Robert, This is where crowdfunding comes in! Kickstarter or a similar site could get you the funding to find a manufacture and industrial designer in order to get this thing to market. My only suggestion would be to find a PR person...You're a bit surly. Although, I find that type of personality agreeable, many people are a bit too sensitive. Good luck to you. I love the design.
Thanks Michael. Two prototypes preceded this one. All of the elements finally came together here. As I wrote elsewhere, I have had many expressions of interest and am optimistic about the prospects. Generally, I'm an easy going person. Naturally, I became surly when "Rowing" magazine misrepresented the device.
The inventive aspect of the "Slidewinder" dynamic rowing ergometer is not that it "feels" better or different than C2, RowPerfect, and Oartec dynamic machines. It's that it accomplishes the same thing as those "prior art" devices far more simply and elegantly. All of the sprockets, pulleys, shafts, bearings and brackets associated with elastic cord handle return and chain routing have been eliminated.The chain take-up and delivery mechanism has one moving part. One! That's it. Utter simplicity.
An interesting aspect of this device is that, although the handle return force can be adjusted according to the weight of the user, even without such adjustment, the pull chain is taken up briskly regardless of user weight. On the recovery potion of the stroke, the rearward force on the footrests assists gravity and therefore assists in the chain take-up and handle return. This phenomenon results in a sense of connectiveness to the machine that is not experienced with an elastic cord equipped device.
A comment I made on another video about the articulated handle is worth repeating here: The handle on a rowing ergometer is a human/machine interface. At any such interface, the machine design should adapt to and enable bio-mechanically correct human movement. The human body should not be forced to adapt to the machine - as occurs with the ubiquitous, rigid, single-piece handle.
Indoor rowing is an invitational sport in the 2017 World Games. Competitors will be using the Concept 2 rowing ergometer. I wrote to the World Games office, and pointed out that a "level playing field" cannot be guaranteed in any strength/endurance competition in which an elastic cord comprises part of the resistance of the equipment used. This, I explained, is due to possible differences in elastic cord strength and tension between one piece of equipment and another, and possible variations in ambient temperature which affects cord elasticity. Since the C2 performance monitor does not measure the force required to stretch the elastic cord, unless that force is a guaranteed constant, there is also no guarantee that the competition will be fair. This is not widely understood. The World Games office replied that "all competitors accept the starting conditions", and I was thanked for my "opinion".
Here is an illustrative example of the above: A typical race requires approximately 200 strokes (6 minutes @ 30 plus strokes/minute), with each stroke approximately 5 feet in length. Therefore a competitor on a machine with 4 ounces more elastic cord tension than the other machines (a real possibility) will be required to produce an extra 1/4 pound of force through a 1000' distance (200 strokesX5 feet) in order to keep pace. Not much? Since work is equal to force times distance (1/4 X 1000), the extra work required is equivalent to lifting a 10 pound weight through a vertical distance of 25 feet. Clearly, the competitor on that rowing ergometer would be at a significant disadvantage. This is basic high school physics, and is not, as the World Games office replied, a matter of "opinion". It is a matter of fact.
On the Concept 2 website forum, users sometimes ask why they can pull better times on their home rowing ergometer than on the one at the gym (or vice versa). The difference they experience is dismissed by C2, and by C2 cheerleaders who inhabit that forum, as imaginary. It isn't.
In consideration of the foregoing, the inevitable conclusion is that all current (and future) indoor rowing standings and records are invalid, because of the possibility of differences in elastic cord strength/tension from one rowing ergometer to another.
The demonstrated "gravity return" rowing ergometer enables adjustment of the handle return force via adjustment of the rear track gradient. Therefore, in a competitive situation, the handle return force could be set to a constant value on all of the units used in the competition, thereby establishing the "level playing field" impossible to guarantee with an elastic cord handle return system.
This is still a work in progress. I intend to replace the chain with a flat drive belt - quieter, smoother, lower maintenance than a chain. Also, to complete the visual symmetry of the whole, two smaller flywheels, left and right will replace the single, large flywheel. The smaller flywheels are of experimental design - variable resistance, smooth, unhoused. The device in the video is a good start. The goal is to refine the design and erase the boundary between mechanics and art.
