Water Rower

[Aussieguy101]

Does anyone have one of these ?

http://www.waterrower.com.au/

Look cool buy expensive

[daniel327]

Does anyone have one of these ?

http://www.waterrower.com.au/

Look cool buy expensive

They are priced about the same as a Concept 2 rowing machine, and offer no fitness advantage over the C2. Therefore, I'd get the C2.

[ProtienandIron]

They are priced about the same as a Concept 2 rowing machine, and offer no fitness advantage over the C2. Therefore, I'd get the C2.

This^.

Water rowers have been around for a long time, I got a chance to try one out about 6 years ago. While they are very well made, and very usable, IMHO they just don't compare to the Concept. They are more of a rich persons ornament then a serious piece of training equipment. That said, they are better then most of the junk rowers out there, so if you get a chance to pick one up very cheap, then go for it.

[rpark]

Does anyone have one of these ?

http://www.waterrower.com.au/

Look cool buy expensive

I disagree with the above posters. I love my water rower. I don't think there's much difference between the water rower and concept 2, except for the soothing sound the water rower makes compared to the fan blowing in your face of the concept rowers. They are both plentiful used in the US, but in Aussie land, it may be different.

The only real difference in the units is in the computers, not in the functionality.

[vic84875]

I am a rower, as a hobby, 15 years, i am getting old. Some machines are ok, they simulate the real thing quite well. However; it is a pitty that you can not take advantage of the ocean living down-under. Nothing beats the real thing.

[buffbrown21]

This is all in another thread, but just to repeat for info purposes:
I have owned both of these and....
I had a water rower and really enjoyed it, but doing hard intervals on it wasnt nearly and good as using a concept 2 rower (which I got later).
So, in my opinion, if you like, longer, steady cardio sessions, the waterrower may be preferred.
If you like interval and tabata work for cardio, the Concept 2 should probably be your choice.

[SteedLego]

The waterrower is an excellent piece of cardio machinery, arguably the best you could possibly find for home use. There is no question that rowing is a great form of cardio. It utlizes over 84% of the muscle in your body if done correctly and can effectively burn more calories per minute than most any other form of cardio, other than maybe swimming. As a former NCAA swimmer myself, the one difference between swimming and rowing is that the rowing stroke is MUCH easier to learn than proper swimming stroke technique. This combined with the fact that you need an actual pool to swim gives indoor rowing the edge as arguably the IDEAL form of cardio for the stength trainee/fitness enthusiast/natural bodybuilder looking for a way to burn come calories and cut.

Really what is not to love:
1. Burns more calories than most any other form of cardio.
2. Utilizes most all of your major muscle groups.
3. Reduces joint stress.
4. Is low impact.
5. Is realtively easy to master techinque.
6. Strengthens rather than weakens your back joints, hips, knees and ankles.
7. Promotes proper posture.
8. Can be done in the convenience of your own home.

I own both a waterrower and a Concept II. In a recent comparison, I outlined why both are great machines, but why waterrower is probably ideal for home gym even over the Concept II.

Let me summarize the benefits of the waterrower as follows:

1. Reduced Noise -- The waterrower is MUCH quieter than the Concept II. I have rowed in the same room where my wife and newborn baby were taking a nap. There is no noise moving back and forth on the rails due to the fact they are made of wood. What little noise is created is just the sound of rushing water, which really is more of a pleasant and relaxing sound.

2. Seat Stability -- I have found the seat much more stable on the waterrower. Go figure that two rails (waterrower) are more stable than one (Concept II).

3. Better Seat -- The waterrower is much more comfortatble for longer rows than the Concept II -- especially for women (or so I have heard from my wife).

4. Better handle -- The handle on the waterrower is better and more comfortable. The upgraded handle is even more comfortable for guys with naturally broad shoulders and powerful upper body builds. Most body builders will find the waterrower with the upgraded wider handle more comfortable than the Concept II.

5. Smoother Stroke (Especially in the Catch) -- The clutch is MUCH better on the waterrower. I found the clutch to slightly jerk on the Concept II. I like the Concept, but the overall experience is just too mechanical for me. In any case, the stroke from start to finish is much more smooth on the waterrower -- and, hence, much more enjoyable.

