Table 1. Comparison of measures between Concept 2C and Rowperfect. Data are means (±SD, n = 6).
Parameters Concept 2C Rowperfect Univariate F statistic (P value)
Ergometer monitor
LCD Rowing Split time (s.500m-1) Strokes rate (strokes·min-1)
106.8 (1.2)
23.0 (1.7)
106.5 (1.2)
23.7 (1.3)
.233 (.64)
.769 (.41)
Rowing cycle
Cycle duration (sec)
2.57 (.04) 2.53 (.09) 1.09(.32)
Drive duration (sec) 1.37 (.24) 1.36 (.23) .003(.96)
Drive phase (% of cycle) 53.0 (9.7) 55.3 (9.5) .161 (.70)
Latency to handle peak
Horizontal ccelerometry (sec)
.64 (.18) .51 (.18) 1.07 (.33)
Heart Rate (beats·min-1) 162 (7) 169 (8) 2.002 (.12)
2-D video motion analysis
Hip Range of Motion(deg)
Knee Range of Motion (deg)
101.6 (4.5)
118.3 (5.0)
99.5 (2.7)
115.8 (6.7)
.980 (.35)
.42 (.53)
Average Technical Score
sEMG activity per cycle
3.16 (1.83) 3.83 (1.61) .728 (.52)
iEMG of RF (mV·sec) .081(.019) .060 (.015) 4.355 (.06)
iEMG of BF (mV·sec) .075 (.030) .072 (.014) .062 (.81)
iEMG of ES (mV·sec) .067 (.032) .048 (.019) 1.479 (.25)
iEMG of RA (mV·sec) .047 (.019) .042 (.022) .235 (.64)
There were no significant differences.