Talk:Indoor rower

more history needed

As an encyclopedic article, the history section is extremely weak. The rowing machine was first patented in 1867, yet we don't get much of any discussion about its development until the past 30 years. I will add the patent information with primary source citations, if there is no objection. That will at least provide a start toward more historical content. Declair (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

question

hi all, a question i have asked myself, having picked up rowing recently. in track, the most coveted distance is 100m. it s a quick run, exciting, entirely explosive and anaerobic. it can easily be argued that in erging, the 2k is the biggest focus, the first time people compare, etc. why? it s much much longer than 100m, there is some pacing to do, you can t row that distance that many places. any idea why?

This is page to discussion the article not the general topic, but in brief 2k is more like 400m, a sprint but a long one it's considers a good test of fitness. Also there are plenty of rivers where you race over longer distances (see the rowing article) --Nate1481 15:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)not

The question was meant so that this information could be added to the article.

Now that's a bit of a value judgement... the 100m track event is the most spectator friendly and exciting, not necessarily the most prestigious (one could easily argue that honour should go to the Marathon). In rowing, the standard distance has always been either 3 miles (for races modeled on The Boat Race), or 2000m (for races modelled on the Henley Royal Regatta - nowadays much more common). These distances are essentially arbitrary, but the reasons for the distances being so much longer are mainly due to rowing being a much more technical sport than sprinting. It is a test of skill and endurance as well as raw power. But to answer your question in a more definite way, 2k is the most commonly compared distance because that is the distance most international competitions are held over. Simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeti Hunter (talk • contribs) 07:46, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Concept 2

This article appears to be an adverts for Concept2!

Not only that, it doesn't include entire classes of rowing machines (hydraulic, for example)

I don't read it that way.

This article looks pretty good. Concept2 while probably the largest manufacturer of indoor rowers is the only one I have ever seen marketed as an ergometer.

You've probably not looked a lot. Check out Fluid Rower and Water Rower —Preceding unsigned comment added by The 1f coach (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting

I agree, the entry is certainly overly-commerical. I've been rewriting the the indoor rower entry, and so far have decommericalized the Competitions, Exercise, and External Links sections, giving them both academic legitimacy, and removing the commerical, as well as badly written, content. (James Igoe, 2006-09-24)

Rewriting II

Removed overly-specific referecnes to the Concept II rower. I believe this entry is now non-commerical, and should be reconsidered (James Igoe, 2006-09-24).

reads like an ad for concept2

Too much Concept2 in the text, two Concept2 links in the External links section, and the photo is a Concept2 pic. Highfructosecornsyrup 22:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Concept2 are the most widely used ergs so will be a significant part, the other types are listed in the top paragraph, external links to rowperfect and water rower would be good additions though. A paragraph on comparing the types would also be good, will see if i can find the links. --Nate1481 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Links added for balance and moved competition section to bottom better? --Nate1481 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

History of the ergo

Does anyone know the history of how indoor rowers gradually entered the rowing scene? They had "rowing machines" on the titanic, but you don't hear of them being used for training until about 1965. Repco introduced one of the first things we would recognaise as an erg in about 1970, and then the concept 2 came in 1981 (I believe). I could write a passable history section but I'm not sure where to go to cite any of it (except the repco bit - i've got a good source for that). Any help?--ABVS 12:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no info about Repco's early ergometer in the Repco article. Can anyone provide more info about the first air-resistance ergometer? -- LightSpeed (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reputable source that Repco had the first early air resistance ergos: http://www.worldrowing.com/index.php?pageid=44. I thought they came out a little earlier than the 80s though. Oh well.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Indoor rower and Rowing exercise

An indoor rower is used to simulate the activity of watercraft rowing. Rowing exercise refers to the seated row exercise in weights training. These are two very different workouts that use completely different apparatus.--Yeti Hunter 07:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Upon more detailed reading, the Rowing exercise page does indeed have a lot of duplicated information about indoor rowers. I'd propose that the information from that page relating to ergos be moved to Indoor rower (eg, the world records), and the information about seated row retained on that page, but made less ambiguous. This could be done by renaming the page "Seated row".--Yeti Hunter 07:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To avoid future confusion I've moved Rowing exercise to Row (weight-lifting) (and added Seated row and Standing row as redirects to there). Ewlyahoocom 20:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I just re-redirected Standing row to Upright row. Ewlyahoocom 03:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Commercialisation.

