thoughts on this used C2 (and meaning of numbers)

[JaapvanE]

Correct. I refuse to abandon my critical faculties and join the endless and absurd song of praise and adulation for Concept 2. This upsets many here. I give kudos where kudos are due.

There is a huge different between "being critical regarding a product" and being rambling madman that keeps shouting that C2 is the source of all evil. When people have valid criticism, I don't think you'd upset any people in this forum. Most are grown up enough to realize and accept that there are other and better machines out there that are not manufactured by C2. Personally, I love the RP3 as well (although it certainly has flaws in the durability department keeping me from buying one) and I'm really intrigued by the BioRower and the new WaterRower Bluetooth conversion kit. I guess most here are mature enough to accept other minded people.

But an extreme negative bias, where your only "contribution" to this forum seems to be to derail perfectly valid discussions, piss off people and subsequently haress them in PM's for no reason is in no way considered social behavior by me and I guess many other people.

Concept 2 has had two big ideas: Vaned flywheel resistance; and the self calibrating monitor. These were huge advances in rowing exercise technology. But that was back in the 80's, when C2 was still an innovative company. Decades have passed. What other great innovations has C2 introduced in the last thirty years? All of C2's patents have expired. The RowErg is just a Model B dressed up in a nice suit. That is a truth that no one wants to acknowledge.

Unless you lived under a rock for about two decades, it should be apparent that the innovation won't be in the mechanical realm. As a training device (and perhaps even competition device) the C2 has matured enough. End of the mechanical product design lifecycle. Marginal product improvements for the coming decades is all you'll get.

There are some very promising avenues where rowing innovation is taking place:

1. Gamification of rowing. Most sane people do not want to get on a machine and just row staring at a wall for 40 to 90 minutes. The target demographic wants to be entertained and wants some kind of game during a rowing session. Zwift became big for a reason. Aside C2's real time loop (babysteps) you find EXR (maturing product) and CoZweat (very young but promising product) are the way to go. HoloFit already provides 3D solutions for rowing. Or provide classes like Apple and Regatta do (and Hydrow, Peleton, etc.).
2. Remove the noisy airbased flywheel and replace it with a dynamically magnetic braked system. Combined with modern electronics it has colossal benefits over a static air-drag based system. NordicTrack has dynamic drag and can even simulate upstream and downstream rowing based on the exercise on the screen. But that is the easy stuff, the big improvement is in quick micro-adjustments. Some players like Hydrow are working on that already: they can perfectly simulate the much more dynamic behaviour that a real oar moving through water has. This opens up a huge range of possibilities, as this allows simulation of totally different rowing behaviour (heavy on the catch, light on the rest, etc.). In home-gym equipment, this already is commonplace.

So expecting a radically new mechanical design, that is so 1990's.....

[JaapvanE]

C2 probably no longer needs many of the patents anyway, nobody can copy what's in the monitor these days and C2 has just too big a head start in the market. By IP I really mean the actual monitor firmware.

I agree with Carl completely here. The underlying physics is textbook stuff, no patents can be granted as you can't patent an implementation of software only doing calculations based on the laws of physics. Getting the physics to work is a bit tougher, but many have done this already and published the source code for it. Getting the physics to work reliably enough to create force curves is a bit more tricky, but still basic signal processing stuff we teach students in their last years in the MSc-programs. But, with OpenRowingMonitor we do this at a cost of running the CPU at its maximum setting, burning a lot of energy and creating a lot of heat in the process.

But making a monitor robust, compact, energy-efficient, reliable and still outperform all other monitors in the market is a huge achievement. No you can't patent it, but the design is part of their design file and is indeed extremely valuable intellectual property. And it probably contains some tricks I still need to learn.

[Carl Watts]

Not bad for a monitor that uses like 30mA, eh ?

The PM2 did it all on 1.2mA in the final version.

[Slidewinder]

it should be apparent that the innovation won't be in the mechanical realm.

The United States Patent Office disagrees with you. With respect to the mechanics of rowing ergometers, Concept 2 does not have a monopoly. Simply because C2, years ago, ran out of ideas for mechanical improvements, the US Patent Office has not concluded that the field should be closed. It still accepts patent applications for mechanical improvements in rowing exercise technology, and has granted several patents in this area in the last couple of decades.

