Vertical Hands Rowing Bar

[tadpole]

Slidewinder, thank you for the detailed description. In your experience, is there a difference between johnlvs2run's approach and the SportRower approach regarding the benefits you mentioned throughout this thread, ignoring the reach problem (for now)? From your previous posts, I think the difference is negligible?

[Slidewinder]

Slidewinder, thank you for the detailed description. In your experience, is there a difference between johnlvs2run's approach and the SportRower approach regarding the benefits you mentioned throughout this thread, ignoring the reach problem (for now)? From your previous posts, I think the difference is negligible?

I have never tried the SportRower handle, for two reasons: 1) It is ugly, and little can be done to improve its appearance. 2 )I am tall, and there is no good solution, no modification that would solve the problem of forward clearance at the catch.
These criticisms do not apply to johnlvs2run's handle set-up.

With the SportRower handle, the distance between the handgrips can vary a bit during the progression of the stroke, but not much. By contrast, I like how with johnlvs2run's set-up the distance between the handgrips is determined by the physiology of the user, and increases as the stroke progresses. It is not obvious but as this spread occurs the handgrips move through an angular progression that is a good approximation of the angular progression of the handgrips that takes place during the latter part of an actual sculling stroke. No, it is not a full sculling stroke, but a partial replication is better than no replication at all - which is what is offered by the C2 stock handle.

So, for OTW rowers, John's set-up is better than the C2 stock handle. For non-rowers - surely the majority of rowing ergometer users - his set-up is also better than the stock handle. It is only through forty plus years of indoctrination that users have come to consider the ability to rotate one's hands during a RowErg workout, as a radical idea. Why would anyone want to have their hands always fixed in one position!? The ability to rotate one's hands during the workout engages other muscle groups and adds variety and interest to the program. Surely even OTW rowers would welcome a change-up now and again.

[tadpole]

Thanks, I tried my first proof of concept today, but didn't really like the feeling, I'm gonna try some adaptations similar to johnlvs2run's approach.

https://imgur.com/a/Oo9JICp

[Tsnor]

I notice that seats are always hard, but we get used to it. As also rowing in hot sun, fog, rain, ice and snow. I hate to think how coach felt on his bike along the towpath.

Worst for coach is ALUMINUM launch in spring with water temps in the 30s F (0-5C). The launch bottom reaches the colder water that's a few inches below the surface and the aluminum heat sink pulls all the heat out of the boat.

Off topic diversion, Tsnor.

you are correct.

[jamesg]

It is therefore a reasonable request that you actually try johnlvs2run's set-up before you dismiss it.

I've no problem to solve. I pull no more than 500 strokes a day, and not particularly hard. Indeed if I pull hard, as Monday, 200 is plenty. Hard for me means 350-400N.

Of course real oarsmen pull at least twice that force, so may well be interested. But they might not like the additional slack items.

[Slidewinder]

It is therefore a reasonable request that you actually try johnlvs2run's set-up before you dismiss it.

I've no problem to solve. I pull no more than 500 strokes a day, and not particularly hard. Indeed if I pull hard, as Monday, 200 is plenty. Hard for me means 350-400N.

Of course real oarsmen pull at least twice that force, so may well be interested. But they might not like the additional slack items.

The benefits of johnlvs2runs handle set-up have nothing to do with how hard the user pulls. A rowing ergometer handle is a human/machine interface. At any such interface the machine should adapt to the natural movements of the user (which John's set-up does), not the user to the machine (as is the case with the C2 single-piece, rigid handle). The "slack items" are always under tension, so they are never slack, and in any case in my April 30 reply to tadpole I explain how all of the rope linkages John uses could be readily replaced with rigid linkages. His assembly is crude. A commercial embodiment of his idea could look very slick. I suggest you and others try John's set-up just to get a sense of the potential of the C2 RowErg. After forty-plus years of indoctrination, pulling on a rigid stick of a handle, I understand that it is difficult for C2 enthusiasts to imagine that things could be much, much better.

[JaapvanE]

After forty-plus years of indoctrination, pulling on a rigid stick of a handle, I understand that it is difficult for C2 enthusiasts to imagine that things could be much, much better.

Namecalling again?

Adding more degrees of freedom to a normally essentially quite static 2D movement (rowing) isn't a good thing per se. In fact, it might hurt people.