There have been many claims of this article reading like an advert, first for Concept2, then for RowPerfect and links to other commercial websites. Typically, the article is cleaned up, then slowly returns to it's former, advert ridden self, before it is cleaned up again.

In the interests of preventing this, and promoting a good quality encyclopedic article, I propose a complete ban on the mention of any specific products, or companies, or commercial entities in this article. This will keep the focus on facts, people and times, and hopefully help us keep an NPOV. Stestagg (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. While blatant advertising should be avoided, you simply cannot have an article about indoor rowing without mentioning Concept 2. They were the first "Indoor rower" as we know them, and they are still the best and most widely used. They are the world standard. I also support mentioning Waterower and Rowperfect as examples of different products, and Repco as the innovators of the first air-resistance ergometers, but probably no other brands (since no other brands have anywhere near the market penetration, nor sufficient difference). So keep the adverts out, but you must mention the prominent brands. Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that blatant advertising is to be avoided, however, citing C2 in the competition section is not blatant advertising. It is encyclopedic to credit C2 with developing erg racing into a sport in its own right, and to my knowledge the only erg competitions that are being done are still on C2 machines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.209.22 (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think 81.159.209.22 hits it on the head. Morcheeba (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Exercise

This sounds like idle speculation: "rowing's most common injury site is likely the lower back" I suggest that either remove the word "likely" and provide a citation, or remove the passage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.110.171 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blatant weasel wording. Rowing should not cause any injury, properly done. Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Without fail, there are practitioners of any sport say the following "_______is one of the most challenging forms of exercise". Erging, like any sport, is as hard as you train. Not encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.110.171 (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

However it is still likely that a reliable source can be found for this claim. It is regularly claimed that some sports stand above others in the effort needed to excel, eg distance running, swimming, cycling, and rowing. I recall an article in my local newspaper that claimed exactly that about rowing just recently (it was about how, if he were a footballer, James Tomkins should be a multimillionaire). Still, as it stands, it does appear unencyclopaedic ("My sport is harder than your sport")Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference to the statement "An extremely efficient method of exercise, rowing uses 86% of muscles when done with correct form." does not actually support this statement. The 86% reference is with regards to the VO2Max, not number of muscles. I could not identify this statement in the text of the article.

Erg Test

I have removed the 500m from the list of common erg tests. While it is common for rowers to do 500m tests "for fun" or done in series as part of interval training, they are not a good indicator of aerobic performance because they are too short and I am not aware of coaches taking them seriously. The 2k test on the other hand is the standard competition distance, and the 5k and 6k are reflective of "the boat race".

I think something needs to be said about use of step-testing on the erg to determine anaerobic threshold and max heart rate, but I do not have time to write it (at least not today). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.209.22 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Manufacturers / Brands

I have added a section on ergometer manufacturers. I avoided listing makers of gimmicky water sloshers, and companies who have merely taken an ill informed, single stab at producing an erg. Concept 2 is listed, but not emphasized. Thoughts? 128.211.221.51 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Purdue Student 09/08/2008

Given this article's history regarding excessive commercialization, I'm with Nate1481 on this. The list is basically advertising, a simple internet search will provide a list of the current rowers out there. Furthermore, any form of subjective pruning of the list of manufacturers will never work on here. I'm sure it is obvious that "gimmicky water sloshers[sic.]" indicates a certain subjectivity and NPOV here, and I would be interested in how you would objectively define "ill informed, single stab" when assessing companies for inclusion in the list. --Stestagg (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To do list for GA

Given this article's importance to rowing, it'd be nice to get it up to GA standard. The existing information is good, but the article is still a bit of a shambles. IMO, the following needs to be done:

• Rewrite lead per WP:LEAD
• Consolidate existing information into logical subheadings
• Ensure compliance with WP:MOS
• Inline citations
  • Ensure no original research
• More pictures (suggestions?)
  • Main picture of a single C2 ergo
  • Historical picture (Repco ergo or Titanic photo)

