The Aviron Impact Series (an odd name for a low-impact exercise machine) rower is $2149, while a C2 Model D is $900.
The Model D has been in gyms for decades. Literally, your local gym may have one that's decades old and still in perfect shape. Olympic rowers train on them. A significant portion of people who row already have one and aren't going to need a replacement any time soon.
The video on Aviron's website focuses heavily on the software, but the rower itself does not look like it should cost twice what a C2 does. The belt is plastic. The rail's finish looks like it will wear off. The rear support looks less sturdy and stable than that of a C2. The ramrod straight handle looks blister-inducing. The whole thing looks very plastic. Note that I'm not saying the rower isn't worth the money. The build quality and ergonomics might be excellent. It just doesn't look like a rower that's worth 2.39 C2's.
The display is a big improvement over anything C2 sells, but $1249 can buy a pretty nice display and a basic computer to run it, or a big ol' tablet and a mount.
Peloton probably had an easier time entering the exercise bike market because there wasn't any one competitor as dominant as C2 is. However, they do now offer an app that lets people use their software and classes without buying a Peloton bike.
The question for Aviron is, can they sell their rower without their software being exclusive to it? They would undoubtedly find more users if they supported other rowers, C2 specifically, but would the extra monthly memberships bring in more than sales from their rower if the software remained exclusive to it?
I feel like a cool business model would be to make a replacement color screen for the C2s that can do more stuff. Their built-in games and programs are fun but very limited. I would love to have a Peloton experience on a 500 dollar screen I could add to my existing rower.
Last I checked, nylon was still a thermoplastic.
And yes, the membership is $29/mo or $25/mo if a year is paid up front.
(Former competitive rower here, so YMMV.)
Alright, off to the gym. :)
That is much harder to reproduce than simply building a solid physical product.
You dont buy a peleton because you need economical exercise. You buy a peleton as a form of conspicuous consumption and "exclusive" group membership (I'm a spin _athelete_!) .
The marketing hyperbole gets eaten up in our IG/social media obsessed environment.
And a lot of people value the convenience of being able to have a fun and engaging workout any time, in the comfort of home.
Robustness isn't the only reason C2s are considered the best. Unlike all the cheap brands, Concept2 have very accurately measured the moment of inertia of their flywheel and have an exacting manufacturing process that ensures it stays true.
As a result, the power data you see on the screen is an accurate measure of the work you're doing.
Most (not all) machines guesstimate it in comparison. You can just go with HR if you want, but don't pretend you can compare any other figures sensibly with a C2.
Point of note: the "distance" figure on a C2 is based on what a coxless four would have covered under the same power.
Note of interest, when I was a junior the concepts started to become popular. I was training mainly on the model B, which sounded like a jetplane, incredibly loud! It was such a change when they brought out the model C. I have never seen a model A in real life, but they sure look like made in a garage.
model B: https://www.concept2.com/service/indoor-rowers/model-b
model A: https://www.concept2.com/service/indoor-rowers/model-a
This support extends right across their lineup - at big regattas, they will be there doing for free oar repairs.
If you want, you can retrofit the latest PM5 monitor on every model, even including the A, and use it on Zwift and friends.
(I have a C2 from '96, and it still goes just like the new one in the gym)
1) The PM2 units (the old LCD ones, stock on Model C ergs) were particularly bad, suffering from some well known "issues". The sensors in them had not a high enough sample rate + high hysteresis in the sensors. That means that "pulling hard" at the catch (for non-on-the-water rowers: the beginning of a stroke cycle, when your hands are closest to the flywheel) and then backing off the handle force rewards you with higher measured power than actual.
2) This became a lot better with the PM4 generation (stock on Model D and up). However they still have another issue. The force exerted by the suspension cord that pulls the chain back into the housing is not subtracted from the measurement. The sensor only measures effective force/rpm on the flywheel. This is the reason why virtual regattas (serious competitions anyway) are always staged on brand new ergs where the suspension cords have not different levels of fatigue. The ergs are typically sold off after the events (which is of course a marketing/logistics trick just as well).
"Proper" testing on a C2 thus involves measuring handle force directly. This can be done by linking a strain gauge between handle and chain.
