The Unquestioned King: Setting the Gold Standard

In the world of indoor fitness, few pieces of equipment command the universal respect and recognition afforded to the Concept2 RowErg. It is the undisputed benchmark, the gold standard against which all other rowing machines are measured.¹ Its presence is a given in the austere, performance-focused environments of CrossFit boxes, the training centers of Olympic athletes, and the conditioning rooms of professional sports teams.³ This ubiquity is not the result of flashy marketing, but of a decades-long reputation forged in the crucible of relentless, high-volume use. The Concept2 is, first and foremost, the rower’s rower.⁶

A Legacy of Durability and Simplicity

The philosophy underpinning the Concept2 RowErg is one of practical, efficient engineering designed to last a lifetime.³ The machine is a study in substance over style. Its construction features an aluminum I-beam monorail with a stainless-steel track for the seat, supported by aluminum front legs and robust steel rear legs.¹ This combination of materials provides exceptional sturdiness while keeping the machine’s weight to a manageable 57 pounds.³ The drive system utilizes a nickel-plated steel chain, chosen for its durability and smooth operation, requiring minimal maintenance over years of service.¹

This commitment to quality is why gym owners and long-time users consistently report that the machines can endure decades of abuse with little more than occasional battery changes and chain oiling.⁸ The design is intentionally “feature-light, quality-heavy,” eschewing the trend of integrated screens and complex electronics in favor of perfecting the core mechanical experience.⁸ This focus on fundamental quality has also led to a strategic evolution in its branding. The machine formerly known as the “Model D” was renamed the “RowErg” in May 2021.¹ This was more than a cosmetic update; it was a deliberate move to align the rower with its siblings, the SkiErg and BikeErg, creating a cohesive “Erg” ecosystem.⁹ This strategy fosters a unified platform for training, data tracking, and competition, encouraging athletes to remain within the Concept2 family for their ergometer needs—a powerful, long-term brand vision that distinguishes it from competitors like MERACH, which offer a more diffuse range of unconnected fitness products.¹⁰

The PM5 Monitor: An Industry Icon

Central to the Concept2 identity is its Performance Monitor 5, or PM5. In an era of high-definition touchscreens, the PM5’s simple LCD display appears almost anachronistic. Yet, it is revered as the industry standard not for its aesthetics, but for its uncompromising accuracy, reliability, and the depth of data it provides.¹ The monitor tracks every essential metric a serious athlete could desire: time, distance, strokes per minute (SPM), calories, watts, and the 500m split time, which is the universal measure of rowing speed.⁴

What truly sets the PM5 apart is its ability to self-calibrate through a metric called “drag factor.” Between each stroke, the monitor measures the rate at which the flywheel decelerates. This calculation accounts for environmental conditions like air pressure, temperature, and even the amount of dust in the flywheel housing, ensuring that a watt of power exerted on a machine in Denver is measured the same as a watt exerted in Miami.¹⁴ This feature is the bedrock of fair competition, allowing for the creation of reliable online world rankings and virtual races. It transforms the RowErg from a mere exercise machine into a standardized, competitive instrument.

This deliberate “no-frills” philosophy is often listed as a con in consumer reviews that highlight the lack of built-in streaming workouts.⁵ However, for the machine’s core audience of elite athletes and data-driven users, this simplicity is a feature, not a flaw. These users prioritize pure, unadulterated performance data over guided entertainment. The PM5 delivers exactly what is necessary for serious training and eliminates potential distractions, embodying a design ethos of pure performance that defines the Concept2 brand.

The Physics of the Perfect Pull: Why Air Resistance Reigns Supreme

To understand what makes a rowing machine effective, one must first understand the engine that drives it. The Concept2 RowErg, and others like it, operate on the elegant principle of air resistance. This system is responsible for the machine’s characteristic feel, its scalability, and even its sound.

The Flywheel Engine

At the heart of an air rower is a flywheel, which is essentially a large, caged fan.¹⁵ When the user pulls the handle, the chain spins this flywheel. The resistance felt by the user is the force required to move the fan’s blades through the air inside the housing. This creates what is known as “variable” or “dynamic” resistance: the faster the flywheel spins, the more air it must displace, and the greater the resistance becomes.¹⁷

This principle has a profound implication: on an air rower, the user is the engine.¹⁴ Unlike a magnetic rower where resistance is set to a fixed level, an air rower’s intensity is dictated entirely by the user’s effort. A gentle pull results in low resistance. An explosive, powerful pull results in immense resistance. This creates a direct, one-to-one feedback loop between effort and difficulty, with a theoretically unlimited ceiling for resistance.¹⁶ It is this inherent scalability that makes a single air rower equally suitable for a deconditioned novice and an Olympic champion. The machine automatically adapts to the force applied to it, making it a “one size fits all” solution perfect for multi-user environments like a commercial gym or a family home gym.¹⁹