Wow,I like this machine, knowing this is a prototype, I can imagine it on light material, my only question is regardign the cord, it seems it might wear off with time and appears to me that replacing it woukld be a hassle. otherwise KUDOS! looking forward to see this on market
Thanks Ryotaro for the kudos! There is no cord anywhere, so I'm uncertain to what you are referring. There is a chain, which would be easy to replace, but I can't imagine it ever being necessary. As I commented elsewhere, I am going to experiment with a flat belt drive - quieter, no lubrication needed.
Please keep in mind that this is a prototype device. Since this video I have fitted it with a C2 flywheel and altered the slots in the flywheel housing. It is much quieter now. It was never intended as a production model. A production model could be lightweight and whisper quiet.
Thanks Jean-Luc. Lots of nibbles but no big bites. I want to get back to the gravity rower soon. I have some ideas for a flywheel design I want to test.
Robert, what would a machine like this cost? And remember that ideas and great products take a while to be accepted, especially when people are comfortable with household names like Concept 2.
The cost would probably be in line with the other dynamic rowing ergometers currently available. I am well aware of the other point you make. If you wish you can read a detailed discussion on the "Gravity" rower on the Concept 2 forum website.
Did you accidentally make the blower into an air raid siren? Because it looks and sounds like one. Love the boat like movement of the chassis and the handles. The problem of having a globally standardized product like C2 is that its almost impossible to build anything beyond a tiny niche in the high end market. No matter how much better your product might be. C2 is good enough for too many.
Please do not forget that this is a prototype - a proof of concept device. A commercial embodiment could be made lightweight and whisper quiet. Since the video, I have in fact fitted it with another flywheel and changed the slot pattern in the flywheel housing, making it much quieter. Concept 2? How long will C2 be able to maintain the public perception that it is still an innovative company? Elastic cord chain take-up is high end? It is a mechanical solution for engineering dunces. A rigid, single-piece handle is high end? It is a bio-mechanical abomination. The C2 groupies continue to cheer and to pretend that painting the Model D black was a great innovation. They still don't want to admit that Concept 2 has run out of ideas.
Robert Edmondson There's plenty of inferior products kept as market leaders with monopolic hostile practices(frankly often illegal) Apple, Microsoft, Intel etc. All abuse their market position to stiffle competition or if that fails just buy them out. Concept2 is the industry standard and bought in huge fleets. Its also incredibly durable and simple, which in today's designed obsolescence saturated product environment is a huge selling point and great PR. I'm not trying to convince you to stop developing this product, just stating facts. Good luck!
Thankyou volvo245. It is true that the Concept 2 product has dominated the rowing machine market for many years. I believe that this dominance has also stifled innovation in the field - the attitude being that if C2 hasn't thought of it, or incorporated it, the idea must be without merit. My suggestion that possibly gravity, instead of an elastic cord, could be used to return the handle, was originally made on the C2 website "Forum", and was roundly dismissed as a ridiculous idea by everyone. Within three months I had built a crude, but functional gravity-return prototype. Also, although there is a growing opinion that "dynamic" rowing ergometers represent the future direction of rowing exercise technology, Concept 2 was late in bringing its "dynamic" to market, and when it did, tried to persuade the general public not to buy it - tried to convince them that it was more suitable for rowing athletes because it required a higher level of balance and co-ordination than the "stationary" model. This is nonsense, and I suspect was driven more by C2 self-interest (higher profit margin on the stationary model), than the interest (reduced chance of injury) of the buyer. Quite something that Concept 2, once a leading innovator in the field, is now openly opposed to Improvements in rowing exercise technology.
On a typical rowing ergometer (C2 for example), the energy expended to stretch the elastic cord is not measured by the performance monitor. Therefore, variations in elastic cord tension from one erg to another render the monitor readouts, and posted times meaningless. On this "gravity return" device, handle return force can be adjusted to a constant value, regardless of the weight of the user, kilometers logged on the machine, ambient temperature, or any other factors. The result is reliable monitor readouts and a "level playing field" if used in competitions.