6. More Pleasant -- I actually enjoy rowing on the waterrower -- it has a nice pleasing sound. I don't love the whirr of the Concept II.

7. Open View -- The fly on the Concept is right in front of your face. This makes talking to someone in front of you, watching TV or viewing a sunrise from your back deck much more difficult as you row. In contrast, the waterrower fly is below your eye level, giving you full range of vision while you row. 

8. Smaller Footprint -- Waterrower is not as long as Concept II and takes up a smaller footprint.

9. Stores Vertically Easier -- Waterrower stores more easily in the vertical position than Concept II.

10. Aesthetic Appeal -- Waterrower looks like a piece of art or an expensive piece of furniture. It can go in any office or any room in your home, not just your garage gym. For whatever reason, it appears to have a better appeal for my wife as well (she never used my Concept II, but regularly uses the waterrower). This is a big concern (especially for women apparently) if you have an in-home gym. 

11. Monitor and Software Not THAT Bad -- Yes, the Concept II is the "standard" and all that jazz. But, there are FAR too many people that totally discount the new S4 monitor for the waterrower, which actually is quite good and MUCH better than people give it credit for. Let's face it, even Concept II is no match for RowPerfect in its feedback and watt computation accuracy. So why the negativity towards waterrower? All three are excellent rowers and great pieces of cardio machinery, but the waterrower is arguably superior for in-home use and for use by non-competitive rowing athletes.

12. Less Maintenance -- Believe it or not, waterrower requires much LESS maintenance than the Concept II -- or so I have found. The flywheel on the Concept II gets really dirty from my experience. Likewise, the seat rails require at least weekly maintenance for avid rowing. In contrast, the water wheel of the waterrower requires a cholrine tablet once a year, and rails require much less cleaning and maintenance.

13. Intensity Level is Just Fine: Many people I think are under the false impression that you can't get a great workout on the waterrower. You can and (IMHO) it is just as easy as getting a great workout on the Concept II. Big strong guys like me may want to fill the watertank to near the maximum recommended amount, but this is a minor technicality. Natural resistance is subject to the rule of cubes --i.e., to double your performance, you have to quadruple your power output. So, yes, it is PLENTY easy to get an exhaustive workout on the waterrower and to do intervals and sprints. 

The only REAL drawbacks I have had with waterrower:

1. Smaller Online Rowing Community -- The WeRow community is actually quite small. (Probably because of all the unjustified biased negativity directed towards waterrower.) Though not as accurate as the Concept II, again the waterrower S4 monitor is plenty decent enough to enjoy fun and challenging recreational races online. I have noticed that this is getting better as increasingly more people actually start to recognize just how good the waterrower monitor and online competition software actually is.

2. Not a Dynamic Erg -- Some people (not me) will complain that you can't put the waterrower on slides. Again, I think that putting any erg on slides in your home with young kids is a serious accident waiting to happen personally. Second, I think the natural feel and resistance of the waterrower combined with its non-mechanical smooth stroke overcomes the potential pitfalls of static ergs. Though rowing athletes will want a more "realistic" simulator, I can't see any non-rowing athlete and fitness/bodybuilding enthusiast (like myself) to care too much about the "need" for a dynamic erg. I tried the oartech once and, personally, until they can create a dynamic erg that has a water-based flywheel, I will stick to my waterrower. 

3. Cost -- There is no doubt that the waterrower is (on average) more expensive. Also, it is much harder (almost impossible in some areas) to find used waterrowers for sale.  (You think that may be in part due to the fact their owners never seem to want to get rid of them?) I searched for over two solid months without finding anything in my local area, and finally caved in and just paid the full price from waterrower for the oxbridge model. Though, considering it is arguably the best piece of cardio equipment I have ever experienced, $1,000-$1,500 is a small price to pay IMHO; I have definately got my "money worth" and much more out of the purchase and see it as money well spent.  


