Resistance Trainer: Am I wrecking my frame???
JayofMontreal
to road riding. I sit and spin in front of the TV at a moderate speed,
generating a heart rate of 120 (very nice and light).
The front wheel is in a plastic wheel block to level the front end, the rear
is well supported and tightly held on the provided-with-the-trainer QR
skewer.
I am not getting out of the saddle other than getting on and off the bike.
Is this damaging the frame?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/28/2003
Doug
That being said, you can destroy your headset. Cover the headset with a
towel when you ride, and make sure you clean the bike after every ride on
the trainer. Also, regrease the stem (if it's a quill) regularly. You
might even try using titanium antiseize instead of grease.
You will ruin tires on a trainer. Save your good ones and install a cheap
slick. if you uses the bike outside too, clean the tire before the putting
the bike on your trainer. Use a rag with some isopropyl alcohol.
"JayofMontreal" <winick...@vif.com> wrote in message
news:yOhob.5563$Nm6.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
(Pete Cresswell)
>Absolutely not. Think of the stresses on a frame when you're riding. .
I've been wondering the same thing about my single-pivot cantelever FS.
Seems like the stress from the trainer (especially from somebody as clumsey as
me...) are a lot different from those in normal use....seems like theyd be
trying to twist the rear swing arm off at the pivot point and peel off the welds
on the shock mounts.
--
PeteCresswell
Retribe
My answer is maybe; I've used trainers for about 15 years, and I'm on my
fourth frame now. I could not say how much one relates to the other, all
my frames broke at the back end of the right chainstay. On the other
hand, maybe that's just where frames tend to wear out no matter what. I
used to have lifetime guarantees on the old Ironman/Diamond Back, but,
after so many years, I'm at the end of that source of repair. So now I
understand a frame builder can weld it back together rather capably.
I think putting the bike on a trainer and locking it in place at the
back hub does stress the frame some what, but, I'm willing to take that
risk with my second bike rather than do without the benefit.
Retribe
--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com
S. Anderson
news:2viob.12042$X22....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Absolutely not. Think of the stresses on a frame when you're riding. .
>
I agree. The loads from the wheel are transmitted to exactly the same place
as when you ride, to the rear dropouts. You are stressing the frame no more
than riding on the road.
Cheers,
Scott..
Carl Fogel
> to road riding. I sit and spin in front of the TV at a moderate speed,
> generating a heart rate of 120 (very nice and light).
>
> The front wheel is in a plastic wheel block to level the front end, the rear
> is well supported and tightly held on the provided-with-the-trainer QR
> skewer.
>
> I am not getting out of the saddle other than getting on and off the bike.
>
> Is this damaging the frame?
>
Dear Jay,
So far, several posts from Christopher Robins
have reassured us that the stresses as far as
the frame is concerned go to the same point
and invite you to think about it.
Being a bear of very little brain, I find it
hard to think about such things and hope to
have some engineer take pity on me.
It seems to me that normally the frame is
free to tilt almost effortlessly from side
to side under pedalling, frantic or otherwise.
That is, I can stand to one side of a free-standing
bike and tip it back and forth as wildly as I like
without the slightest hope of hurting it.
But if I clamp the rear frame into a training
stand with the skewer that you mention, stand
by the side, and start heaving back and forth
wildly, then I hope that it's your frame, not
mine.
Even the lightest pedalling probably involves
some sideways rocking, so I'm inclined to think
that your fears are, in the long term, plausible.
After all, if I wanted to break a rear frame, I'd
clamp it in a vise and start tugging it from
side to side . . .
But I'd like an engineer to tell me what
really happens while I sit here on an imaginary
trainer in a similarly gloomy place (see lower
right of map in "Winne the Pooh"), the 81-degree
temperature of two days ago having dropped to the
traditional Pueblo, Colorado, Halloween thirties
for the trick-or-treaters.
Eeyores truly,
Carl Fogel
Thomas Reynolds
> Jay:
>
> My answer is maybe; I've used trainers for about 15 years, and I'm on my
> fourth frame now. I could not say how much one relates to the other, all
> my frames broke at the back end of the right chainstay. On the other
> hand, maybe that's just where frames tend to wear out no matter what. I
> used to have lifetime guarantees on the old Ironman/Diamond Back, but,
> after so many years, I'm at the end of that source of repair. So now I
> understand a frame builder can weld it back together rather capably.
