Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

WaterRower = Concept 2?
Quote | Reply
I have the opportunity to buy a lightly used WR for less than a comparable C2, but most everything I see on training, distance/time/effort, etc. references the C2. Do all of the training concepts for the C2 map over equally for a WR?
Is there any reason to buy a C2 instead of the WR, especially given the lower cost?
Thanks, D
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [dmchike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There's a recently added thread on this by Dev, look it up, it'll tell you everything. Fwiw, I'd always go for the C2.

My race site: https://racesandplaces.wixsite.com/racesandplaces
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [Jigsy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Jigsy: Yes, I've been following the Dev thread, and just scanned it all again. Sorry if I missed a comment, but everything I saw related to the C2, and hence my question: does C2 training and technique map over to a WaterRower? I'm guessing from your answer that the method of resistance (air vs water) is essentially close enough that WR and C2 are effectively the same.
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [dmchike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I was recently vacationing on a cruise ship, and had the opportunity to use a rower which used water as a means of resistance (Note: NOT a WaterRower, it just also used water), after using C2 rowers exclusively. There was a barely noticeable, as in nearly imperceptible, difference between the two, but just in the feel during the recovery and engagement on the next stroke.

I think with a higher quality unit like the WaterRower, that difference would be eliminated. I prefer the aesthetic of the WaterRower, and the use of actual paddles on water rather than a simulation (fan creating wind), but it's likely personal at the point you're at. As in, ENVE vs. Zipp where the only difference might be spoke count (please don't murder me on this, I haven't done that much research and am simply using this analogy as a point of comparison. I don't know if these actually work out like this or not).

Brenden Macy
Sports & Entertainment Attorney
I am Drive. I am Grit. I am Determination.
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [dmchike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dmchike wrote:
I have the opportunity to buy a lightly used WR for less than a comparable C2, but most everything I see on training, distance/time/effort, etc. references the C2. Do all of the training concepts for the C2 map over equally for a WR?
Is there any reason to buy a C2 instead of the WR, especially given the lower cost?
Thanks, D

Feel might be similar but if you're looking to compare pace, watts etc... they're not comparable. They differ. Everything is based on the C2.

Also, the C2 is pretty much indestructible, requires little to no maintenance and doesn't require adding or subtracting water from a tank to change the drag factor. Nor does it have a tank full of water that will need to be changed periodically.

If similar in cost I would go with the C2 every time. I've have mine for over 20 years and if not for it being outdoors (covered patio) in a high humidity environment the total maintenance would have been less than $50.
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [dmchike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Another reason to buy the C2 is that, if / when the time comes, it’ll be much easier to sell, and you’ll get more of your money back.

- Another satisifed C2 owner.
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [dmchike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Get the C2
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [dmchike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, all the training concepts map over.

I've spent years of my life on the C2, and recommended C2 in the thread linked to in this thread.

But after having recently spent a few weeks on a WaterRower, it really started to win me over. The power/split-time #'s are indistinguishable to me from what you'd get on a C2 - a 1:30 500m split feels exactly as painful to me.

And it *feels* a little more like real rowing, in my opinion. The feeling at the catch and the momentum is a little more boat-like.

That said, if you have any inclination to ever compete in indoor rowing, you have to get the C2.
Last edited by: trail: Apr 5, 18 16:41
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [dmchike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A slightly different question: has anyone tried the C2 Dynamic Rower? It's supposed to be more like "real rowing" - my only experience is with the Models C, D and E. I like the seemingly smaller form factor.

Ian
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [sneeuwaap] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Firstly: they don't map over. Not even close.
Old forum thread: https://groups.google.com/...QVh1HW8/n0GfOHRyoz0J
Terrible machine, as far as I am concerned.

Dynamics: a bit more like 'real' rowing, but unlike real rowing, there is nothing happening in the first 12 inches of the drive. Again, I think they are a terrible machine, but they are an acquired taste. I had a bloke stay with me last year who has set several WRs on them and reckons they are fairly good.
Form factor is smaller than C2 C/D/E, but they can't be up-ended easily, so you lose a lot of space that way. I'll dip downstairs, where we store our C2s against a wall, and they occupy about 18 inches out from the wall by 20 wide or so. If you already have a C2, see if you can nose around for a set of C2 slides.

My subjective rating informed by years of erging and rowing and some coaching.

RowPerfect - far and away best, if you're prepared for: regular service, terrible form factor, and being pretty noisy.
C2 with slides - slightly painful to set up, and takes a bit of getting used to.
Regular C2 - standard, works, good storage
Dynamic C2 - hateful machine for the reasons I cited above.
Water Rower - nice piece of construction and sculpture, but not comparable.
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [dmchike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
400m on the C2 =440m WaterRower (10% difference)

That's my experience in terms of effort time, etc.

I often do a set like this:
10 push ups + row (440m on waterRower or 400m on C2) + 10 jump squats (using 12 lbs medicine ball) on 3:00. Do like 10 rounds (30:00) and I'm shot.

But the time to reach 400m on the water rower is slightly faster than concept 2.
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [altayloraus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks much - sounds like it's better just to put a PM5 on my old Model D so that I can use my HRM with it and even connect it to my Garmin (I like data). The slides might also be interesting.

Ian
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [dmchike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
dmchike wrote:
I have the opportunity to buy a lightly used WR for less than a comparable C2, but most everything I see on training, distance/time/effort, etc. references the C2. Do all of the training concepts for the C2 map over equally for a WR?
Is there any reason to buy a C2 instead of the WR, especially given the lower cost?
Thanks, D

Just like to add that if you want to use it to supplement your tri training the Concept 2 Skierg would be a better option- IMO. I just got one about 6 weeks ago. It's the perfect compliment to the rower and would be a good compliment to biking and running as it's almost all upper body, anterior focused. It utilities all the same upper body muscles that swimming does. It also does a good job on the quads if you keep the rate up.
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [altayloraus] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
altayloraus wrote:
there is nothing happening in the first 12 inches of the drive

I don't know. I found it to be a nice approximation of rowing an 8+ really fast. When you're in an 8+ cooking along at sub-6:00 pace, and you make the catch you've got to get ON it, or else there's no resistance. The C2 always has this nice, heavy feeling at the catch. Getting a WaterRower going fast made me a little nostaglic for fast 8s....you have to get on top of the catch. You can't wait around for the load like on the C2.

I've always thought that's one of the (many) reasons why some C2 heroes are anchors in a real boat.

I totally disagree about "not mapping over" to C2 training concepts. They're really close in overall kinematics, body position, power delivery, etc.
Quote Reply
Re: WaterRower = Concept 2? [kini62] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
kini62 wrote:
dmchike wrote:
I have the opportunity to buy a lightly used WR for less than a comparable C2, but most everything I see on training, distance/time/effort, etc. references the C2. Do all of the training concepts for the C2 map over equally for a WR?
Is there any reason to buy a C2 instead of the WR, especially given the lower cost?
Thanks, D


Just like to add that if you want to use it to supplement your tri training the Concept 2 Skierg would be a better option- IMO. I just got one about 6 weeks ago. It's the perfect compliment to the rower and would be a good compliment to biking and running as it's almost all upper body, anterior focused. It utilities all the same upper body muscles that swimming does. It also does a good job on the quads if you keep the rate up.

well, if you really want a machine that mimics swimming, you need to get the Vasa Erg. The poster lightheir went from swimming 1:55/100 yd down to 1:25 from working hard on the Vasa 4 days/wk plus 2 days/wk in the pool. You can PM him if you want the details, or just do a search for "Vasa". I have no financial connection to the Vasa company.


"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."
Quote Reply