In short, the Concept II is an awesome machine. But as I continuously move toward strength and bodybuilding and away from competitive endurance events, I see increasingly little need for the Concept II. The Concept II is PERFECT for rowing athletes and those who wish to compete in online indoor rowing over the internet. However, for home use as a frequently used piece of cardio equipment for your average amateur bodybuilder and strength trainee, I think the waterrower is superior. In my personal opinion, there is no comparison between waterrower and Concept II for in-home use, especially for a strength training junkie looking to add a 2-3 hours of cardio to his or her routine every week from the convenience and comfort and safety of his home.

Just my two cents. Again, I do love the Concept II and the Concept II has its own strengths that I have discussed elsewhere, but I really do think that the majority of amateur bodybuilders on this forum would prefer a waterrower over a Concept II.

Best.

[jlongo]

Does anyone have one of these ?



Look cool buy expensive

I am amazed at how anyone would answer this question without owning or using one. People love to bloviate! My husband and I bought a water rower to add to our home cardio options. His knees won't allow him to workout on the treadmill, so the cardio of choice for the past several years has been the Octane elliptical- a very expensive, but excellent machine. We needed one more option, so we started looking into rowing machines. We almost bought the concept 2, but I could not get past how loud it was. We went to a great fitness equipment store in Nashua NH (Precision Fitness Equipment) and tried the Waterrower. I fell in love! It's really well made (solid maple) and it has this water tank that creates the resistance-makes a fantastic sound like you are really rowing. It's a great workout. I started with 5 minutes (not kidding-I was winded) and now I'm up to 30 minutes. It's a systemic workout and is much more intense than anything I have ever done. It does not need to be plugged in. To get more intense, you just go faster. I have always trained my legs with weights (squats, lunges, leg presses, etc) so my legs are really strong-which helps. I cannot get past a 24 stroke rate without feeling like I am going to collapse! My husband who is way more aerobically fit than me is comfortable at a 22 stroke rate. you can go all the way up to in the 40's. I will never get there. I was stunned at how comparatively cheap it was compared to other equipment. $1000 when all is said and done. I put it together in about an hour ( a little over) it's very intuitive, but comes with a DVD and a manual. I highly recommend it. My son (23 years old and very fit-a gym rat) said they are using this machine at the cross-fit place near his house in Mass. I can see why. I highly recommend it, and it doesn't take up that much room- maybe 8' by 2' but it folds up vertically, so you can store it without taking up your floor space. Overall, excellent. Don't hesitate.

[TraineeN00b]

I have a Water Rower as well and find it excellent for many of the reason people have outlined above.

It comes down to personal preference between that and the C2, you wont go wrong with either.

[daniel327]

People love to bloviate!

An opinion based on actual experience.

[smokeater]

I tried a water rower about 10 years ago. It was ok but something about it I just didn't like. It had to do with feel and I couldn't put my finger on it at the time. Personally, I prefer the concept 2

[minaldo]

I realize this is an old thread, but in case anyone else happens upon it I thought I'd add my own experience with the waterrower. I've had it about a month now. I use it for cardio instead of running, which I used to do. Rowing is much easier on my knees. The waterrower is fantastic. The seat is very comfortable, as is the handle, and the set up makes for a very natural rowing motion, with an early catch and tension throughout the row.

Anyone who says the waterrower is too easy is not rowing properly. First, you can change the water levels. Believe me, when the water is filled to max level it increases the resistance. Secondly, the resistance you get from this thing is so natural because it is all about the effort you put into it. The harder you push off with your legs = the harder you will work. After the inital leg push off you pull with your arms and your back. Again, the harder you pull, the harder you work.

At my current fitness level I row 6,600 meters in 30 minutes. My rep rate varies from mid 24s to 33s. I like that this machine also gives me my average intensity. The big downside about this machine is that there no community I can find, no competitive races I am aware of. In fact, I've been looking around to see how my rowing rate, time and distance and intensity compares against others, but I can find no info out there. So if you row to compete against a community of racers, this is definitely not the rower for you. Since I am rowing primarily for fitness, it doesn't bother me too much.

From a pure rowing perspective I love this machine.

[spentan]

Looking at the WaterRower and have just a quick question,

Do you find that your feet are too close together? Considering my size, I don't know if the rower would be comfortable for me with my feet being so close together, thats the only concern I have.