I'm sorry, there are no blueprints, or CAD rendering. The entire machine was drawn full-scale on a wide roll of "kraft" paper, then transferred from there to fabricate all of the components. The prototype machine in the videos is the only one that exists. Earlier test assemblies proved the viability of the concept, and guided me in creating the full-scale drawings.
the ergo is a traning tool. a ridgid, non moving handle mimics the boat. the boat doesn't adjust to you, you adjust to it (excluding different rigging and so on)
The ubiquitous, rigid, single piece handle, which you defend, replicates neither a sweep nor a sculling action. A sweep action is a single arc. A sculling action is two arcs. The articulated handle on this machine replicates the changing angle of the handgrips experienced during sculling (at least through a large portion of a sculling stroke), which fortuitously maintains, throughout the stroke, a bio-mechanically correct alignment of the hands, wrists, and forearms with the direction of applied force (if you doubt this, watch my short video, "Slidewinder on the Water". Additionally, for non-rowers who use rowing ergometers (of which there are many), the articulated handle enables other non-rowing related but completely viable stroke geometries - adding variety and interest to the exercise program.
Frequent users of ergometers equipped with the rigid, single piece handle risk permanent wrist injury resulting from wrist angulation under load at the end of the stroke. Several users have stated in e-mails to me that this has happened to them. Some have been advised by their doctors to discontinue exercising on the ergometer. On the Concept 2 Forum many others have complained of chronic wrist pain (before the C2 moderators shut down the discussions and lock out the threads). My question to you: How does chronic wrist pain, directly attributable to the rigid stock handle make him/her faster otw? Why have users tolerated such a bio-mechanical abomination for more than 30 years? The articulated handle demonstrated in the video eliminates the source of wrist injury by (to repeat) maintaining alignment of the hands, wrists, and forearms throughout the stroke. What is there not to understand about this?
Addendum: For an example of Concept 2 shutting down discussion about the deficiencies of their rigid, single-piece stock handle, go to Concept 2 Forum in the "Health & Fitness" section, and search "Wrist pain and rowing" by "silkybeard".
Only one that exists. A prototype. Old C2 Model B flywheel. Since this video it has been refitted with a Model D flywheel and the slots in the flywheel housing have been altered. Much quieter now.
@@MrProphetius Maybe. I would like to video someone else on the machine. There are a couple of other videos on my channel that better show the simple mechanics of the device.
I continue to receive inquiries about the articulated handle shown in this video, and in an older video ("The Canadian Slidewinder"), so I built a few dozen of them this year (2019). If you have an interest, please e-mail me at canadianslidewinder@hotmail.com.
Thanks Scott, your comment warms my heart. I'm not a manufacturer, so unless it is built under licence to a fitness equipment company, it will remain a single prototype. I hope to make it even better. See my posting below.
The sound is irrelevant to the point of the video. It is a prototype, built to demonstrate that a rowing ergometer does not require an elastic cord and accompanying complex chain/cord pulley arrangement to take up the chain and return the handle. That task can be accomplished more simply and elegantly by utilizing gravity, as shown. A production model could be whisper quiet. In any case, since this video, I have fitted it with a salvaged C2 flywheel and changed the slot pattern in the flywheel housing. It is now much quieter.
If by "Javier" you mean heavier, the answer is no. Near the end of the video I point out that the gradient of the rear ramp is adjustable, so regardless of the user's weight the handle return force can be set to the user's preference.
Regarding Concept 2, the world's leading rowing ergometer manufacturer: I suspect, from the increasing number of daily views of this video, that people are finally starting to realize that, contrary to widely held belief, Concept 2 is not an innovative company. Concept 2 had one good idea (vaned flywheel resistance) a long time ago, and has been riding that one idea ever since. Kudos to Concept 2 for that one idea, but in the 35 plus years of the company's existence, it has introduced no mechanical improvements that could actually be called innovative. The Model D is slicker, smoother, and quieter than the original Model A, but it is essentially the same machine. Compare the huge advances in bicycle technology over the same time period. Successful marketing alone has maintained the public perception that Concept 2 is an innovative company. As Mark Twain said, "Once a man has a reputation as an early riser, he can sleep until noon."