The Damper: Your “Gearing,” Not Your “Gas Pedal”

A common point of confusion is the function of the damper, the adjustable lever on the side of the flywheel housing, typically numbered 1 to 10.¹⁴ Many users mistakenly believe this is a resistance setting. In reality, the damper functions more like the gearing on a bicycle than a gas pedal.⁴ It does not set the resistance; it controls the

feel of the stroke by regulating how much air is allowed to flow into the flywheel housing.¹⁴

• Low Damper Setting (1-4): Restricts airflow. The flywheel encounters less air, making it feel lighter and easier to accelerate. This mimics the feel of a sleek, narrow racing shell on calm water. It requires the user to apply force more quickly to maintain momentum.¹⁴
• High Damper Setting (6-10): Opens the vent, allowing more air into the housing. The flywheel must work harder to push through this denser volume of air, making the stroke feel heavier and more sluggish to accelerate. This is analogous to rowing a wide, heavy barge.⁵

Crucially, an athlete can perform a grueling, high-intensity workout at a damper setting of 3, and a light recovery session at a setting of 10. The intensity is always a product of how hard one pulls, not the damper setting.¹⁴ For most individuals, a setting between 3 and 5 provides the best balance of feel and cardiovascular benefit, closely replicating the physics of on-water rowing.⁴

The Spectrum of Resistance

Air resistance occupies a unique place among rower technologies. Magnetic rowers use magnets to create resistance against a metal flywheel; they are very quiet but offer a constant, less realistic resistance that does not change with user effort.¹⁷ Water rowers use paddles churning in a tank of water, providing a dynamic resistance and an immersive, audible “whoosh” that many find therapeutic.² Hydraulic rowers, which use pistons, are typically the most compact and affordable but offer the least realistic and often inconsistent stroke feel.¹⁷

Air resistance, therefore, represents a sweet spot for performance-oriented users, delivering a dynamic, user-controlled intensity that closely simulates the feel of on-water rowing. The trade-off for this performance is noise. The characteristic “whoosh” of an air rower is not a design flaw but an unavoidable byproduct of its physics—the sound of the machine doing its job.⁵ For a potential buyer, the choice between a loud air rower and a quiet magnetic rower is a conscious decision between realistic performance feel and household acoustics.¹³

The Body as an Engine: Deconstructing the Biomechanics of the Rowing Stroke

The claim that rowing is a “total-body workout” is not hyperbole; it is a biomechanical fact. A single, properly executed stroke engages up to 86% of the body’s muscles, from the calves to the upper back, in a coordinated sequence of power and grace.²² Understanding this sequence, or kinetic chain, is the key to unlocking the full potential of the exercise and preventing injury. The stroke is a fluid, cyclical motion divided into four distinct phases: the Catch, the Drive, the Finish, and the Recovery.²³

The Four Phases of a Fluid Motion

An efficient stroke maintains a rhythm, often described by a 1:2 ratio: the Drive phase should be explosive and take roughly half the time of the controlled, deliberate Recovery phase.²³ This rhythm ensures that power is applied effectively and that the “recovery” is a true period of rest and reset.

Phase 1: The Catch (The “Ready” Position)

This is the starting position, the coiled spring from which all power originates. The athlete sits at the front of the machine with shins nearly vertical to the ground. The body is hinged forward from the hips, maintaining a straight, tall spine, with the chest up and shoulders relaxed. The arms are fully extended, gripping the handle lightly.²² The muscles of the core, back, and legs are tensed and ready to fire.²²

Phase 2: The Drive (The “Power” Phase)

The Drive is the explosive, work-producing portion of the stroke. It must follow a precise sequence to maximize power and efficiency. The biggest misconception about rowing is that it is an arm exercise; in reality, the power is generated from the ground up.²³

1. Legs First: The stroke begins with a powerful push from the legs, driving the footplates away. The quadriceps and gluteus maximus are the primary engines here, generating the vast majority of the stroke’s power.²³ The arms remain straight during this initial push.
2. Core & Back Second: As the legs approach full extension, the power transfers to the core. The athlete pivots backward from the hips, engaging the powerful muscles of the back (erector spinae) and abdominals to swing the torso from a forward-leaning position to a slightly reclined one.²³
3. Arms Last: Only after the legs are fully extended and the back swing is nearly complete do the arms engage. The handle is pulled powerfully toward the lower chest, driven by the large muscles of the back (latissimus dorsi, rhomboids) and the biceps.²³