(Also looking at XL Rails)

[keyboardworkout]

I don't see any reason to get a Water Rower over a C2.

http://www.rowing-machine-review.com...r-vs-concept2/

I will say that the C2 PM5 is buggy and I would consider it to still be in the beta stage. Once they get the firmware sorted out for the PM5, the bluetooth compatibility will be nice.

[rpark]

Looking at the WaterRower and have just a quick question,

Do you find that your feet are too close together? Considering my size, I don't know if the rower would be comfortable for me with my feet being so close together, thats the only concern I have.

(Also looking at XL Rails)

Well, the cheap plastic foot mounts are mounted to the wood frame.... I suppose it would be easy enough to add your own wider piece of wood to mount your feet if you needed a wider stance. But honestly I don't see it as an issue at 6'0", but 6'9"????? you might just want to find one to test out. I think it would be easy enough to modify for a wide stance though with a little simple wood work.

Both the Concept 2 and Water Rower are proven best of the best, you really can't go wrong with either.

Edit:
Also as noted on Waterpower's website, they have an XL upgrade available for purchase with a new unit, you might need to find one with the XL length (which might be difficult), see notes from WR:

"The WaterRower, with standard rails, caters for an inside leg measurement of up to 38" (965 mm)

If you are particularly long in the leg, then there is an XL Rail option

The XL Rail Option increases the rail length by 4" (100mm), catering for an inside leg measurement of up to 42" (1065mm) "

[keyboardworkout]

I missed the 6'9" part.

I have the extended monorail on my C2 D model. My inseam is about 39" and there are still a few inches left on the rail.

[forkspoon]

Francis Underwood approves of a water rower.

[Cleveland33]

I don't see any reason to get a Water Rower over a C2.

http://www.rowing-machine-review.com...r-vs-concept2/

I will say that the C2 PM5 is buggy and I would consider it to still be in the beta stage. Once they get the firmware sorted out for the PM5, the bluetooth compatibility will be nice.

buying new, probably not. But if it's an issue of used/availability, there is nothing wrong with the water rower.

Concept II did a good job cornering the market of rowers, but they did so before it was considered such a great training piece. They did with actual rowing teams - and the primary reason they managed to do so was because everyone was buying their oars from them already so they had established relationships. And no one else's oars, at least in the US, are worth a damn.

[keyboardworkout]

If I ever decide to get something other than my C2, it will be one of these http://www.rowperfect.com.au/

I've heard the C2 dynamic is rather meh, but I have never tried one.

[spentan]

I don't see any reason to get a Water Rower over a C2.

http://www.rowing-machine-review.com...r-vs-concept2/

I will say that the C2 PM5 is buggy and I would consider it to still be in the beta stage. Once they get the firmware sorted out for the PM5, the bluetooth compatibility will be nice.

I like the whooshing of the water as opposed to the air, as well as the fact that I like the strap instead of the chain.

Well, the cheap plastic foot mounts are mounted to the wood frame.... I suppose it would be easy enough to add your own wider piece of wood to mount your feet if you needed a wider stance. But honestly I don't see it as an issue at 6'0", but 6'9"????? you might just want to find one to test out. I think it would be easy enough to modify for a wide stance though with a little simple wood work.

Both the Concept 2 and Water Rower are proven best of the best, you really can't go wrong with either.

Edit:
Also as noted on Waterpower's website, they have an XL upgrade available for purchase with a new unit, you might need to find one with the XL length (which might be difficult), see notes from WR:

"The WaterRower, with standard rails, caters for an inside leg measurement of up to 38" (965 mm)

If you are particularly long in the leg, then there is an XL Rail option

The XL Rail Option increases the rail length by 4" (100mm), catering for an inside leg measurement of up to 42" (1065mm) "

I actually tried one out at a store today. I will definitely go with the XL rails option, when my legs are almost locked, I'm hitting the end of the rails.

That being said, my inseam when measured is only 37.5". Didn't realise my Torso was so long, I guess its proportional.

I missed the 6'9" part.

I have the extended monorail on my C2 D model. My inseam is about 39" and there are still a few inches left on the rail.