3) Speaking of racing events, it's pretty interesting how C2 has enabled virtual/digital racing long before "digitalising" things was a big trend. The interface that the PM4s use for regattas is based on RS485 over RJ45 (you can also use USB but that's not the recommended way for large scale > 16 seats races). The PM3 were wired using telephone/RJ11 and I think it was RS232 IIRC.
4) The single most important "calibration" on a Concept rower is the Drag Factor (the displays can show it in an advanced menu). The drag factor is essentially how fast the flywheel slows down, i.e. how much drag it has. Different ergs have different amounts of dust in them and wear on the bearings, which is why the "flap setting" really shouldn't be used as an absolute/comparable measure between machines.
Racing with a higher/lower drag factor is purely a matter of preference of the athlete and where their personal optimum for performing mechanical work lies. You can think of it like a gearing to increase resistance. In "on the water" rowing we can change gearing using inner/outer handle length of the oar on the gate to achieve a similar effect. This is very important since speed vs. the water varies a lot between boat classes from about ~4m/s in a single (1x) to ~6m/s in a 8+/4x. Our testing protocols recommended 125-140 (female-male).
5) While everyone obsesses over watts, that's not the whole picture. To move a boat (virtual or real) you need work, not power. Since ergs don't float, their mechanics are a lot simpler than a real rowing boat. Work on an erg is handle force x distance, i.e. you integrate the force-distance curve of the handle. That means long strokes are better - the most common beginner mistake is to waste stroke length.
6) Related to 1) and 5) there's a special "erg technique" of pulling the chord up the chest as you move angle your back backwards at the end. This gains you extra stroke length and "stealing" a bit more mechanical work due to sensor hysteresis. This works on a PM4 and up too. You can only get away with this on an erg. On the water pulling off this sort of trick at race speeds will most likely eject you from the boat. It may look like a funny catapult but ejecting from the boat can 100% kill you if your head hits a rigger or blade. See [0] for a close encounter.
7a) "Ergs don't float" is a saying for another important reason. They fail to simulate the impulse exchange between rower and boat mass. This is very important for real world rowing performance because minimizing boat shell velocity fluctuations means less mechanical work required to travel the same distance [1]. This is also the reason why it's preferable to have a "front-loaded" force curve profile. Coincidentally the sensor hysteresis of the concept ergs rewards that... maybe it's engineered intentionally? :-)
7b) Anyways, Avoiding vertical shell movement is of similar importance as wetted surface (and thus drag) increases massively if you push the boat down into the water. Athletes thus have a to maintain very delicate balance between stretcher and handle forces not to offset the systems center of mass during the stroke cycle. None of that matters on an erg.
7c) And most important: Ergs don't simulate the interaction of impulse exchanges between a whole crew of rowers that can never be perfectly in sync. Concept sells "Sliders" for the C2 ergs that you can use for a single erg but also to link together multiple ergs to a crew. If you haven't tried this, I can highly recommend this as it makes it much more realistic and also a lot more challenging. From my coaching experience I can also recommend it especially to beginners. It may sound counterintuitive, but it's much less forgiving to errors in your motion sequence/force application and will thus make you a better (and more healthier!) rower much quicker.
8) Rowers are an incredible bunch of creative and resourceful people. There's so many tinkerers in the community... a shout to a couple of things in the erg space:
- Waterrower hit big thanks to House of Cards. This plus cross-fit certainly made rowing much more popular as a sport. Waterrowers are not used in serious capacity in competitive training though as far as I'm aware.
- Augletics are a bunch of former competitive rowers building an erg using a electromagnetic brake (that can support more realistic force profiles/dynamics). And you don't get that "wooooosh" sound ringing in your ears that won't go away for hours after a 90min C2 erg session...
- Biorower simulates proper sculling technique, boat rotation and uses mechanical gears instead of a flywheel
Anyhow - great to see more innovation like Aviron in the space even if it's "just" targeted at recreational/fitness use case. It's a fabulous sport and I applaud you for making it more accessible. Hope it gets people to dip their toes so they may one day decide to get their feet wet and hit their local rowing club.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH2k_026KrY [1] https://www.rowinginmotion.com/drag-efficiency-rowing/
One point of yours though:
While everyone obsesses over watts, that's not the whole picture. To move a boat (virtual or real) you need work, not power
You are correct, but just for one stroke. The thing slowing down a boat or spinning flywheel is drag, which is a power dissipator. => Generating more power means you overcome more drag == go faster.
cf. when you take the rate up by reducing the time on the recovery while keeping work/stroke the same. Your speed increases as your rate of (the same) work increases.
edit: Also, forgot to mention this
Concept sells "Sliders" for the C2 ergs that you can use for a single erg but also to link together multiple ergs to a crew. If you haven't tried this, I can highly recommend this as it makes it much more realistic and also a lot more challenging.