Any deviation from this “legs-body-arms” sequence results in a “leakage” of power and increases the risk of injury, particularly to the lower back. Common faults include pulling with the arms too early or opening the hips before the leg drive is complete.²³

Phase 3: The Finish (The “Release” Position)

The Drive concludes at the Finish. Here, the legs are fully extended, the body has a slight backward lean of about 10-15 degrees past vertical (visualized as the 1 o’clock position), and the handle is held lightly against the upper abdomen or lower sternum. The core remains braced and the posture is tall.²²

Phase 4: The Recovery (The “Reset” Phase)

The Recovery is not a passive phase; it is a controlled movement that sets up the next stroke. It is the exact reverse of the Drive sequence: “arms-body-legs”.²³

1. Arms First: The hands move away from the body, extending the arms fully.²⁶
2. Core & Back Second: The torso pivots forward from the hips, returning to the forward-leaning “Catch” posture.²⁶
3. Legs Last: Only when the hands have safely cleared the knees do the legs begin to bend, allowing the seat to slide smoothly forward along the monorail, returning the athlete to the Catch position for the next stroke.²³

This meticulous sequence ensures that every major muscle group in the body has a role to play, validating rowing’s reputation as one of the most comprehensive exercises available.

| Phase | Legs | Core & Hips | Back | Arms & Shoulders |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| The Catch | Hamstrings, Calves (stabilizing) | Hip Flexors (Iliopsoas), Abdominals (stabilizing) | Erector Spinae (stabilizing), Lats (engaged) | Triceps (extended), Deltoids, Trapezius (stabilizing) |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| The Drive | Quadriceps, Glutes, Hamstrings, Calves | Abdominals, Obliques, Hip Flexors | Erector Spinae, Lats, Rhomboids, Trapezius | Biceps, Forearms (gripping), Deltoids |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| The Finish | Quadriceps, Hamstrings (stabilizing) | Abdominals, Obliques (bracing), Glutes | Erector Spinae (stabilizing), Lats, Rhomboids | Biceps, Deltoids |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| The Recovery | Hamstrings, Calves (controlling slide) | Hip Flexors, Abdominals (controlling pivot) | Erector Spinae (eccentric control) | Triceps (extending), Deltoids, Trapezius (stabilizing) |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Data synthesized from.²² Primary movers in each phase are in | bold. | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |

Beyond the Burn: The Surprising Physiological Benefits of Indoor Rowing

While the immediate feedback of a strenuous rowing workout is a racing heart and burning muscles, the long-term physiological adaptations are far more profound. The benefits extend beyond simple cardiovascular conditioning and weight management, touching on metabolic health and, most surprisingly, bone density.

Cardiovascular Powerhouse and Metabolic Regulator

As a form of high-intensity aerobic exercise, indoor rowing is exceptionally effective at improving cardiovascular health. Regular training can help lower resting heart rate, reduce blood pressure, and improve cholesterol profiles by lowering LDL (“bad”) cholesterol and triglycerides.²⁸ Its capacity for high caloric expenditure makes it a powerful tool for weight management. Studies have shown that a 30-minute moderate-paced session can burn between 210 and 294 calories, and that consistent training can lead to significant reductions in total body fat percentage.²⁸ Furthermore, research has demonstrated its positive impact on metabolic health, with one study of individuals with type 2 diabetes showing an 8.5% decrease in blood glucose levels and a 3.9% drop in HbA1C (a measure of long-term blood sugar control) after just eight weeks of rowing.²⁸

The Bone Density Anomaly: A Deep Dive

Perhaps the most compelling and counterintuitive benefit of rowing lies in its effect on bone health. Conventional wisdom has long held that the best exercises for building bone mineral density (BMD) are high-impact, weight-bearing activities like running and jumping.³⁰ These activities generate Ground-Reaction Forces (GRF) that stimulate bone growth. Since rowing is a seated, low-impact activity, it has often been overlooked in this regard.

However, this view fails to account for the second mechanism of bone loading: muscular pull, which generates what are known as Joint-Reaction Forces (JRF).³⁰ The powerful, coordinated muscle contractions of the rowing stroke exert tremendous force on the skeletal system. Groundbreaking research has revealed that this muscular loading is a potent stimulus for bone remodeling.

