SkiErg vs RowErg: Mechanical, performance, physiological, and coaching comparison
Executive takeaways
Bottom line. Both machines use the same Concept2 air-braked flywheel principle, the same PM5 logic, and the same damper concept: more damper means more airflow into the fan housing and a heavier feel; less damper means less airflow and a lighter feel.
The machines do not feel identical, and damper numbers are not transferable one-for-one. On new machines, RowErg drag factor is roughly 90-200+ across damper 1-10, while SkiErg is roughly 55-150+ across damper 1-10.
Mechanically, the RowErg is a seated, horizontal, leg-led stroke with a sliding seat. The SkiErg is a standing double-pole pattern with a downward pull, a hip hinge/trunk crunch, and an arm finish.
From a performance and physiology perspective, the RowErg usually supports higher absolute power and a larger whole-body aerobic demand; the SkiErg is more dependent on upper-body and trunk strength-endurance, force transfer, and double-poling efficiency.
For athletes and coaches, that means the rower is usually the better tool for sustainable whole-body power and large aerobic loading, while the SkiErg is often the better tool for upper-body power-endurance, trunk stiffness under fatigue, and conditioning when you want low impact with less knee and ankle demand. The most important programming rule is to benchmark each machine separately instead of assuming the same heart-rate or pace relationships across run, row, and ski modes.
System, air dynamics, and movement pattern
| Aspect | SkiErg | RowErg |
| Resistance system | Air-braked flywheel with cord handles; PM5 recalculates drag factor on every pull. | Air-braked flywheel with chain handle and sliding seat; PM5 recalculates drag factor on every stroke. |
| Damper and drag | Same damper principle as the rower, but a lower drag-factor range; a given damper number feels lighter than the same number on a RowErg. | Same damper principle as the SkiErg, but a higher drag-factor range; damper changes feel, not the validity of measured work. |
| Athlete position | Standing, feet fixed, body 18-24 in from flywheel, slight knee bend, arms bent around 90 degrees at the top. | Seated with feet fixed and seat moving; shins near vertical at the catch, torso hinged forward from the hips. |
| Primary force vector | Downward and slightly backward cable pull; force is transferred through trunk flexion/hinge into the handles. | Horizontal handle path; force travels from foot stretcher through legs, trunk, and finally arms into the chain. |
| Stroke sequence | Core and lats initiate, hips hinge, body mass drops forward, then arms finish the pull to the thighs. | Legs initiate the drive, trunk opens through vertical, then arms finish to the lower ribs. |
| Lower-body role | Important but supportive: legs help stabilize, preload, and reposition the body; they are not the main engine. | Primary engine: large knee and hip extension drive most of the stroke power. |
| Typical rhythm | Usually brisk and continuous; recovery is controlled but closer in length to the pull than on the rower. | Classic drive-to-recovery rhythm around 1:2; efficient athletes are forceful on the drive and patient on the slide. |
| Most common limiter | Local fatigue in lats, triceps, abs, grip, and the ability to keep technical shape under repeated pulls. | Global cardiovascular demand plus force transfer from legs through trunk to handle, especially as fatigue accumulates. |
Summary based on official Concept2 product, PM5, and technique documentation together with rowing and double-poling biomechanics literature.
The air dynamics are therefore similar in principle but not identical in expression. On both machines, the damper controls airflow into the fan cage and changes the inertial feel of each pull or stroke. The PM5 then uses drag factor to account for fan load, so effort data remain comparable even when environmental conditions or damper position change. Practically, a damper 5 on the SkiErg should not be treated as the same 'resistance' as a damper 5 on the RowErg.
Working muscle groups and physiological profile
| Aspect | SkiErg | RowErg |
| Primary movers | Lats, triceps, abdominals, shoulder extensors, and hip flexors during the pull; calves and lower leg muscles assist timing and force transfer. | Quadriceps and gluteal/hip extensors begin the drive; trunk extensors and back muscles transfer force; biceps and upper back finish the pull. |
| Secondary / stabilizing work | Glutes, hamstrings, quads, back extensors, traps, anterior deltoids, calves, and trunk stabilizers reposition the body between pulls. | Abdominals, calves, forearms/grip, triceps during arm return, and hamstrings during slide return help stabilize and sequence the stroke. |
| Movement pattern demand | Explosive trunk flexion plus hip hinge with efficient shoulder depression and scapular control; less knee excursion than rowing. | Large knee and hip ROM with coordinated sequencing and lumbopelvic control; more total body excursion each repetition. |
| Power profile | Usually lower sustainable absolute power than rowing because a smaller active muscle mass is the main limiter. | Usually higher sustainable absolute power because the legs and trunk can contribute more continuously and at higher output. |
| Aerobic character | Can be highly aerobic, but upper-body and trunk fatigue often cap output before the cardiorespiratory system is fully challenged. | Predominantly aerobic in prolonged work and racing, with high whole-body oxygen demand and a larger systemic load. |
| Peak HR / VO2 tendency | Upper-body dominant poling modes generally show lower modality-specific peak heart rate and oxygen uptake than running in trained athletes; SkiErg tests also tend to read lower than treadmill values in averagely fit women. | Rowing can produce very high aerobic demand, but heart rate may still sit lower than treadmill running at matched lactate and even at maximal effort. |
| Joint-load profile | Low impact and relatively friendly for knees and ankles; shoulder position and trunk control matter more. | Low impact but more demanding on hips, knees, lumbar spine, and lumbopelvic control because of repeated flexion-extension under load. |
| Best use cases | Upper-body endurance, mixed-modality conditioning, race-specific SkiErg work, and training around lower-leg issues. | Aerobic base work, threshold sets, power-endurance, and full-body conditioning with strong transfer to hybrid sport demands. |
Muscle summaries combine Concept2 movement-phase descriptions with studies on double poling, rowing physiology, and rowing-related low-back mechanics.