>
> I think putting the bike on a trainer and locking it in place at the
> back hub does stress the frame some what, but, I'm willing to take that
> risk with my second bike rather than do without the benefit.
>
> Retribe
I've also been using trainers for about the same amount of time and
have never damaged a frame. All my trainers grip the rear QR ends,
like the OP. I am using my second trainer bike (I have gone through
four trainers but that is a different story). I ditched my first bike
only because it got so rusty I couldn't repair any parts. I also
stand and pedal all the time, its part of my workout. Both trainer
bikes were steel.
Another poster pointed out the problem with rust. I address that
problem by dedicating a beater bike to the trainer and just letting it
rust. Cheap bikes of the same dimensions as my good ones can be had
for free or for $30 at a thrift store.
Speaking only from my own experience,
Tom
Neacalban1
frame itself has been used on a trainer, about 4-5 hours a week during the
winter, for 18 years., and left to rust .I darent ride it on the road, but who
knows it may never break.
S. Anderson
news:8bbde8fc.03103...@posting.google.com...
> It seems to me that normally the frame is
> free to tilt almost effortlessly from side
> to side under pedalling, frantic or otherwise.
In what way is this tilting affecting the stress on the frame? The frame is
still supporting your weight through 2 attachment points; the front and rear
quick releases. The fact you're tilting the frame changes nothing other
than the orientation of the stress applied. The same force is being
transmitted by the frame and it's going through the same 2 points.
>
> That is, I can stand to one side of a free-standing
> bike and tip it back and forth as wildly as I like
> without the slightest hope of hurting it.
What makes you think you're not hurting it? Better still, what makes you
think you're not hurting it more than if it were in a trainer? Plenty of
frames fail from fatigue in normal road riding. There absolutely is a
chance of hurting it.
>
> But if I clamp the rear frame into a training
> stand with the skewer that you mention, stand
> by the side, and start heaving back and forth
> wildly, then I hope that it's your frame, not
> mine.
Heave away! Nothing will break. I assure you, Mario Cippolini is applying
far greater cyclic loads when sprinting on the road than any of us will
apply while sprinting in a trainer (well, I can't speak for everyone, but I
suspect this to be the case! ;-) When I ride my mountain bike, and I'm
muscling up a 33 degree rock incline in the granny ring, there is much
greater force being applied to the frame than anything you'll get in a
trainer.
>
> Even the lightest pedalling probably involves
> some sideways rocking, so I'm inclined to think
> that your fears are, in the long term, plausible.
> After all, if I wanted to break a rear frame, I'd
> clamp it in a vise and start tugging it from
> side to side . . .
Ever watch your bottom bracket while climbing a hill? There's plenty of
side to side motion. The wheels are basically fixed, just as in a trainer.
You're riding a straight line, both wheels going in the same direction.
Effectively, the frame is as fixed as in a trainer. I'm not saying that,
given enough motivation, someone couldn't damage a frame by riding it in a
trainer. I AM saying that the same person could just as effectively damage
a frame by riding it in the same manner on the road.
>
> But I'd like an engineer to tell me what
> really happens while I sit here on an imaginary
> trainer in a similarly gloomy place (see lower
> right of map in "Winne the Pooh"), the 81-degree
> temperature of two days ago having dropped to the
> traditional Pueblo, Colorado, Halloween thirties
> for the trick-or-treaters.
>
> Eeyores truly,
>
> Carl Fogel
Of far greater concern to most riders are things like scratched handlebars
and the chance of crack propagation. Or chain failure...or crank arm
failure from scratching. Frame failure on a trainer would be WAY down on my
list of concerns. Besides, if a frame is going to fail, better on the
trainer than on the Stelvio descent!! ;-)
Cheers,
Scott..
BVM
<usenet...@cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>I could not say how much one relates to the other, all
>my frames broke at the back end of the right chainstay. On the other
>hand, maybe that's just where frames tend to wear out no matter what.
I always crack my frames above the BB, like ripping the BB off the
rest of the frame. Of course I am a clydesdale and used to be a
national level BMX racer now on a road bike.