There is nothing shameful in running out of ideas. The C2 founders were young men when they came up with the ideas of vaned flywheel resistance and a self-calibrating monitor. But the founders are now well past retirement age now. It is rare for innovators to sustain creative energy for a lifetime. I too have run out of ideas for mechanical improvements to the rowing ergometer. I am on to other things, but I am glad I did what I did. Sakly mockingly demands to see my patents. I can't post them here. They will immediately be deleted. It is true that most of my work has not been commercialized, and this is a source of amusement for Sakly and others here. But long gone are the days when some lads could cobble together bicycle parts in their barn and launch a rowing ergometer business. Now, it would take very deep pockets to bring a new rowing ergometer design to market.

Additionally, the personal attributes of someone with an inventive imagination and impulse are different that the personal attributes of someone who enjoys the challenges of manufacturing and marketing. Sometimes those attributes come together in one person, but it is rare. In Concept 2's case, the necessary and different personal attributes related to invention, manufacturing, and marketing were probably not present in any one individual, but collectively in the persons of D. and P. Dreissigacker, and J. Williams. I have designed and built many things over the years, and many times I have heard the comment, "You could make a lot of money selling those!" But my interest and enjoyment is in the designing and building, not in manufacturing and marketing. There is no reason this should be a source of amusement, or cause for mockery.

[jackarabit]

Bob, not your customary feverish indictment of C2 and its supposedly brainwashed customer base. I commend you for a fair and balanced comparison of a notable instance of genius realised in the successful commercial repurposing and dissemination of an out-of-season sport simulator as a low-impact aerobic exercise machine to a notable instance of genius realised as pursuit of a “better mousetrap” critique of a successful marque. Many are called; few are chosen. The joys of personal investigation and accomplishment can be maintained even in anonymity. You have your grav return answer to lost effort and your injury-preventing ergonomic handle. Be happy.

[jamesg]

Decades have passed.

What would you want to see; or not see?

Gym machines can only try to mimic real shells, and the erg does this quite well. It even has variable drag, unlike the water in my local lake, which gets harder and heavier every year. However kayak is great fun all the same.

[Slidewinder]

Bob, not your customary...etc.

Well written, Fred. You have a flair with words. No objection to my assertion that Concept 2 ran out of ideas years ago?

I will continue to scoff at all those who sing hallelujahs with misty-eyed wonder as it the self-calibrating monitor and vaned flywheel resistance were innovations introduced early last week, rather than 30 and 40 years ago. Imagine if cyclists, decades now after index shifting was introduced, posted on cycling websites, daily songs of praise and love for the Shimano engineers who invented index shifting. You would think that they were demented. Cyclists accept index shifting as a given, and have moved on. They never say, regarding bicycle technology, leave it just the way it is, don't change a thing. They are always hungry for innovation. If rowers had half the attitude of cyclists, rowing exercise technology would have advanced far more in the last 40 years than it has. Instead, all we have in 2023 is a Model B dressed up in a nice suit.

[JaapvanE]

Gym machines can only try to mimic real shells, and the erg does this quite well. It even has variable drag, unlike the water in my local lake, which gets harder and heavier every year. However kayak is great fun all the same.

Especially given the price-point of a RowErg. There are more advanced and more realistic options, but they typically cost a five-fold of a C2 and do not add much value for the average rower aside looks and less noise. C2 is the most popular brand for this reason. Despite having some hefty competition from companies with a better looking and more complete product like Hydrow and Peleton.

Even in cycling, where people easily spend €1000 on a set of wheels, most innovation is in the gamification/socializing of cycling (i.e. Zwift, Peleton) and not the mechanical bikes themselves. A bike is still a bike, only it is made of carbon instead of aluminium. Companies like Garmin, Wahoo etc. added options to bring the bike inside and get more sensordata, but guess what C2 and others did 5 decades ago for rowing. Adding some more advanced sensor packages to rowing, similar to cycling, might be interesting for some. However, the ones I've seen entering the market are expensive and lack openness (so no FTMS data, blocking a development similar to cycling) or don't make it past the prototype stage due to lack of commercial interest.

So I guess the market has spoken here.

[Slidewinder]

Decades have passed.

What would you want to see; or not see?

Gym machines can only try to mimic real shells, and the erg does this quite well.

The static RowErg does a good job of replicating the resistance of OTW rowing, and it has a sliding seat. That's it. Those two things are the beginning and the end of its fidelity to OTW rowing. It doesn't replicate the feel of a boat moving under the rower, stroke by stroke. Dynamically balanced units do that. It doesn't replicate the moving of sculling oars through two arcs, nor does it replicate the movement of a sweep oar moving through one arc.