From a coaching perspective, the simplest description is that the RowErg is a leg-led full-body stroke and the SkiErg is a trunk-led upper-body dominant pull. That does not mean the SkiErg is 'all arms' or the RowErg is 'just legs.' In efficient rowing, the handle only accelerates well when the legs, trunk, and arms sequence cleanly. In efficient skiing, the trunk, shoulder extensors, elbow extensors, and lower body coordinate to let the athlete drop body mass into the pull and recover without losing tension.
Biomechanics, efficiency, and common leak points
Efficiency on the RowErg is mostly about direction and sequencing: press the machine away with the legs, keep the handle path straight, stay connected through a stiff trunk, and avoid wasting force with early arm pull or a collapsing catch. Efficiency on the SkiErg is about using body mass and the core-lat connection: start tall and athletic, hinge rather than squat, let the torso start the pull, and finish crisply to the thighs without overreaching or over-finishing.
RowErg leak points
| Leak point | Likely contributor | Coaching focus |
| Early arm bend on the drive | Athlete disconnects leg drive from handle, often because of poor lat connection, impatience, or limited confidence at the catch. | Cue 'legs first, hang off the handle'; use paused catch drills, low-rate force work, and straight-arm drive practice. |
| Lunging or collapsing at the catch | Posterior pelvic rotation, limited hip control, limited ankle tolerance, or chasing extra length past a strong catch position. | Stop at a strong shin angle, keep chest over hips, and build catch control with half-slide or pick drills. |
| Overcompression | Trying to create length by pushing knees too far forward, reducing leg drive mechanics and setting up a weak first push. | Use vertical shins as the reference; shorten the catch slightly to improve power transfer and lumbar position. |
| Shooting the slide | Seat moves without the handle moving, usually from poor trunk stiffness or weak force transfer from feet through torso. | Teach bracing and connection from foot stretcher to handle; use legs-only to legs-and-body sequencing drills. |
| Excessive layback at the finish | Chasing stroke length with lumbar motion instead of finishing through the legs and trunk. | Finish tall with slight layback, flat wrists, and the handle under the ribs rather than behind the body. |
| Lumbar flexion under fatigue | Reduced lumbopelvic endurance, fatigue-related loss of trunk strategy, or pre-existing low-back irritability. | Reduce rate, shorten pieces, and build trunk endurance plus hip mobility/control before adding harder volume. |
Rowing-related low-back pain literature consistently flags posterior pelvic rotation at the catch, altered trunk muscle activity, and greater lumbar flexion with fatigue as important red flags.
SkiErg leak points
| Leak point | Likely contributor | Coaching focus |
| Reaching too high at the start | Athlete searches for length with the shoulders instead of starting from a strong stacked position. | Keep hands only slightly above eye level, elbows bent, and load the core before the pull begins. |
| Arms pulling first | Weak or poorly timed trunk initiation; athlete relies on shoulders and biceps instead of lats and abs. | Cue 'core first, arms follow'; use slow technical reps and medicine-ball slam imagery. |
| Hip bend without trunk compression | Pure hinge pattern with little abdominal contribution, leaving the lats and trunk unable to load the pull efficiently. | Blend a hip hinge with a controlled crunch; feel ribs come down as handles accelerate. |
| Butt too far back / squatty setup | Poor start distance from the machine or confusion between a hinge and a squat pattern. | Stand 18-24 inches away, stay tall and athletic, and let the hips move back only slightly. |
| Overfinishing behind the thighs | Athlete chases length after the main force window is gone, often stressing shoulders and wrists. | Finish to the thighs or pockets, keep wrists neutral, and recover smoothly rather than yanking behind the body. |
| Loss of rhythm on recovery | Poor eccentric control, weak trunk endurance, or inability to reset posture before the next pull. | Control the return, re-stack tall at the top, and keep each pull smooth rather than frantic. |
The 'weak muscle versus tight muscle' question is best treated as a pattern-recognition issue rather than a single-muscle diagnosis. On the RowErg, common weak links are leg-to-trunk force transfer, trunk endurance, and hip control; common mobility bottlenecks are hip flexion control, hamstring tolerance, and lumbopelvic positioning. On the SkiErg, common weak links are abdominal bracing, lat/triceps endurance, and scapular control; common movement restrictions are poor thoracic positioning and shoulder mechanics that make athletes reach too high or pull with the arms too early.