No Titanic photos please...lets keep it serious. --Badocter

Was thinking of this photo http://www.titanic-titanic.com/titanic_gymnasium.shtml (2nd photo down). It's quite well known and a very early example of a rowing machine. I can also get a photo of one of the original Repcos, which were the first air-resistance ergos.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I get it now --Badocter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.24.214 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• • C2 monitor

Why specifically the C2 monitor? Not notable IMHO.--Badocter

Since C2 are the competition and training standard world-wide, I think they warrant inclusion - simply to illustrate the most common type of data readout. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Indoor rowing competition

How about embedding the youtube of Pinsent vs Cracknell for the race section http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbuESIPFfz4 . A great racing video and notable because both were olympic gold medalists and the race was the closest finish ever of a major event final (only 0.1 seconds apart).--Badocter

Sounds good, but how does that work with copyright?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A screenshot from an online rowpro session might also be good for the online racing. I can get one if needed --Badocter

• • Animation of rowing action would be excellent if anyone is handy with stuff like that

I'd like to see this as well; an animation depicting proper rowing technique, similar to what you find in the swimming stroke articles would be great. I had to read through the rowing technique section a couple of times before I felt like I understood it. 67.128.198.190 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

--Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Do mention Concept 2

I noticed that there are no mentions whatsoever of the Concept 2 rowers. I realise previous versions of the article may have seemed overly commercialised, but I think it is also important to make clear that Concept 2 is the de-facto standard of indoor rowers, at least in Europe where I live. For many Concept 2 is synonymous with indoor rowing, and that should be made clear. (One sentence would be enough to do this, and I doubt that would make the article the way it once was.) This seems to have been suggested before, but no real discussion has ensued / nothing else has happened. Qualalol (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - this article is currently completely weird in that there is a "ghost at the feast" or perhaps an elephant in the room, that ghost / elephant being C2. CRASH-B and BIRC are both run on C2's and (I suspect) so are all/most other competitions, because they are the standard. Certainly, around rowing on the Cam an erg is a C2 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

[1] may be a useful ref William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And to point out what should be obvious: the erg section of List_of_world_records_in_rowing is about records on C2's. But this is so obvious it doesn't even bother mention it. What else would you use? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

And I think I'll give the non-C2 erg histories a trim. To give rowperfect 3x the column inches of C2 is ridiculous. It currently includes Rowperfect's patent number for heaven's sake.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Terminology change? the "Finish" now referred to as the "Release"

Having just completed a LTR instructor's course in Canada, I was informed that Rowing Canada/Row Ontario is now referring to the finish of the rowing stroke as the "release". I will make a change to show the alternative terminology, but this can be discussed (SuW (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC))

Magnetic resistance

Article says "Magnetic resistance models control resistance by means of electromagnets that engage a mechanical brake with the flywheel." Is that right? I would assume that the resistance is due to bringing an electromagnet close to a rotating disk made from electrically conducting material. This set up causes so called eddy currents in the disk; the energy dissipated by these currents in the disk will cause braking action. Because this set up does not include any mechanical connection between moving and stationary parts, it is indeed almost noiseless comparec to other setups. 77.172.250.139 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I just took an "Magnetic resistance" model apart. They dot NOT use use elecromagnets! Its permanent magnets above a cast iron flywheel (Eddy current brake). As english is not my mothertongue and this is "original research" i do not feel confident editing the article. Can someone else confirm/edit?

Sorry, we would need a source to explain how they work, we can tag that it is dubious for now, though. JesseRafe (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry again, but a brief google search yielded multiple sites that attest to the description used in the article. A seemingly-neutral guide added as a ref where applicable in the article mainspace. JesseRafe (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

types

Elaboration on differences between Static Indoor Rower, Indoor Rower with Slides and Dynamic Indoor Rower. (https://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/racing/records)

There are also kayak ergometers and canoe ergometers. Whether there is a place for it in this article I don't know but it should be noted.