Here are three predictions of future mechanical improvements to rowing ergometers. These improvements will surely occur when the stifling influence of C2's market influence is eventually, and inevitably, overcome:

- Dynamically balanced units will replace static units. In Europe, some clubs have already cleared out all of their static machines and replaced them with dynamic rowing ergometers. I predict this trend will continue. Also, a simple improvement: the forward moving mass on dynamic units will incorporate weight adjustment. This will enable the rowing athlete to adjust the weight to match the portion of weight of the boat for which he/her is training, whether the full weight of a single shell; a double (divided by 2); a quadruple (divided by 4) and so on.

- People will finally wake up to the reality that a rigid, single-piece handle does not replicate any known rowing stroke. Articulated handles that better replicate at least a portion of a sculling stroke will become commonplace. I have done some work in this area, but I make no claim that innovation in this field is closed. I think it might be possible to design a handle that captures almost the full geometry of a sculling stroke - that is, without the need for outriggers and oarlocks, but from a single point of attachment to the chain or pull cord. I have not been able to crack this nut, but maybe soemone with more insight will.

- A means will be introduced to ensure that the handle return force profile remains constant regardless of machine age or usage. This will ensure that the claimed level playing field in competitions is actually true, with no possibility of debating the question. There are different ways this could be accomplished, but C2 moderator censorship on this Forum will not allow open discussion of any of the possible approaches to the problem.

[JaapvanE]

- Dynamically balanced units will replace static units. In Europe, some clubs have already cleared out all of their static machines and replaced them with dynamic rowing ergometers. I predict this trend will continue.

Names please. I live in Europe, speak to quite some people in the field, and it is still 99% C2's as they are cheap, robust and easy to maintain. Despite some efforts of fitness companies, normal gyms (including the general national olympic training centers) will buy C2's as well, for the same reason. National rowing team training centers typically own some RP3's, but the experience still is they are too unreliable and maintenance intensive. And when you own a fleet of machines and are on a budget, that is an issue.

A friend of mine actually bought a RP3 from a club, as they were ditching them due to the maintenance effort. He is extremely happy with the machine, so he sold his C2, but it certainly isn't an observable trend here in Europe that clubs are replacing C2's with dynamic machines.

[Slidewinder]

- Dynamically balanced units will replace static units. In Europe, some clubs have already cleared out all of their static machines and replaced them with dynamic rowing ergometers. I predict this trend will continue.

Names please.
.

You can go to YouTube and type in 'Dutch women's rowing team', and also 'Dutch men's rowing team', and you will find videos of them training in rooms full of dynamic units - the men on black ones, the women on silver ones. Quoting the Dutch men's head coach: "It's more rowing, really rowing. More like rowing than other machines, so you can coach and train them better on technique on these machines. In my previous post I was quoting the head rowing coach at nearby Trent University, one of Canada's rowing hubs for Olympic hopefuls. He has coached rowing around the world so he would be aware of current trends.

[JaapvanE]

You can go to YouTube and type in 'Dutch women's rowing team', and also 'Dutch men's rowing team', and you will find videos of them training in rooms full of dynamic units - the men on black ones, the women on silver ones. Quoting the Dutch men's head coach: "It's more rowing, really rowing. More like rowing than other machines, so you can coach and train them better on technique on these machines.

Yeah, that is a promoshot for RP3, taken at the Bosbaan, our national rowing training center. As I indicated, as a national rowing team training center, they have a small fleet of the RP3's. When you look at real footage of the Bosbaan, you'll see a fleet of C2's on the opposite side of the same room (see for example this documentary about the Dutch women: https://youtu.be/s63GCzk_0Sw) at a much more desireable placing: overlooking de Bosbaan. Guess where most meters are made.

In fact, the docu shows that, most footage is on the C2, and only some is on the RP3. Both tools have their place in a training program, but none is perfect. As RowPerfect's pricing is hefty and maintenance cost are significant, only a few clubs use them. Typically for specific training sessions for their aspiring talents, but not for the bulk of their training.

Aside that, current generation of rowers are more obsessed with watching Netflix during long steady state work than any mechanical improvements.

