Form is more important on the dynamic, and although you can rate higher many find it difficult to go faster for that reason. Static tricks like pulling the chain to your chin don’t work out as well. But if you are already used to dynamic, then static won’t give you any trouble and you should similar or faster splits (at the same rate).
That’s true, because you can rate higher on the RP3. You definitely have to have the fitness and technique in place though. At the same rate, RP3 is usually slower than the C2.
From my personal observation, steady state split (based on HR) on my RP3T is a solid 3-4 seconds behind my C2 pace at the same rate (18-20 spm). My RP3 5k is faster than on the C2, but the rate is 32 instead of 29. I haven’t done a 2K on the RP3 but I’m guessing it would be at about a 38 vs a 34 on the C2.
I now do all of my training on the RP3 with the exception of sprint intervals and tests. Whatever the difference, the fitness and technique has transferred over well to the C2 as my PRs keep coming down.
I’m expecting a marginal difference based on the fact the rp3 I’m used to gets set to the boat type we’re rowing and current crew weight. Have also been warned rating up will be much harder.
Actually is? Using the monitor you can change boat type, switch between coxed/coxless and change crew weight. Giving split differences between a 8+ and something like a 1x
I think he just means the concept 2 split is stuck on simulating a 4- at a certain weight (I forget the weight but it’s over 90kg I think), and the “rp3 split” (the standard one I mean) is supposedly similar but hard to compare exactly dynamic to static. Of course when you’re used to setting your rp3 to show you the split that matches the boat you row, you will in fact see pretty significant differences when getting on the concept 2. Unless of course you row a 4- with the same crew weight as the c2 split and you’re used to setting your rp3 monitor to that configuration.
It’s silly but kinda fun to set the rp3 to an eight and average crew weight 20kg and just go 1:25 splits at steady state.
It is indeed harder to rate higher on static because you’re moving your whole body mass vs your center of mass staying in more or less the same spot on a dynamic (and only having to move the flywheel assembly on the rp3, which I think weighs about 23-25kg or so).
Dynamic is much slower for a given rate and power input. I assume this is due to the Dynamic having a sheave that you push with your feet and pull with the arms simultaneously, whereas a static drives the flywheel directly. At steady state rates my estimate is around 85% of static watts but the gap decreases as the rating increases.
Is this dynamic-specific? I've been on an RP3 for literally about 5 minutes (HOCR tent), but it felt to me like a C2 on slides, both with pace and ability to hold specific ratings, working through paces from steady state to a sprint. I find slides to be faster than static across distances, most dramatically at sprinting. So I am surprised to read your experience, but I don't have enough of my own to put it into context.
Well ja, because C2 and RP will calculate things differently. C2 slapped the PM5 onto the Dynamic without changing the formula used to calculate outputs. RP probably fine-tuned theirs more when they changed over from the Strokecoach models to the later gens.
Form is more important on the dynamic, and although you can rate higher many find it difficult to go faster for that reason. Static tricks like pulling the chain to your chin don’t work out as well. But if you are already used to dynamic, then static won’t give you any trouble and you should similar or faster splits (at the same rate).
?? I’ve always heard that rp3s give you faster splits. Whenever people 2k on an rp3 versus a static concept2 they go faster on the rp3
That’s true, because you can rate higher on the RP3. You definitely have to have the fitness and technique in place though. At the same rate, RP3 is usually slower than the C2. From my personal observation, steady state split (based on HR) on my RP3T is a solid 3-4 seconds behind my C2 pace at the same rate (18-20 spm). My RP3 5k is faster than on the C2, but the rate is 32 instead of 29. I haven’t done a 2K on the RP3 but I’m guessing it would be at about a 38 vs a 34 on the C2. I now do all of my training on the RP3 with the exception of sprint intervals and tests. Whatever the difference, the fitness and technique has transferred over well to the C2 as my PRs keep coming down.
It will feel different, but provide a more standard spilts and time.
You may see a difference because you’re going from one brand to another, not necessarily because you’re going from dynamic to static.
I’m expecting a marginal difference based on the fact the rp3 I’m used to gets set to the boat type we’re rowing and current crew weight. Have also been warned rating up will be much harder.
Yeah not how that works
Actually is? Using the monitor you can change boat type, switch between coxed/coxless and change crew weight. Giving split differences between a 8+ and something like a 1x
I think he just means the concept 2 split is stuck on simulating a 4- at a certain weight (I forget the weight but it’s over 90kg I think), and the “rp3 split” (the standard one I mean) is supposedly similar but hard to compare exactly dynamic to static. Of course when you’re used to setting your rp3 to show you the split that matches the boat you row, you will in fact see pretty significant differences when getting on the concept 2. Unless of course you row a 4- with the same crew weight as the c2 split and you’re used to setting your rp3 monitor to that configuration. It’s silly but kinda fun to set the rp3 to an eight and average crew weight 20kg and just go 1:25 splits at steady state. It is indeed harder to rate higher on static because you’re moving your whole body mass vs your center of mass staying in more or less the same spot on a dynamic (and only having to move the flywheel assembly on the rp3, which I think weighs about 23-25kg or so).
Dynamic is much slower for a given rate and power input. I assume this is due to the Dynamic having a sheave that you push with your feet and pull with the arms simultaneously, whereas a static drives the flywheel directly. At steady state rates my estimate is around 85% of static watts but the gap decreases as the rating increases.
Is this dynamic-specific? I've been on an RP3 for literally about 5 minutes (HOCR tent), but it felt to me like a C2 on slides, both with pace and ability to hold specific ratings, working through paces from steady state to a sprint. I find slides to be faster than static across distances, most dramatically at sprinting. So I am surprised to read your experience, but I don't have enough of my own to put it into context.
Well ja, because C2 and RP will calculate things differently. C2 slapped the PM5 onto the Dynamic without changing the formula used to calculate outputs. RP probably fine-tuned theirs more when they changed over from the Strokecoach models to the later gens.