PM update

[jackarabit]

Couldn’t build the better mousetrap by the only metric that counts—units sold. Hence the axe-grinding. Grace in defeat is hard for most us and impossible for some.

[Slidewinder]

+Carl Watts and jackarabit: Who else can recite patent numbers? Anyone. The USPTO website is open to all. It is a fact that can be confirmed by anyone that all of Concept 2's important innovations occurred during the first few years of its existence, and that the patents describing those innovations have all expired, and that C2's intellectual property bank relating to rowing exercise technology is now empty. Reflect upon this. Don't attack the messenger for bringing it to your attention.

[Allan Olesen]

Anyone. The USPTO website is open to all.

You shouldn't read the question as "Who else has access to the information about C2's patents?".

You should read it as "Who else would bother looking into the information about C2's patents?".

I certainly wouldn't. Even though my work sometimes requires me to read patents, I have absolutely no idea how reading C2's patents would benefit me as a C2 user. I suppose the majority here are in the same boat as me.

[bob01]

Disappointed at the point scoring here.

As someone who sat on a concept 2 20 + years ago and also sat on a leading cycle turbo trainer about the same period. The cycle has advanced beyond recognition. Whilst the erg has seen little innovation

Some on here seem happy with that. BUT, if competition in the erg market encouraged similar improvements would those who are content dismiss the advancements.??
Of course not!...

Is there a way of encouraging concept 2 to get off their metaphoric fat ass. And innovate... Simple for them just adapt smart trainer's attributes. But as said at the outset monopoly leads to complacency

[Slidewinder]

+Allan Olesen: You shouldn't read the question as, "Who else would bother looking into information about C2's patents." You should read it as, "What can be surmised about the public perception that C2 remains an innovative company when the patent record clearly shows otherwise."
I agree with bob01 about "point scoring", and I think the question I frame is in accord with his expressed sentiment, "Is there a way of encouraging Concept 2 to get off their metaphoric fat ass. And innovate..."

[Allan Olesen]

Slidewinder, I fail to see your point.

On the other hand, I see a very annoying quote technique. I think you should start using the built-in quoting functionality in this forum. It would make your posts much more readable.

[Slidewinder]

+Allan Olesen: I do not believe you are unable to comprehend the question, "What can be surmised about the public perception that C2 remains an innovative company when the patent record clearly shows otherwise?" For clarity I will repeat that all of the important C2 innovations occurred in approximately the first 10 years of C2's existence. Does this then qualify C2 to be forever referred to as innovative?


+To others: There are various factors which contribute to the chronic lack of innovation with respect to the C2 rowing ergometer. It is only partially due to the absence of competition. (If I'm allowed, I will later post an account of how Concept 2 dealt with the launch of the Oartec "Slider", the only real competitive threat that C2 has encountered in its history.)


C2's lack of innovation is also sustained by a vast army of users, C2 groupies I call them, who rabidly defend Concept 2 and everything about the C2 rower. They so identify with the company and the product that any criticism of either is interpreted as a personal attack, and they respond accordingly. We see this over and over in this forum (and in this thread). This bizarre attitude must change. This is Concept 2's website, so C2 would note with satisfaction how criticism of the rower is received. It is not a climate in which the innovative spirit thrives.


As pointed out earlier, by the patent record, and by the evidence embodied in the C2 rower, all the important innovations occurred decades ago. Since then it has been 30 years of same old, same old. Can we speculate that ego has played a part in this? There must be young engineers on staff at C2, and surely they have presented innovative ideas to the founders. How were those ideas received? Again, the non-evolution of the C2 rower tells us all we need to know.

[lcantey]

I imagine that a large part of the reason the core components don't change is for reproducibility. When you are dealing with maintaining records over time it gets harder with each major change. That doesn't pertain to user friendliness but we do see advances in that area with ErgData and the like though having that sort of functionality built-in would be nice. I don't have an explanation why they don't do better on HR average and the like.

[Citroen]

(If I'm allowed, I will later post an account of how Concept 2 dealt with the launch of the Oartec "Slider", the only real competitive threat that C2 has encountered in its history.)

You're not allowed. Also, if you fail to follow the normal quoting conventions of this forum you WILL be banned. You've already been warned by the moderation team.

[Citroen]

I imagine that a large part of the reason the core components don't change is for reproducibility. When you are dealing with maintaining records over time it gets harder with each major change. That doesn't pertain to user friendliness but we do see advances in that area with ErgData and the like though having that sort of functionality built-in would be nice. I don't have an explanation why they don't do better on HR average and the like.

It's probably more along the lines of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Concept2 with their old, traditional rowing ergo (which is only a training aid after all) seems to have been very successful for a non-innovative company with their expired patents.

Some of the maths in PM3/PM4/PM5 has been left alone so that the results won't differ from those created by a PM2. We can argue til the cows come home whether Concept2 made the right choice with that decision.

[Allan Olesen]

+Allan Olesen: I do not believe you are unable to comprehend the question, "What can be surmised about the public perception that C2 remains an innovative company when the patent record clearly shows otherwise?" For clarity I will repeat that all of the important C2 innovations occurred in approximately the first 10 years of C2's existence. Does this then qualify C2 to be forever referred to as innovative?

Now you ask me to form an opinion on something I don't care about at all. You are not only noisy. You are boring. How many words will you continue to waste on this subject?

[Carl Watts]

Its not broken so don't fix it.

Some would also argue that their bycycle has come along way since the 1980's but I would say its hardly changed. Still ride mine that I purchased in 1984. Just upgraded the crank bearing to a sealed unit and had to replace the wheels but its still running the steel frame. Makes a rats ass bit of difference on the flat and trying to save a couple of Kg is a waste of time when you weight 100Kg on a bike.

The Concept 2 rower has evolved and it works. Yes I could build a better rower but whats the point, time is better spent elsewhere like actually using it. You always have to factor in cost, make it twice the price and you will only sell a fraction of them, make it four times the price and you will not sell any of them.

Probably better off not replying to this thread and just let it die.

[bob01]

Let it due by all means ... But sensible software upgrades like average hr and stroke rate cost nothing

[Slidewinder]

x it". Concept2 with their old, traditional rowing ergo (which is only a training aid after all) seems to have been very successful for a non-innovative company with their expired patents.

Citroen wrote: C2...seems to have been very successful for a non-innovative company with their expired patents

Not sure if I used the quote feature correctly Citroen, but it was an honest effort.

If I were allowed to post an account of how Concept 2 dealt with the launch of the Oartec "Slider" it could be seen that not all of the reasons for C2's success are admirable.


A general thought: I used to own a Jeep Cherokee, which I liked very much, but if in an automotive forum someone were to criticize the Cherokee, I can't imagine getting angry. I can't imagine posting a reply telling that person to stop lurking around the car forum and saying bad things about my Jeep Cherokee, yet this is the response of many forum members to any criticism of C2 or the C2 rower. I find it utterly baffling. Maybe "C2 Derangement Syndrome" should be a recognized psychiatric condition.

[Citroen]

Concept2 own this forum so they can set the rules.

You wouldn't post about a Jeep Cherokee being better than a Ford Kuga on a Ford forum without expecting to launch a flame war.