More degrees of freedom puts additional stress on control muscles. Compare it to a bench press using a machine (in essence a 1D movement) to dumbells (a unrestrained full 3D movement). It requires quite additional control muscles to work hard, at some hefty forces (as jamesg mentions, 400N isn't that exotic). There is a reason why rowing weight excercises (a space absolutely not influenced by C2) always use static bars.

Additionally, where on a static bar a very light grip suffices, for a 3D movement people really start to deathgrip.

Some people can handle it, but many can't. Please note, this isn't an academic discussion. One of my former training partners was completely out of the running for five years, including an operation and several cortison treatments by doing stuff dynamically he shouldn't. He never rowed again (ruptured underarm muscle).

[Sakly]

Discussion about what is "better" or "worse" doesn't really make so much sense. Neither in the rowing world, nor in the weight training world.
From my experience I can say, that you are wrong, JaapvanE, in weight training very often rings or single grips are used for pulling exercises (do it on my own regularly). And they exactly do what you mention, but they also release stress from joints, which can move more freely now (typically shoulder). There is always a pro for another con.
Anyway, the main problem typically is overdoing something and creating problems by that, due to missing adaptation time for the body. The body has great adaptation capacities, but it needs continous stimulus and time to adapt. If the stimulus gets too "hard" (too long, too often, too short rests), the body breaks down (in these specific areas at least).

[JaapvanE]

From my experience I can say, that you are wrong, JaapvanE, in weight training very often rings or single grips are used for pulling exercises (do it on my own regularly).

Always happy to learn from you Sakly. My gyms are probably a bit more conservative.

And they exactly do what you mention, but they also release stress from joints, which can move more freely now (typically shoulder). There is always a pro for another con.

I don't know. When the movement (for example a bar) creates stress due to to its effects to arm rotation/position, I'd agree. But else the forces are pointing the same direction. What you hopefully see is that people reduce training weight to allow for the extra coordination. But in my experience, the average gym goer won't do that.

Anyway, the main problem typically is overdoing something and creating problems by that, due to missing adaptation time for the body. The body has great adaptation capacities, but it needs continous stimulus and time to adapt. If the stimulus gets too "hard" (too long, too often, too short rests), the body breaks down (in these specific areas at least).

In theory, yes. But most people are impatient

[Slidewinder]

After forty-plus years of indoctrination, pulling on a rigid stick of a handle, I understand that it is difficult for C2 enthusiasts to imagine that things could be much, much better.

Adding more degrees of freedom to a normally essentially quite static 2D movement (rowing) isn't a good thing per se. In fact, it might hurt people.
More degrees of freedom puts additional stress on control muscles.

With the C2 stock handle, the macro geometry at the catch is an isosceles trapezoid. The distance between the user's shoulders form the base. The user's arms form the two equal sides. The C2 handle forms the second parallel side. The chain connector is at the centre of this second parallel side. An isosceles trapezoid is not an inherently stable 2-D structure, but this configuration during use and under tension provides good stability.

In johnlvs2run's set-up (and in my described alternate iteration of his idea), the macro-geometry at the catch is an isosceles triangle. The distance between the user's shoulders form the base. The user's arms and John's handle structure form the two equal sides of the triangle. The chain connector is at the apex. During use, and under tension, an isosceles triangle is an inherently stable 2-D structure.

The C2 stock handle and John's handle both provide good user stability. The differences are elsewhere:

John's handle enables rotation of the hands anywhere from horizontal to vertical. The C2 handle doesn't.
The handgrips of John's handle follow the natural angular progression of the user's grips as the stroke progresses. The C2 handgrips don't.
John's handle maintains alignment of the hands, wrists, and forearms in the direction of the applied force throughout the stroke. The C2 handle doesn't.
John's handle enables a partial replication of an actual sculling stroke. The C2 handle doesn't.

[JaapvanE]

In johnlvs2run's set-up (and in my described alternate iteration of his idea), the macro-geometry at the catch is an isosceles triangle. The distance between the user's shoulders form the base. The user's arms and John's handle structure form the two equal sides of the triangle. The chain connector is at the apex. During use, and under tension, an isosceles triangle is an inherently stable 2-D structure.

It does not work as you describe. In essence, the arm amd rope form the triangle, where the base is shortened during the stroke and thus the handles have to be pulled apart under stress. At the fininsh, when the arms are at its weakest point for the control muscles, you need to pull it apart the most forcefull to keep the rope under tension. The catch position and getting there is far from a stable 2D process.

[Sakly]

From my experience I can say, that you are wrong, JaapvanE, in weight training very often rings or single grips are used for pulling exercises (do it on my own regularly).