I made my own! https://youtu.be/0BvX8leh1_c
In our testing protocols we had a metric from watt vs mass called p-index. I’m not sure exactly how it’s calculated anymore but there should be a published paper about this somewhere [0].
The lightweights usually had higher p-index values than the heavyweights, though values from the top heavyweights that also did well where usually close to the lightweights. That’s just anecdotal though.
There are tons more differences. The next important factor that comes to mind is technique, obviously. My guess is the next biggest contribution to performance difference is the catch, how quickly an athlete is able to burry the blade in the water and apply force without losing precious stroke length. This requires precise timing of vertical and horizontal movement. You do it right when you see a small v shaped splash as the blade enters the water. The measurement for that is called slip angle. The erg is much less picky about that.
I already mentioned some other points in my previous post, I bet there is tons more.
[0] Volker Nolte, Dieter Altenburg and Valery Kleshnev are great starting points when it comes to rowing research. Theres plenty more if you dig in.
One other point is that it's not just about technique but ability to maintain it. What impresses me about Olympic rowing is how perfect their technique continues to be at the end of the race. Having good technique is one thing, but keeping that technique as your muscles tire is very difficult.
https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/training/tips-and-gen...
Fwiw I have the Oartec DX, and it's very solidly built.
On dynamic rowers like this, the seat stays pretty much in one place and it's mainly the footpad that moves. Supposedly it puts less stress on the lower back and knees, and more closely simulates rowing on the water, so some elite rowing teams use them.
I don't know about all that but I have a knee that gives me trouble sometimes, and with the Oartec I can put that foot on the ground and row with the other leg.
https://www.rp3rowing.com/products/
Concept2 makes one now too:
https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/dynamic
(I guess a drawback is it doesn't really lend itself to a nice big screen like OP's project.)
I don't see why not. My RP3 uses any Android tablet. I have like a 7-8" tablet in there, but there is no reason I couldn't put a much larger tablet like an 18.4" Galaxy View.
I'm really quite happy with it and far prefer it to a C2. The software is pretty decent too and the force curve in particular is quite useful to help you figure out how to connect all three motions smoothly for mostly consistent even power.
Family and friends that have used it have struggled with getting started with it but mainly because they've learned such bad form from static machines like the C2. But near as I can tell that will happen with anyone used to a static rower that's never been on the water or coached on proper form.
Do you feel like the RP3 teaches proper form, for someone who hasn't had coaching or been on the water?
A drawback of the Oartec is that the display is rudimentary. It'll show you speed/distance, watts, or cal/hr, and that's it.
While I don't know how to make a machine that promote the following without putting telemetry in the handle, I also coach people using my machine to row with a D-shaped motion that mimics taking the blade out of the water and almost scraping the top of your knees on the return. The goal is to force people to mostly return the handles with their forearms and torso before collapsing their knees.
The RP3 display is definitely something worth trying out. It's not perfect, but I really like it. Contact the US distributor and he might be able to put you in contact with someone local to you that has one.
The C2 is popular because it's the best available at the ~$1k price point and can be purchased locally in most markets.
I think the main challenge with rowing machines (and the reason why we didn't do rowing classes), is that for beginners there is essentially only hard or off, i.e. it is difficult to adjust to different exhaustion levels. That leads to high frustration levels and is the reason why one rarely sees someone at the gym using the machines more than 5mins (and those that do are often former rowers). So HIT is probably the right way to go.
The other challenge I is related to hardware. The reason why everyone is talking about the C2s is that pretty much every other machine is crap. The forces pulling on these machines are substantive and concept managed to make a machine that held up over time, unlike the others. So I hope you guys made those things sturdy enough.
All the best, I hope you succeed!