A landmark study from Washington University’s School of Medicine compared the effects of GRF exercises (walking, jogging) with JRF exercises (weight-lifting and rowing on a Concept2 rower) in post-menopausal women. The results were striking: the JRF group, including the rowers, showed significant increases in BMD in the whole body, lumbar spine, and femur—increases that were comparable to the high-impact group.³² Another study found that during a 6-minute race on an indoor rower, the compressive forces generated in the L4-L5 region of the lumbar spine were equivalent to 4.6 times body weight, a load comparable to that seen in heavy weight training.³⁰

More recent research from 2023 has added a fascinating layer of nuance. A study published in the Annals of Applied Sport Science found that while elite rowers did not have a higher total body bone density than control subjects, they exhibited a remarkable redistribution of bone mass. The rowers had significantly higher bone mineral content in their trunk, which was offset by lower content in their lower limbs.³⁴ This finding directly reflects the unique biomechanics of the sport: the immense compressive loads generated by the leg drive are transferred directly to the spine and torso, specifically targeting the bones most vulnerable to osteoporotic fractures in an aging population.³⁴

This evidence fundamentally reframes the conversation around rowing and bone health. While it may not be “weight-bearing” in the traditional, impact-based sense, its powerful muscular loading provides a targeted and highly effective bone-building stimulus. This makes rowing an exceptional exercise, as it delivers these potent benefits without the high joint stress associated with impact sports, rendering it an ideal choice for older individuals, those with pre-existing joint conditions, or athletes looking to complement their training with a low-impact activity.⁸

Enter the Challenger: A Head-to-Head Analysis of the MERACH MR-R11B2

For years, the Concept2 RowErg has reigned largely unchallenged. However, a new wave of competitors has emerged, aiming to replicate the gold standard’s core experience at a more accessible price point. Among the most notable is the MERACH MR-R11B2 (also marketed as the NovaRow R50), a machine that explicitly aims to be a “budget” Concept2.³⁶ The central question for consumers is whether this echo can truly match the engine, and where the inevitable compromises lie.

Build and Feel: A Tale of Two Frames

On paper and in practice, the most surprising aspect of the MERACH rower is how closely its performance feel mirrors that of the Concept2. Many experienced users, including those with years of CrossFit and competitive training, have remarked that the rowing motion feels “exactly like Concept2”.³⁶ This is no accident; the design specifications are remarkably similar. Both machines use a nickel-plated steel chain and feature monorails of nearly identical length (1365mm for MERACH vs. 1370mm for Concept2), which are the key components governing the smoothness and length of the stroke.³⁸

There are, however, subtle differences in construction and ergonomics. The Concept2 frame is primarily aluminum, while the MERACH uses a combination of iron and aluminum.³⁸ The MERACH is slightly heavier as a machine (33.3 kg vs. 26 kg) but supports a higher maximum user weight of 350 lbs (158 kg) compared to the Concept2’s 300 lbs (135 kg) rating under European testing standards.⁶ The MERACH also offers a slightly higher seat (380mm vs. 360mm) and a significantly longer usable inseam length (1200mm vs. 965mm), potentially making it a more comfortable fit for very tall users.³⁸

In terms of comfort, MERACH claims its seat has “extra cushioning” for longer workouts, a direct response to a common user complaint that the Concept2’s molded seat can feel hard during extended sessions.¹ Both machines are praised for their easy assembly and their ability to be quickly separated into two pieces without tools for compact, vertical storage—a critical feature for home gym users with limited space.⁵

This successful replication of the core mechanical experience is the foundation of the MERACH’s value proposition. It represents a strategic decision to invest heavily in the physical feel of the machine—the part the user’s body interacts with—while seeking cost savings elsewhere.

The Great Divide: The Monitor and Tech Integration

The area of greatest compromise, and the most significant point of divergence between the two machines, is the onboard monitor. While the Concept2’s PM5 is lauded for its accuracy and data, the MERACH’s monitor is almost universally condemned in user reviews. It has been described as “absolute garbage,” “useless,” and “impossible to read during workout” due to its lack of a backlight, poor data layout, and unintuitive interface.¹⁹ This is the single biggest trade-off a consumer makes when choosing the MERACH.

However, MERACH has engineered a clever workaround for this glaring weakness. The machine is equipped with Bluetooth and is designed to connect seamlessly with fitness apps like Kinomap and MERACH’s own suite of applications.³⁶ It also includes an integrated device holder designed to securely hold a smartphone or tablet.³⁸ This effectively outsources the entire “user interface” and “smart workout” experience to the user’s own device. A user can place their iPad in the holder, obscuring the subpar built-in monitor, and follow along with a guided class, watch entertainment, or use a connected app to track their workout.⁴⁰ This represents a shrewd business strategy: by offloading the cost of developing and manufacturing a high-quality monitor, MERACH can pass significant savings to the consumer while still providing a pathway to a modern, tech-integrated workout experience.