Further on the subject of Concept 2: In 1995 the US Patent Office granted to Casper Rekers, the first patent for a "Dynamically Balanced Rowing Simulator". "RowPerfect" is the commercial embodiment of that patent. There is a growing body of opinion that "dynamic" rowing ergometers represent the future direction of rowing exercise devices. A "dynamic" enables a more faithful replication of on-the-water mechanics - the user's mass remains almost stationary relative to ground, thereby eliminating the stresses associated directional changes when flinging one's body mass up and down the seat rail. Concept 2 finally introduced its version of a dynamic ergometer a couple of years ago, apparently in response to the impressive "Oartec Slider". However, Concept 2 advises potential purchasers that dynamic ergometers require greater user balance and co-ordination than "stationary" devices, and are therefore more suited for serious rowing athletes than the average user. This is nonsense, as any non-rower who has tried a dynamic rowing ergometer will attest. Discouraging purchases of its dynamic ergometer has more to do with Concept 2's interests than the interests (ie: the physical well-being) of the end users. Concept 2's "static" ergometer has fewer parts than its dynamic unit, and is therefore easier to manufacture, with a probable higher profit margin. It is also the piece of equipment used in all of the popular indoor rowing competitions. Further, if the public can be convinced that "statics" rather than "dynamics" are a better choice, this will have the added benefit to Concept 2 of hurting sales of competitive manufacturers (RowPerfect and Oartec) whose primary business is the sale of "dynamics". Quite something that Concept 2, once a leading innovator in the field, now actively opposes new developments and improvements in rowing exercise technology.
This is a proof of concept prototype, built to demonstrate that the utilization of gravity is a simpler and more elegant mechanical solution to the problem of handle return. The noise, which is coming from the flywheel, is irrelevant to proved functionality of the device. Since the video was made, the flywheel has been replaced with one salvaged from a C2 Model D. It is now as quiet as any air resistance rowing ergometer.
Elsewhere here, I assert that when an elastic cord comprises part of the resistance of an exercise apparatus (eg: C2 rowing ergometer), there can be no guarantee of a "level playing field" in any strength/endurance competition. This is why elastic cord resistance will not be found in any apparatus used in Olympic competitions. I am surprised that my comments on this have received no response from Concept 2 loyalists and indoor rowing enthusiasts.
Beautiful work of engineering!! I salute you sir.
Robert, This is where crowdfunding comes in! Kickstarter or a similar site could get you the funding to find a manufacture and industrial designer in order to get this thing to market. My only suggestion would be to find a PR person...You're a bit surly. Although, I find that type of personality agreeable, many people are a bit too sensitive.
Good luck to you. I love the design.
Thanks Michael. Two prototypes preceded this one. All of the elements finally came together here. As I wrote elsewhere, I have had many expressions of interest and am optimistic about the prospects. Generally, I'm an easy going person. Naturally, I became surly when "Rowing" magazine misrepresented the device.
The inventive aspect of the "Slidewinder" dynamic rowing ergometer is not that it "feels" better or different than C2, RowPerfect, and Oartec dynamic machines. It's that it accomplishes the same thing as those "prior art" devices far more simply and elegantly. All of the sprockets, pulleys, shafts, bearings and brackets associated with elastic cord handle return and chain routing have been eliminated.The chain take-up and delivery mechanism has one moving part. One! That's it. Utter simplicity.
awesome, great work, I hope this makes its way into lots of gyms and homes!
An interesting aspect of this device is that, although the handle return force can be adjusted according to the weight of the user, even without such adjustment, the pull chain is taken up briskly regardless of user weight. On the recovery potion of the stroke, the rearward force on the footrests assists gravity and therefore assists in the chain take-up and handle return. This phenomenon results in a sense of connectiveness to the machine that is not experienced with an elastic cord equipped device.
A comment I made on another video about the articulated handle is worth repeating here: The handle on a rowing ergometer is a human/machine interface. At any such interface, the machine design should adapt to and enable bio-mechanically correct human movement. The human body should not be forced to adapt to the machine - as occurs with the ubiquitous, rigid, single-piece handle.
Indoor rowing is an invitational sport in the 2017 World Games. Competitors will be using the Concept 2 rowing ergometer. I wrote to the World Games office, and pointed out that a "level playing field" cannot be guaranteed in any strength/endurance competition in which an elastic cord comprises part of the resistance of the equipment used. This, I explained, is due to possible differences in elastic cord strength and tension between one piece of equipment and another, and possible variations in ambient temperature which affects cord elasticity. Since the C2 performance monitor does not measure the force required to stretch the elastic cord, unless that force is a guaranteed constant, there is also no guarantee that the competition will be fair. This is not widely understood. The World Games office replied that "all competitors accept the starting conditions", and I was thanked for my "opinion".
