Differences Between C And D?

[[old] Ducatista]

Aesthetically, C kicks D's ass. I'll keep upgrading my ten-year-old Model C for as long as I can. So far I've traded up to a PM2 and a D handle.

[[old] ancho]

<!--QuoteBegin-Ducatista+Sep 19 2005, 07:27 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Ducatista @ Sep 19 2005, 07:27 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aesthetically, C kicks D's ass. I'll keep upgrading my ten-year-old Model C for as long as I can. So far I've traded up to a PM2 and a D handle. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />That's a typical comment comig from a Ducatista. Are you riding a Pantah? (I know you aren't) Great bike!<br /><br />Have a nice ride/row!<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Sleepy_Floyd+Sep 19 2005, 09:30 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Sleepy_Floyd @ Sep 19 2005, 09:30 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Sep 19 2005, 11:20 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Sep 19 2005, 11:20 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a glitch with the pm3 that has still not been fixed.<br /><br />The time should start when the rower starts.  The pm3 starting on it's own gives a time that is meaningless and not useful. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />I'm still relatively new to this whole erging game, but I'm not sure I agree with this statement. If the PM3 waited til you started rowing to start the clock, wouldnt that allow you to rest longer than you said you planned. If you're only interested in how fast you row a particular interval, then it will skew your time. But if you're looking at the entire interval process or row/rest/row/rest, etc.., its more accurate to do it this way. I like having to be prepared to row when my rest interval is completing. And I think being penalized on time, for not being ready is valid..<br /><br />If you're not going to be prepared to start rowing at the alloted time, whats the point in setting any interval at all? <br /><br />SF <br /> </td></tr></table><br />The pm2+ is 1/2 a second slow on each rest interval, so even if you start exactly on each one, the rest intervals would gradually give you more time than was planned. Example, you would get 30.5-31s rest each time instead of 30s as planned.<br /><br />Thus if I want 30s rests, I set the interval for 22 to 25 seconds, which gives me enough time to see and add up the reps, then I start by 30s on the timer, or a clock. This is exact for each interval. However, if I happen to miss one by 10s, for whatever reason, I can make it up over the next few intervals, taking for example 26, 26, and 28s in between for the next 3 intervals. It still comes out to 30s rests for each one, as I'm doing the reps every 90s on the clock.<br /><br />Now, the pm3 starts on it's own. I don't know if it also has the 1/2 second delay. Perhaps it does. If so, then none of the pm3 rest intervals are accurate anyway, as you are getting extra rest for each one. If I'm taking 30s rests, and the pm3 says 30s but it's really 31s, then that's not the same.<br /><br />However if you miss a start on the pm3, it starts on it's own and you end up rowing 50s (if doing 1:00 reps) instead of 60, and if you row 10s past that then it's not included in the time, which has already been added on and you got a pace based on 50s of distance but 60s of time. Not accurate!!!<br /><br />The pm2+ gives accurate times for the distances that you row. The pm3 doesn't.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Exrook+Sep 19 2005, 09:31 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Exrook @ Sep 19 2005, 09:31 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What you seem to be saying here is that the PM3 does exactly what you tell it to do, not what you really want it to do. <br /><br />Good information to know if I ever run across one in my travels and want to do intervals. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Right it doesn't get the accurate times, which is what I would want it to do.<br /><br />Comparing the two, I would say the pm2 is flexible, whereas the pm3 is rigid, and not flexible with priority to giving accurate output for the session.<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

Another way to say this is that the pm2+ holds you accountable for your row, whereas the pm3 doesn't.<br /><br />Let's say you are taking 30s rests on the pm2, my way where the interval is set for 25s but I start right on 30s with the clock. Now on one of these I figure to get a running start, and so I build up my pace 4 or 5 seconds before the end of the interval!!! This gets me going faster by the time the monitor starts going, right??? ..... Actually, no. The monitor already started exactly when I did! It records all my rowing for the minute, and gives me the exact pace and time at the end -- from the time I started rowing!!!<br /><br />Now compare this with the pm3.<br /><br />Here you have 30s set for the rest, and the monitor is going to start there regardless what you do. Now in this case you take the same 4-5s running start!!! Wow now this gets you going faster and faster so you are going FULL SPEED by the time the monitor starts!!!!!! The monitor didn't start when you did. However it did start on it's own 5 seconds later, and started the time while you were already going full speed into the row!!!!!<br /><br />This is very very very very easy to do on the pm3.<br /><br />It is impossible to do on the pm2+.<br /><br />The pm2+ holds you accountable and gives you the exact time and pace for your row.<br /><br />The pm3 doesn't.

[[old] holm188]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Sep 20 2005, 06:05 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Sep 20 2005, 06:05 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />Let's say you are taking 30s rests on the pm2, my way where the interval is set for 25s but I start right on 30s with the clock. <br /> [right] <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />John,<br />So the PM2 also does not do exactly what you want it to do: you need an extra clock to figure out your rest time. Great that you found a work around to make the PM2 suit your needs.<br /><br />With a little similar creativity you might get out of the PM3 what you want as well.<br /><br />

[[old] John Rupp]

Holm,<br /><br />Using the clock works very well actually. With running there are now all kinds of automatic timers, split timers etc, but many years ago I used the second hand on a wrist watch for my interval (departure) times, and a stop watch for timing the intervals.<br /><br />Yes I suppose using a clock is a work around to the monitor, but doesn't seem that way as the clock is more accurate than the pm3 anyway. Perhaps you saw the other thread where the seconds on the pm3 are not even consistent with each other.<br /><br />On the pm1 I had to reset the monitor after each rep, kept track of the times in my head, and used a clock for the departure times just like now, and as I have always used running. Basically all the pm2 does is put the start back to 0:00.0 each time, which is a great assist really since I don't have to reset the monitor in between, except after 20 reps remembering my average and starting all over.<br /><br />The workaround with the pm3 would be to go back and reset the monitor after each repetition again, the way that I did with the pm1.<br /><br />I don't know of any other way to ensure accurate times with the pm3.