[gvcormac]

• Remove the noisy airbased flywheel and replace it with a dynamically magnetic braked system. Combined with modern electronics it has colossal benefits over a static air-drag based system. NordicTrack has dynamic drag and can even simulate upstream and downstream rowing based on the exercise on the screen. But that is the easy stuff, the big improvement is in quick micro-adjustments. Some players like Hydrow are working on that already: they can perfectly simulate the much more dynamic behaviour that a real oar moving through water has. This opens up a huge range of possibilities, as this allows simulation of totally different rowing behaviour (heavy on the catch, light on the rest, etc.). In home-gym equipment, this already is commonplace.

Please, no. C2 has better flywheel feel than any other rower. Magnetic does not increase resistance enough with velocity, and it typically coupled to inadequate inertial and a too-flexy (and too flimsy) pull strap (excluded from warranty, of course). Overall, the rigidity, inertia, and increasing speed of the C2 mechanism can't be beat. Does it perfectly simulate rowing? No, but I daresay the force-velocity-impulse curve is better than many that purport to do so.

[JaapvanE]

Please, no. C2 has better flywheel feel than any other rower. Magnetic does not increase resistance enough with velocity, and it typically coupled to inadequate inertial and a too-flexy (and too flimsy) pull strap (excluded from warranty, of course). Overall, the rigidity, inertia, and increasing speed of the C2 mechanism can't be beat. Does it perfectly simulate rowing? No, but I daresay the force-velocity-impulse curve is better than many that purport to do so.

When it comes to simplicity of a machine, I'd agree with you. And my NordicTrack, which combines a magnetic resistance with a double flywheel, contains all the issues you just described. However, that is the (total lack of) quality of the execution of a basic design. Dumped that machine, got a C2 and have been happy every day since.

And indeed, a static magnetic resistance will provide a constant dragforce that will not change with flywheel speed (please note: an air based rower has a dynamic dragforce that is the result of the dragfactor and the flywheel speed). This will result in a mediocre to bad experience when compared to an air based rower, where the resistance changes with the power you put into the machine. However, I'm talking about dynamically changing the magnetic resistance during the stroke. This is a much more dynamic approach, which technically is possible and looks promising.

Currently, there are some home fitness devices on the market which (magnetically) provide resistance for weight training. So a machine can provide a 100 kilo resistance, and it can shape the resistance to any shape you desire (so the 100 kilo at the bottom, and 25 on top, or the other way round). They even have high frequency detection of loss of control, reducing the resistance/pull to 0 instantly when people seem to collapse. The electronics is fast enough. So the magnet provides a constant changing magnetic force, based on some profile.

Some companies claim to use similar technology to provide variable resistance during the stroke, closely resembling a true on the water experience. Technically this is possible: force profiles for oars are known, so you can easily replicate them. So from a resistance perspective, the machine could clone the behaviour of any specific boat and oar combination on a specific type of water. The electronics certainly is fast enough to do this. Aside the obvious benefit of noise reduction, it would open doors for different training scenario's (like simulating coastal rowing with waves) and even specific loads to targeted training. It also allows for a more Zwift-like approach to training, where cycling uphill will change settings on your bike to make you feel the hill. Of course, this would be upstream and downstream rowing for us. This is part of the gamefication of many sports, an avenue World Rowing is very actively investigating (see https://worldrowing.com/2023/06/20/rowi ... -of-sport/) and where huge steps are taken, varying from simple games to entire 3D rooms, and everything in between.

I think that executing well on such a design, so combining the high build quality of a C2 with such a novel design would be quite interesting. But, it is a much more complex machine. From a field reliability perspective, such machine isn't easy to make reliable as it requires quite a lot of high frequency sensors and electromechanical actuators, where any malfunction will lead to a total loss of function (where a PM5 malfunctioning still allows you to row). And there lies the key. For me, and I guess for most home and fleet owners, build quality and reliability is everything. So a magnetic rower must have the same build quality as a C2 before it gains wider acceptance. But when that would be reached, you gain a lot of interesting new training methods.

[gvcormac]

I've owned a Nordic Track and it was adequate but nowhere as nice feel as the C2. My son also had a Nordic Track and wore out his strap in about a year. With some effort you can replace the strap with a generic webbing strap, but you need crankset/bottom bracket tools and some skill. My Model D has not been touched in 20 years (20th birthday in a couple of weeks) and works perfectly.

I've tried Technogym which I found OK, but still weird glitches in the feel. Even the famed Watt Bike, which has much to recommend it, does not have the same feel when you stomp on the pedals that the BikeErg does.

I have never felt a dynamic resistance machine that could react quickly enough to be credible. Maybe the people who build aircraft simulators could build one, but in my limited travels, I've never experienced one.