Always happy to learn from you Sakly. My gyms are probably a bit more conservative.

And they exactly do what you mention, but they also release stress from joints, which can move more freely now (typically shoulder). There is always a pro for another con.

I don't know. When the movement (for example a bar) creates stress due to to its effects to arm rotation/position, I'd agree. But else the forces are pointing the same direction. What you hopefully see is that people reduce training weight to allow for the extra coordination. But in my experience, the average gym goer won't do that.

Anyway, the main problem typically is overdoing something and creating problems by that, due to missing adaptation time for the body. The body has great adaptation capacities, but it needs continous stimulus and time to adapt. If the stimulus gets too "hard" (too long, too often, too short rests), the body breaks down (in these specific areas at least).

In theory, yes. But most people are impatient

The average gym-goer shouldn't be the focus, when discussing about "right" and "wrong" or theoretical aspects, as the typical gym-goer doesn't think about that stuff and only does what the trainer writes down without questioning it.
Another, but smaller group of gym-goers are the ego-lifters you are referencing to. In this group more people tend to take it serious and try to reach goals for strength or physique, thus using higher intensities and are more prone to get such problems we talk about.
The smallest group is particularly the group of people, which have a high understanding of biomechanics, physics, training concepts and their connections to each other.

With regard to your second quote: when you change a rigid bar for a pulldown exercise to separated loose handles, the force direction of the cord and connected weight stays the same, right. But not the applied forces of the muscles over the joints, which can use another movement pattern/pathway through enabled rotation. This is what causes the change in muscle stimulus and utilization. Handles with each their own cord connection to the weight, change the force direction as well, stimulus changes again.

[JaapvanE]

With regard to your second quote: when you change a rigid bar for a pulldown exercise to separated loose handles, the force direction of the cord and connected weight stays the same, right. But not the applied forces of the muscles over the joints, which can use another movement pattern/pathway through enabled rotation. This is what causes the change in muscle stimulus and utilization. Handles with each their own cord connection to the weight, change the force direction as well, stimulus changes again.

Easiest is to compare a machine based bench press to an olympic bar bench press vs a dumbell press. If nothing is done about the weight per arm, force on the shoulder is identical. It have some extra movement, but not much. But a dumbell press requires a lot more coordinating muscle to guide the movement.

When working with cord, indeed direction of force changes, but depending on the cord length, a lot of force might be needed to pull the ends apart to get the right cord tension.

[Sakly]

With regard to your second quote: when you change a rigid bar for a pulldown exercise to separated loose handles, the force direction of the cord and connected weight stays the same, right. But not the applied forces of the muscles over the joints, which can use another movement pattern/pathway through enabled rotation. This is what causes the change in muscle stimulus and utilization. Handles with each their own cord connection to the weight, change the force direction as well, stimulus changes again.

Easiest is to compare a machine based bench press to an olympic bar bench press vs a dumbell press. If nothing is done about the weight per arm, force on the shoulder is identical. It have some extra movement, but not much. But a dumbell press requires a lot more coordinating muscle to guide the movement.

When working with cord, indeed direction of force changes, but depending on the cord length, a lot of force might be needed to pull the ends apart to get the right cord tension.

First part is obviously not correct, if you apply the physics. A machine lets you work on only a single path no matter what. Even if you try to apply force in a different direction, the machine guides exactly on this defined pathway and "freezes" the motion pattern, extremely difficult to move joints freely. A free barbell needs to be balanced by the user, so the user can influence the motion pathway, which leads to another joint load, force on different joint parts, where muscles and ligaments run over or are attached.
Last example of dumbbells are going further one more dimension, so the same holds true. Now the user has to control the complete movement pattern and can influence the different load parts to joints fully on his own.
Even the physical term "force" of the weight in terms of a vector based on gravity, mass and its acceleration and dynamic behaviour changes in these examples, when going from fixed pattern to loose to free. This is mainly the reason why drop in weight is needed.

[JaapvanE]

[A free barbell needs to be balanced by the user, so the user can influence the motion pathway, which leads to another joint load, force on different joint parts, where muscles and ligaments run over or are attached.

Hence my example of a dumbell press. When the weight per arm stays the same, so does the force on the shoulder if the path stays identical. But you need to recruit different adjacent muscles to steer it through its path.

One can change the path, sometimes changing forces on joints. But that typically has some hefty effects. For example, on a dumbell press goong wide (making it a half-baken dumbell fly), where stresses on elbows and shoulders actually increase with respect to the straight movement.