[[old] eparizeau]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Sep 19 2005, 06:05 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Sep 19 2005, 06:05 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Another way to say this is that the pm2+ holds you accountable for your row, whereas the pm3 doesn't.<br /><br />Let's say you are taking 30s rests on the pm2, my way where the interval is set for 25s but I start right on 30s with the clock.  Now on one of these I figure to get a running start, and so I build up my pace 4 or 5 seconds before the end of the interval!!!  This gets me going faster by the time the monitor starts going, right???  ..... Actually, no.  The monitor already started exactly when I did!  It records all my rowing for the minute, and gives me the exact pace and time at the end -- from the time I started rowing!!!<br /><br />Now compare this with the pm3.<br /><br />Here you have 30s set for the rest, and the monitor is going to start there regardless what you do.  Now in this case you take the same 4-5s running start!!!  Wow now this gets you going faster and faster so you are going FULL SPEED by the time the monitor starts!!!!!!  The monitor didn't start when you did.  However it did start on it's own 5 seconds later, and started the time while you were already going full speed into the row!!!!!<br /><br />This is very very very very easy to do on the pm3.<br /><br />It is impossible to do on the pm2+.<br /><br />The pm2+ holds you accountable and gives you the exact time and pace for your row.<br /><br />The pm3 doesn't. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Why would anyone bother to get a running start on an interval workout? Makes no sense to me. Who cares?<br />

[[old] John Rupp]

With the pm3, it's the only way to ensure the monitor doesn't start before you do.

[[old] Amy]

Well, as expected, you all certainly know your ergs...<br /><br />I have been exhibiting patience (not my strong suit) to see if I could find a reasonably priced C unit for sale, and think I may have. So, I have a couple more questions. What are the differences between the PM2 and the PM2+? Also, it's been noted that there are differences between the footrests and the seat on the C and the D. I am not a big person (5'7", 108 lbs.). Does anyone know if I would find substantial differences in comfort factors? And if so, which would be more comfortable? Can I swap out the seat and footrests if necessary?<br /><br />Thanks for your help.<br /><br />Amy

[[old] c2jonw]

Hi Amy- Main differences between a PM2 and PM2+ see: <a href='http://www.concept2.com/05/rower/service/PM2_intro.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.com/05/rower/servic ... asp</a><br /><br />Other than normal variations in softness of the seats, there are no differences between the C & D seat. Regarding the footrests, for the first year and a half of production, the Model D had exactly the same footrests as the C (other than color). Current Model Ds have a larger toepiece that covers and protects the paint on the footplate. The flex foot has been redesigned for more comfort and variability in heel location. Both are retrofittable to a C, though from a rowing viewpoint there's not a lot of difference. Jon

[[old] Amy]

Many thanks Jon. I'm going to see it this afternoon and will let you know if I buy it!<br /><br />Amy

[[old] michaelb]

The main difference, maybe the only difference, between the PM2 and the PM2+ is that you can hook the PM2+ up to your computer for rowing online using erow and hook up to rowpro for online and offline use. I and others love rowpro, so it is well worth considering. You can easily upgrade the PM2 to a PM3 (not sure if C2 still sells the PM2+ as an upgrade) and hook up a computer that way, but that is an extra cost.<br /><br />I would certainly buy a used model C, and think that they are pretty indestructable. Mine is about 8 years old. The only thing I would do if I was looking at one used, in addition to trying it out etc, is I would lay on the ground and look up at the bungee assembly under the front section. My bungee is pretty fuzzy and may be frayed, but I haven't done anything to replace it, so while I wouldn't be too concerned about this, as far as know it is the only place you can really see "wear". You want the bungee to pull the handle up tight to the frame when you let it go. Check if the seat feels tight and rolls smoothly.<br /><br />Then buy it. Enjoy.

[[old] Ducatista]

<!--QuoteBegin-ancho+--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ancho)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Ducatista+--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Ducatista)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aesthetically, C kicks D's ass. I'll keep upgrading my ten-year-old Model C for as long as I can. So far I've traded up to a PM2 and a D handle. </td></tr></table><br />That's a typical comment comig from a Ducatista. Are you riding a Pantah? (I know you aren't) Great bike!<br /><br />Have a nice ride/row! </td></tr></table><br />It's true, I rank form right up there with function. No, no Pantah, in fact I traded my Duc in for a Daytona 955 last year. But once a Ducatista, always a Duca. Do <i>you</i> have a Pantah? If this board offered a drooling smilie I'd use it.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-c2jonw+Sep 23 2005, 05:03 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(c2jonw @ Sep 23 2005, 05:03 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Regarding the footrests, for the first year and a half of production, the Model D had exactly the same footrests as the C (other than color). Current Model Ds have a larger toepiece that covers and protects the paint on the footplate.[right] </td></tr></table><br />For upgrades, it would be nice for the footplates to go up a bit higher. In the highest position, which is the one I use, my toes are over the ends and have no place to push off. It would be nice if the toe plates, and flex feet, went up at least another inch or so.<br />