Practical coaching interpretation
| RowErg efficiency keys • Create pressure through the feet first. • Open the trunk after the legs, not before. • Keep the handle path simple and straight. • Protect the catch and lumbar position when fatigue rises. | SkiErg efficiency keys • Start tall, then lead with core and lats. • Use a hip hinge, not a squat. • Finish decisively to the thighs without overpulling. • Recover under control so every pull starts from a strong stacked position. |
In hybrid and HYROX-style preparation, the rower usually builds the bigger aerobic chassis, while the SkiErg exposes upper-body and trunk fatigue that can derail race pace if it is not trained specifically.
Finally, testing and zone setting should stay machine specific. Because rowing can show lower heart rate than treadmill running at the same lactate level, and upper-body poling modes show lower modality-specific peak responses than running, the cleanest approach is to maintain separate pace, watt, and heart-rate benchmarks for RowErg, SkiErg, and running.
References:
Athy, V., Hach, S., Anderson, H., & Mason, J. (2023). Examining the peer-reviewed published literature regarding low back pain in rowing: A scoping review. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy, 18(1), 55-69. https://doi.org/10.26603/001c.67836
Baudouin, A., & Hawkins, D. (2002). A biomechanical review of factors affecting rowing performance. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 36(6), 396-402. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.36.6.396
Bojsen-Møller, J., Losnegard, T., Kemppainen, J., Viljanen, T., Kalliokoski, K. K., & Hallén, J. (2010). Muscle use during double poling evaluated by positron emission tomography. Journal of Applied Physiology, 109(6), 1895-1903. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00671.2010
Carlsson, T., Wedholm, L., Nilsson, J., & Carlsson, M. (2017). The effects of strength training versus ski-ergometer training on double-poling capacity of elite junior cross-country skiers. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 117(8), 1523-1532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-017-3621-1
Concept2. (n.d.). All about damper setting and drag factor. Concept2. https://www.concept2.com/training/articles/damper-setting
Concept2. (n.d.). Concept2 RowErg rowing machine. Concept2. https://www.concept2.com/ergs/rowerg
Concept2. (n.d.). Concept2 SkiErg cross-country ski trainer. Concept2. https://www.concept2.com/ergs/skierg
Concept2. (n.d.). How to use your PM5. Concept2. https://www.concept2.com/support/monitors/pm5/how-to-use
Concept2. (n.d.). Indoor rowing technique on the Concept2 RowErg. Concept2. https://www.concept2.com/training/rowing-technique
Concept2. (n.d.). Muscles used while rowing. Concept2. https://www.concept2.com/training/articles/rowing-muscles-used
Concept2. (n.d.). Muscles used while skiing. Concept2. https://www.concept2.com/training/articles/skiing-muscles-used
Concept2. (n.d.). SkiErg technique. Concept2. https://www.concept2.com/training/skierg-technique
Hagerman, F. C. (1984). Applied physiology of rowing. Sports Medicine, 1(4), 303-326. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-198401040-00005
Hansen, L. M., Sandbakk, Ø., Ettema, G., & Baumgart, J. K. (2021). Upper- vs. lower-body exercise performance in female and male cross-country skiers. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3, Article 762794. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.762794
Holmberg, H.-C., Lindinger, S., Stöggl, T., Eitzlmair, E., & Müller, E. (2005). Biomechanical analysis of double poling in elite cross-country skiers. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 37(5), 807-818. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000162615.47763.C8
Nelson, H., Bosak, A., Lowell, R., McDermott, M., Ziebell, B., de Moors, M., Blackley, A., & Arter, S. (2021). Comparison of peak aerobic capacity between the treadmill and a skiing ergometer. Journal of Exercise and Nutrition, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.53520/jen2021.103101
Nugent, F. J., Vinther, A., McGregor, A., Thornton, J. S., Wilkie, K., & Wilson, F. (2021). The relationship between rowing-related low back pain and rowing biomechanics: A systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102533
Torvik, P.-Ø., Sandbakk, Ø., van den Tillaar, R., Talsnes, R. K., & Danielsen, J. (2022). A comparison of double poling physiology and kinematics between long-distance and all-round cross-country skiers. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4, Article 849731. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2022.849731
Yoshiga, C. C., & Higuchi, M. (2002). Heart rate is lower during ergometer rowing than during treadmill running. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 87(2), 97-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-002-0599-z