Here is an illustrative example of the above: A typical race requires approximately 200 strokes (6 minutes @ 30 plus strokes/minute), with each stroke approximately 5 feet in length. Therefore a competitor on a machine with 4 ounces more elastic cord tension than the other machines (a real possibility) will be required to produce an extra 1/4 pound of force through a 1000' distance (200 strokesX5 feet) in order to keep pace. Not much? Since work is equal to force times distance (1/4 X 1000), the extra work required is equivalent to lifting a 10 pound weight through a vertical distance of 25 feet. Clearly, the competitor on that rowing ergometer would be at a significant disadvantage. This is basic high school physics, and is not, as the World Games office replied, a matter of "opinion". It is a matter of fact.
On the Concept 2 website forum, users sometimes ask why they can pull better times on their home rowing ergometer than on the one at the gym (or vice versa). The difference they experience is dismissed by C2, and by C2 cheerleaders who inhabit that forum, as imaginary. It isn't.
In consideration of the foregoing, the inevitable conclusion is that all current (and future) indoor rowing standings and records are invalid, because of the possibility of differences in elastic cord strength/tension from one rowing ergometer to another.
The demonstrated "gravity return" rowing ergometer enables adjustment of the handle return force via adjustment of the rear track gradient. Therefore, in a competitive situation, the handle return force could be set to a constant value on all of the units used in the competition, thereby establishing the "level playing field" impossible to guarantee with an elastic cord handle return system.
This is still a work in progress. I intend to replace the chain with a flat drive belt - quieter, smoother, lower maintenance than a chain. Also, to complete the visual symmetry of the whole, two smaller flywheels, left and right will replace the single, large flywheel. The smaller flywheels are of experimental design - variable resistance, smooth, unhoused. The device in the video is a good start. The goal is to refine the design and erase the boundary between mechanics and art.
Wow,I like this machine, knowing this is a prototype, I can imagine it on light material, my only question is regardign the cord, it seems it might wear off with time and appears to me that replacing it woukld be a hassle. otherwise KUDOS! looking forward to see this on market
Thanks Ryotaro for the kudos! There is no cord anywhere, so I'm uncertain to what you are referring. There is a chain, which would be easy to replace, but I can't imagine it ever being necessary. As I commented elsewhere, I am going to experiment with a flat belt drive - quieter, no lubrication needed.
My one problem is it sounds very noisy. Also the sound isn't very pleasing...wind or water has a nice swoosh sound.
Please keep in mind that this is a prototype device. Since this video I have fitted it with a C2 flywheel and altered the slots in the flywheel housing. It is much quieter now. It was never intended as a production model. A production model could be lightweight and whisper quiet.
Robert, great piece of Engineering. Any lead on when we will find your SlideWinder on the market?
Thanks Jean-Luc. Lots of nibbles but no big bites. I want to get back to the gravity rower soon. I have some ideas for a flywheel design I want to test.
Robert, what would a machine like this cost? And remember that ideas and great products take a while to be accepted, especially when people are comfortable with household names like Concept 2.
The cost would probably be in line with the other dynamic rowing ergometers currently available. I am well aware of the other point you make. If you wish you can read a detailed discussion on the "Gravity" rower on the Concept 2 forum website.
Did you accidentally make the blower into an air raid siren? Because it looks and sounds like one. Love the boat like movement of the chassis and the handles. The problem of having a globally standardized product like C2 is that its almost impossible to build anything beyond a tiny niche in the high end market. No matter how much better your product might be. C2 is good enough for too many.
Please do not forget that this is a prototype - a proof of concept device. A commercial embodiment could be made lightweight and whisper quiet. Since the video, I have in fact fitted it with another flywheel and changed the slot pattern in the flywheel housing, making it much quieter. Concept 2? How long will C2 be able to maintain the public perception that it is still an innovative company? Elastic cord chain take-up is high end? It is a mechanical solution for engineering dunces. A rigid, single-piece handle is high end? It is a bio-mechanical abomination. The C2 groupies continue to cheer and to pretend that painting the Model D black was a great innovation. They still don't want to admit that Concept 2 has run out of ideas.
Robert Edmondson There's plenty of inferior products kept as market leaders with monopolic hostile practices(frankly often illegal) Apple, Microsoft, Intel etc. All abuse their market position to stiffle competition or if that fails just buy them out.
Concept2 is the industry standard and bought in huge fleets. Its also incredibly durable and simple, which in today's designed obsolescence saturated product environment is a huge selling point and great PR.
I'm not trying to convince you to stop developing this product, just stating facts. Good luck!