Also, generally rowing machines are classed by the resistance mechanism used into 4 or 5 main types (air, magnetic, water, (/fluid), hydraulic). but it isn't clear in the article, exactly what hydraulic comprises; piston is mentioned but it's not clear is it the only type or what else and so on. that part should be improved. found that somewhere it's called hydraulic-piston resistance (types:2 Piston Hydraulic-Piston Rower and 1 Piston Hydraulic-Piston Rower). found also "Piston rowing machines, also referred to as hydraulic rowers". that should be clear from the start in the article. There is now a new type of resistance, which is a combination of air and magnetic.

There is also a class cable/pulley rowing machines which contains all but hydraulic types. 213.149.61.132 (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This article could definitely serve to have a complete overhaul, and if you are willing to do it, please be bold and make the attempt. I only watch the page because some users use it to promote commercial websites or specific brands, and don't know enough about the topic to attempt it myself. That is also part of the problem of finding sources, where it is harder to find articles that actually discuss rowers without trying to sell something. JesseRafe (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Template added

The template "This article has multiple issues" ie: "May contain original research" and "More citations needed", was added at the top of the article on February 14, 2019 by "Buffaboy". No explanation for the template addition is given. In Wikipedia's user guideline for adding the "Original Research" template, it is stated that "This template should not be applied without explanation on the Talk page, and should be removed if the Original Research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianslidewinder (talk • contribs) 20:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC) The referenced template was removed on February 20, 2019 because "Buffaboy" has provided no explanation for his February 14, 2019 addition of this template. (Canadianslidewinder (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC))

This article may contain original research and needs more citations. This article has long and detailed esoteric passages that may not be informative to the average reader. This article has entire subsections that are not very wikified and probably don't conform to the MOS. There are a dozen very long paragraphs in a row that don't have any internal or external links at all. That reeks of a high chance of OR. Further, this page is frequently _targetted for spam/promotional purposes and other non-NPOV edits that may verge on COI and talk-page hounding by SPAs does not help address that fact. JesseRafe (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou JesseRafe for explaining the "Multiple Issues" of this article, however, your new insertions of "citation needed" throughout the piece are overdone, silly, and may I suggest, hint at petulance (petulance: the quality of being childishly sulky and bad-tempered). For example, in the section "Damper type" sub-heading "Air Resistance" you add that citation is needed for the statement that, "As the flywheel is spun faster, the air resistance increases." This phenomenon is universally understood. What should the citation be? The applicable laws of physics? Regrettably, many, many of your "citations needed" additions are of the same character and will do nothing to improve this article. (Canadianslidewinder (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC))

"What should the citation be? The applicable laws of physics?" For a start, yes. Also, please discuss the edits, not the editors. Everyone one of the tags was thoughtful and appropriate, and whole sections are worthy candidates for further deletion as they are largely just ruminations on the philosophy and technique of rowing rather than encyclopedic. JesseRafe (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"thoughtful and appropriate" indeed. Demanding a citation for the statement, "As the flywheel is spun faster, the air resistance increases." is analogous to demanding a citation for the statement, "A rowing machine does not float into space because of the force of gravity." (Canadianslidewinder (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC))

Good news! I have found a paper published in "The Deep Thinker's Journal" (Issue #43, Pages 9-12, March 2016) which supports the statement, "As the flywheel is spun faster, the air resistance increases." The paper is titled, "Testing the hypothesis that a vane moving through air encounters higher resistance to movement at low speeds than at high speeds". Unexpectedly, the experimental results show that air resistance to vane movement actually increases as speed increases! The Deep Thinker's Journal reports that this finding has rocked the scientific community. With your permission, JesseRafe, I will add this citation to the Indoor Rower article. (Canadianslidewinder (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC))

Re: "Citation Needed" tag on the last sentence in the history section. The quote, as stated, is from the patent abstract of Casper Rekers. The patent number is given at the beginning of the paragraph. The patent is the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianslidewinder (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Then cite it! This isn't hard... JesseRafe (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It is cited! The citation is at the beginning of the paragraph - a link to US Patent 5382210. The referenced quote is indicated as being from that patent document. This is not hard to understand... (Canadianslidewinder (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC))

Multiple sources warnings

One such warning serves its purpose well, it is not helpful to a add a warning in each paragraph. Basically, scientific publications may be scarce in this field ;-) --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)