| Feature | MERACH MR-R11B2 (R50) | Concept2 RowErg |
| — | — | — | — |
| Price | ~$480 USD | ~$990 USD |
| — | — | — | — |
| Resistance System | 10-Level Air Resistance | 10-Level Air Resistance |
| — | — | — | — |
| Monitor | Basic LCD, no backlight, poor user reviews | PM5 Performance Monitor (backlit, data-rich, industry standard) |
| — | — | — | — |
| App Connectivity | Yes (Bluetooth to Kinomap, MERACH App, etc.) | Yes (Bluetooth to ErgData app, etc.) |
| — | — | — | — |
| Frame Material | Iron + Aluminum | Aluminum frame; steel rear legs |
| — | — | — | — |
| Max User Weight | 350 lbs / 158 kg | 500 lbs (mfg. test) / 300 lbs (EN 20957-7 test) |
| — | — | — | — |
| Machine Weight | 73.4 lbs / 33.3 kg | 57 lbs / 26 kg |
| — | — | — | — |
| Seat Height | 15 in / 380 mm | 14 in / 360 mm (Standard Legs) |
| — | — | — | — |
| Usable Inseam | ~47 in / 1200 mm | ~38 in / 965 mm (Longer monorail available) |
| — | — | — | — |
| Storage | Splits into two parts, vertical storage | Splits into two parts, vertical storage |
| — | — | — | — |
| Warranty | 2 Years | 5 Years (Frame), 2 Years (Parts & Monitor) |
| — | — | — | — |
| Data synthesized from.¹ Prices are approximate and subject to change. | | | |
| — | — | — | — |

The Final Verdict: Finding the Right Rower for Your Fitness Goals

The emergence of a viable challenger like the MERACH MR-R11B2 forces a more nuanced conversation than simply asking “which rower is better?” The Concept2 RowErg remains the superior machine in absolute terms, a testament to its flawless execution and uncompromising quality. The more relevant question for the modern consumer is, “which rower is right for me?” The answer is not universal; it depends entirely on the user’s goals, priorities, and budget. The stark difference between the two monitors serves as an effective litmus test, filtering users into distinct profiles.

Who Should Still Buy the Concept2 RowErg?

Despite the MERACH’s compelling value, there are three types of users for whom the Concept2 remains the only logical choice:

• The Competitive Athlete: Anyone who trains for or competes in events like CrossFit, HYROX, or sanctioned indoor rowing competitions must train on the official equipment. The Concept2 is the universal standard in these events, and familiarity with its precise feel and the PM5’s data feedback is non-negotiable for peak performance.³⁷
• The Data Purist: For the athlete or fitness enthusiast whose training is driven by precise metrics—tracking 500m split times to the second, monitoring power output in watts, and comparing performance against global benchmarks—the PM5 monitor is irreplaceable. Its accuracy, reliability, and the standardized data from its drag factor calculation are essential for this type of progressive training.¹
• The “Buy It For Life” Investor: The user who prioritizes maximum durability, a proven track record of near-indestructibility in commercial settings, minimal maintenance, and high resale value will find the higher upfront cost of the Concept2 to be a worthwhile long-term investment.¹

Who is the MERACH MR-R11B2 Perfect For?

The MERACH rower carves out its own significant niche by catering to a different set of priorities. It is the ideal choice for:

• The Dedicated Home Gym User: This individual is serious about getting a high-quality, effective, full-body workout but does not require competition-grade data logging. They prioritize the physical experience—the smooth pull, the solid frame—over the numbers on a built-in screen. For them, the MERACH delivers the core workout experience at a massive discount.³⁶
• The Budget-Conscious Fitness Enthusiast: For many, the ~$500 price difference is not trivial. The MERACH offers what could be argued is 90% of the essential rowing experience for roughly half the price of the market leader. It makes elite-feeling fitness accessible without the elite price tag.³⁶
• The Tech-Savvy Exerciser: This is the user who was always going to put a tablet over the monitor anyway. They prefer to consume content—be it a Peloton class, a YouTube scenic row, or Netflix—while they work out. For this user, the poor quality of the MERACH’s onboard monitor is not a bug but an irrelevant feature, making the cost savings a pure bonus.⁴⁰

Ultimately, the market is healthier for having both the engine and its echo. The Concept2 RowErg continues to set the standard for what is possible in terms of performance and durability. The MERACH MR-R11B2, by cleverly replicating the essential feel while strategically cutting costs, makes the profound health benefits of rowing accessible to a far wider audience. While the king may still wear the crown, the fact that a challenger can so closely mimic its reign is a victory for every person looking to build a better home gym.