Thankyou volvo245. It is true that the Concept 2 product has dominated the rowing machine market for many years. I believe that this dominance has also stifled innovation in the field - the attitude being that if C2 hasn't thought of it, or incorporated it, the idea must be without merit. My suggestion that possibly gravity, instead of an elastic cord, could be used to return the handle, was originally made on the C2 website "Forum", and was roundly dismissed as a ridiculous idea by everyone. Within three months I had built a crude, but functional gravity-return prototype. Also, although there is a growing opinion that "dynamic" rowing ergometers represent the future direction of rowing exercise technology, Concept 2 was late in bringing its "dynamic" to market, and when it did, tried to persuade the general public not to buy it - tried to convince them that it was more suitable for rowing athletes because it required a higher level of balance and co-ordination than the "stationary" model. This is nonsense, and I suspect was driven more by C2 self-interest (higher profit margin on the stationary model), than the interest (reduced chance of injury) of the buyer. Quite something that Concept 2, once a leading innovator in the field, is now openly opposed to Improvements in rowing exercise technology.
Cool design 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻✨
I like it robert keep up good work
On a typical rowing ergometer (C2 for example), the energy expended to stretch the elastic cord is not measured by the performance monitor. Therefore, variations in elastic cord tension from one erg to another render the monitor readouts, and posted times meaningless. On this "gravity return" device, handle return force can be adjusted to a constant value, regardless of the weight of the user, kilometers logged on the machine, ambient temperature, or any other factors. The result is reliable monitor readouts and a "level playing field" if used in competitions.
Very cool
I need to get one, maybe if there is any blueprints?
I'm sorry, there are no blueprints, or CAD rendering. The entire machine was drawn full-scale on a wide roll of "kraft" paper, then transferred from there to fabricate all of the components. The prototype machine in the videos is the only one that exists. Earlier test assemblies proved the viability of the concept, and guided me in creating the full-scale drawings.
the ergo is a traning tool. a ridgid, non moving handle mimics the boat. the boat doesn't adjust to you, you adjust to it (excluding different rigging and so on)
The ubiquitous, rigid, single piece handle, which you defend, replicates neither a sweep nor a sculling action. A sweep action is a single arc. A sculling action is two arcs. The articulated handle on this machine replicates the changing angle of the handgrips experienced during sculling (at least through a large portion of a sculling stroke), which fortuitously maintains, throughout the stroke, a bio-mechanically correct alignment of the hands, wrists, and forearms with the direction of applied force (if you doubt this, watch my short video, "Slidewinder on the Water". Additionally, for non-rowers who use rowing ergometers (of which there are many), the articulated handle enables other non-rowing related but completely viable stroke geometries - adding variety and interest to the exercise program.
Don't really get it. How does that improve the physiology of a rower and make him / her significantlyfaster otw?
Frequent users of ergometers equipped with the rigid, single piece handle risk permanent wrist injury resulting from wrist angulation under load at the end of the stroke. Several users have stated in e-mails to me that this has happened to them. Some have been advised by their doctors to discontinue exercising on the ergometer. On the Concept 2 Forum many others have complained of chronic wrist pain (before the C2 moderators shut down the discussions and lock out the threads). My question to you: How does chronic wrist pain, directly attributable to the rigid stock handle make him/her faster otw? Why have users tolerated such a bio-mechanical abomination for more than 30 years? The articulated handle demonstrated in the video eliminates the source of wrist injury by (to repeat) maintaining alignment of the hands, wrists, and forearms throughout the stroke. What is there not to understand about this?
Addendum: For an example of Concept 2 shutting down discussion about the deficiencies of their rigid, single-piece stock handle, go to Concept 2 Forum in the "Health & Fitness" section, and search "Wrist pain and rowing" by "silkybeard".
Great Job! Whats the price and are earplugs incl.?
Only one that exists. A prototype. Old C2 Model B flywheel. Since this video it has been refitted with a Model D flywheel and the slots in the flywheel housing have been altered. Much quieter now.
@@Robert.E.Edmondson an update on TH-cam would be great.
@@MrProphetius Maybe. I would like to video someone else on the machine. There are a couple of other videos on my channel that better show the simple mechanics of the device.
I continue to receive inquiries about the articulated handle shown in this video, and in an older video ("The Canadian Slidewinder"), so I built a few dozen of them this year (2019). If you have an interest, please e-mail me at canadianslidewinder@hotmail.com.
this looks awesome, is it in production yet?