Cool, I will be getting the Waterrower Classic as that actually matches my Kitchen cabinets, and wood flooring color. I will be buying new from Waterrower, I'm gonna do the rental program where I rent a new one for 3 months, and then if I like it I pay the difference and keep it. If I don't, then I'll send it back for another $100 or so.

buying new, probably not. But if it's an issue of used/availability, there is nothing wrong with the water rower.

Concept II did a good job cornering the market of rowers, but they did so before it was considered such a great training piece. They did with actual rowing teams - and the primary reason they managed to do so was because everyone was buying their oars from them already so they had established relationships. And no one else's oars, at least in the US, are worth a damn.

Fair enough. I really like the dual rail design of the waterrower, helps me with stability, cos I'm a bit of a fatass if you haven't seen my stats

Plan to drop 150lbs with this rower, looking forward to smashing out 30min sessions (will work up to it of course) every day.

[throwaway3441]

Have you spent any real time on a rower? They're not for everybody. If I was in your shoes I would be looking for a recumbent bike. They're cheaper, easier (Any idiot can hop on one and control intensity from the very beginning. You can't safely control intensity on a rower until you've developed proper form and that takes time.), lower impact, more comfortable, quieter, require no mental effort (You can read, watch TV, whatever while cycling.), require less space, safer (It's easy to injure yourself rowing with poor form. Even with proper form you might be one of the unlucky ones that gets tennis elbow. Either way there will be calluses.), ...

[scubaraven]

I have a WaterRower Club Rowing Machine with S4 Monitor, and am very disappointed to not find ANY apps that run with this machine and a standard iPad. The Concept Rower is a lesser-quality machine, yet has quite a few options for aps that work with their machine. Anyone know of any apps that work with the WR?

[scubaraven]

I have one and am always looking for other rowers to row with via We-Row. Hit me up! Richvalent@gmail.com

[greenleaf]

Is dual rail a must on the Water Rower? I'm looking at the entry level A1 home model with mono rail. It looks more compact and cheaper than the dual rail model.

https://www.waterrower.com/us/shop/a1-home.html

[alexnemerq]

ye thats good

[ripper238]

I disagree with the above posters. I love my water rower. I don't think there's much difference between the water rower and concept 2, except for the soothing sound the water rower makes compared to the fan blowing in your face of the concept rowers. They are both plentiful used in the US, but in Aussie land, it may be different.

The only real difference in the units is in the computers, not in the functionality.

I agree. They are both rowers that do the same thing. The Con II is certainly a great rower and fits the specifications someone in crew needs, specifically the electronics. But there is one thing the water rower is superior at over the Con II, it can stand up on end and has a smaller footprint. Which is big for the home.

[Duplicitous]

I agree. They are both rowers that do the same thing. The Con II is certainly a great rower and fits the specifications someone in crew needs, specifically the electronics. But there is one thing the water rower is superior at over the Con II, it can stand up on end and has a smaller footprint. Which is big for the home.

The C2 C-D-E all split/connect in seconds and the D-E can stand on end. My main issue with water rowers is that: (a) they all eventually leak and most sooner rather than later and (b) cost of repairs. C2s will last forever and they're cheap/easy to fix. The only exception there is the monitors, which have become less reliable and more costly/complex to repair as they increase in complexity.

[rpark]

Multi year bump..... nice..... my quoted post was 2013..... hahahaha

[1651Naismith]

Multi year bump..... nice..... my quoted post was 2013..... hahahaha

On spread. Wanted to rep for 8 years between your posts in a single thread.

[ripper238]

The C2 C-D-E all split/connect in seconds and the D-E can stand on end. My main issue with water rowers is that: (a) they all eventually leak and most sooner rather than later and (b) cost of repairs. C2s will last forever and they're cheap/easy to fix. The only exception there is the monitors, which have become less reliable and more costly/complex to repair as they increase in complexity.

Yes, C-D-E do split so that's a plus if you don't mind the hassle. The C2 is not really designed to stand on end, but it can, its just way too long/tall in most cases. As for leaking on the water type rowers i have probably installed well over 100 of these in 20+ years with 1 maybe 2 that leaked.

But yeah, its hard to beat a Con II's reliability if you maintain it and have the space.