider or the updated RowPerfect (RP3 or the Australian model) to try out locally, so I can only say that they have very compact, interesting, and easily movable designs based on the available videos and testimonials.

I have tried out the C2 Dynamic erg and I don''t like it much: with its blocky metal toolbench table legs design and unsatisfying feel at the catch and all, I would never trade in my Model C and slides and buy one. It certainly does give the impression of something that was not well thought out, designed, or produced, but instead something that was rushed out quickly so that C2 could mount their PM5 on a "dynamic" platform and get some skin in the game. If that was in fact all it took to slay the overpriced but superior RowPerfect and similary-priced and superior Oartec, then that doesn't say much about the sophistication of the average dynamic rower buyer, nor the marketing and sales departments at either company.