Thanks Scott, your comment warms my heart. I'm not a manufacturer, so unless it is built under licence to a fitness equipment company, it will remain a single prototype. I hope to make it even better. See my posting below.
looks nice but don't think can stand the sound for long. sounds like some kind of siren.
The sound is irrelevant to the point of the video. It is a prototype, built to demonstrate that a rowing ergometer does not require an elastic cord and accompanying complex chain/cord pulley arrangement to take up the chain and return the handle. That task can be accomplished more simply and elegantly by utilizing gravity, as shown. A production model could be whisper quiet. In any case, since this video, I have fitted it with a salvaged C2 flywheel and changed the slot pattern in the flywheel housing. It is now much quieter.
Does that mean the Javier you are the more difficult rowing would be?
If by "Javier" you mean heavier, the answer is no. Near the end of the video I point out that the gradient of the rear ramp is adjustable, so regardless of the user's weight the handle return force can be set to the user's preference.
Hello, yes sorry I meant havier
Thank you
Nope I think you mean't heavier
Regarding Concept 2, the world's leading rowing ergometer manufacturer: I suspect, from the increasing number of daily views of this video, that people are finally starting to realize that, contrary to widely held belief, Concept 2 is not an innovative company.
Concept 2 had one good idea (vaned flywheel resistance) a long time ago, and has been riding that one idea ever since. Kudos to Concept 2 for that one idea, but in the 35 plus years of the company's existence, it has introduced no mechanical improvements that could actually be called innovative. The Model D is slicker, smoother, and quieter than the original Model A, but it is essentially the same machine. Compare the huge advances in bicycle technology over the same time period.
Successful marketing alone has maintained the public perception that Concept 2 is an innovative company. As Mark Twain said, "Once a man has a reputation as an early riser, he can sleep until noon."
Further on the subject of Concept 2:
In 1995 the US Patent Office granted to Casper Rekers, the first patent for a "Dynamically Balanced Rowing Simulator". "RowPerfect" is the commercial embodiment of that patent. There is a growing body of opinion that "dynamic" rowing ergometers represent the future direction of rowing exercise devices. A "dynamic" enables a more faithful replication of on-the-water mechanics - the user's mass remains almost stationary relative to ground, thereby eliminating the stresses associated directional changes when flinging one's body mass up and down the seat rail.
Concept 2 finally introduced its version of a dynamic ergometer a couple of years ago, apparently in response to the impressive "Oartec Slider". However, Concept 2 advises potential purchasers that dynamic ergometers require greater user balance and co-ordination than "stationary" devices, and are therefore more suited for serious rowing athletes than the average user. This is nonsense, as any non-rower who has tried a dynamic rowing ergometer will attest.
Discouraging purchases of its dynamic ergometer has more to do with Concept 2's interests than the interests (ie: the physical well-being) of the end users. Concept 2's "static" ergometer has fewer parts than its dynamic unit, and is therefore easier to manufacture, with a probable higher profit margin. It is also the piece of equipment used in all of the popular indoor rowing competitions. Further, if the public can be convinced that "statics" rather than "dynamics" are a better choice, this will have the added benefit to Concept 2 of hurting sales of competitive manufacturers (RowPerfect and Oartec) whose primary business is the sale of "dynamics".
Quite something that Concept 2, once a leading innovator in the field, now actively opposes new developments and improvements in rowing exercise technology.
Click on link above to view five photos of the rower. One photo is with the top section removed and reveals the utter simplicity of the mechanics.
Nice job. But much too noisy for me.
This is a proof of concept prototype, built to demonstrate that the utilization of gravity is a simpler and more elegant mechanical solution to the problem of handle return. The noise, which is coming from the flywheel, is irrelevant to proved functionality of the device. Since the video was made, the flywheel has been replaced with one salvaged from a C2 Model D. It is now as quiet as any air resistance rowing ergometer.
すげー欲しい！
An interesting observation.
thank you!
Elsewhere here, I assert that when an elastic cord comprises part of the resistance of an exercise apparatus (eg: C2 rowing ergometer), there can be no guarantee of a "level playing field" in any strength/endurance competition. This is why elastic cord resistance will not be found in any apparatus used in Olympic competitions. I am surprised that my comments on this have received no response from Concept 2 loyalists and indoor rowing enthusiasts.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
when will it be out for sale?
I'm not a manufacturer. Investor inquiries are welcome.