Carl Fogel
[snip]
Dear Scott,
Alas, I stare at it in my tiny little mind
and still seem to see a striking difference
between a free-standing bike and one bolted
into a trainer.
If a car bumper "gently" nudges my bike from
the side while I'm balancing motionless,
I just topple sideways and put a foot down.
My frame won't break because my free-standing
bike is free to pivot from side to side
on the contact patch of the tire. It's a
bit like one of those bottom-weighted clowns,
free to tilt from side to side.
But if a car bumper "gently" nudges my bike
from the side while it's clamped in the vise of
the trainer, either my frame breaks or else
the whole trainer heaves over sideways.
The bike is not free to pivot from side to
side because it is locked solidly at the axle
to what sounds like a rigid trainer base.
Constant side-to-side heaving of the rider's
weight mimics the effect of the car bumper
nudging first from one side and then the other.
Either I'm missing the physics (a far from
unlikely possibility) or else bikes survive
in trainers because a) their riders tend to
pedal in a steady, smooth fashion with minimal
side-to-side heave and b) the rear frame design
is remarkably strong, or so I've read in posts
glorifying the tetrahedron.
Carl Fogel
Phil Holman
While riding on the road it's possible to lean the bike over at say 60
deg to the ground and by keeping your cg over the point where the wheels
contact the ground continue to travel in a straight line (out of the
saddle). A freebody diagram will reveal out of plane loads of 50% of the
total weight of bike + rider. This would be considered an ultimate type
abuse load and is probably not considered for fatigue due to it's
infrequent occurrence.
On a trainer, it would be prudent for the rider to limit the amount of
sideways rocking (out of the seat climbing simulation) in both magnitude
and frequency to avoid the possibility of frame damage. This being from
a more easily applied and possibly more frequent lateral load. This is
really a judgment call. All frames are different and it would probably
take a lot of analysis work to determine which frames are more
susceptible to lateral load damage than others. Bottom line is, the bike
on a trainer can see more frequent lateral loads. Bike frames already
break under loads imposed by *normal* riding.
Phil Holman
Benjamin Weiner
> In what way is this tilting affecting the stress on the frame? The frame is
> still supporting your weight through 2 attachment points; the front and rear
> quick releases. The fact you're tilting the frame changes nothing other
> than the orientation of the stress applied. The same force is being
> transmitted by the frame and it's going through the same 2 points.
When you pedal, the BB shell twists from side to side, relative
to the dropouts. On the road, the bike can respond to the torque
by tilting. But on the trainer, the rear dropouts are constrained,
so you are applying a twist to the triangle of BB shell-
chainstays-rear axle that is potentially stronger than on
the road. I don't know if it is significant. I would expect
trainer induced stress to damage frames at the chainstay-BB
junction or chainstay-dropout junction. But since that's also where
frames break on the road (if they break) it doesn't prove anything.
S. Anderson
news:3fa48b4a$1@darkstar...
>
> When you pedal, the BB shell twists from side to side, relative
> to the dropouts. On the road, the bike can respond to the torque
> by tilting. But on the trainer, the rear dropouts are constrained,
> so you are applying a twist to the triangle of BB shell-
> chainstays-rear axle that is potentially stronger than on
> the road. I don't know if it is significant. I would expect
> trainer induced stress to damage frames at the chainstay-BB
> junction or chainstay-dropout junction. But since that's also where
> frames break on the road (if they break) it doesn't prove anything.
>
The dropouts are constrained on the road as well. The wheels, unless
turning a corner, follow a path, one in front of the other in a line, just
as in a trainer. They are also constrained by the need to travel in a
straight line in order to stay upright. The pedal forces you apply are
exactly the same as if you're riding on the road when you're riding on the
trainer. And, if anything, tilting would increase the chance of damage to
the frame as you're changing the direction of force to include a lateral
load as a result of the tilt, where the frame is much weaker.
Put it a different way..if you were to design a FEA for the frame, how would
it be modelled differently if it were in a trainer, versus on the road? The
first concern raised would be the effect of the greater side load as a
result of tilting the frame.
Cheers,
Scott..
Carl Fogel
Dear Phil,
Aha! An engineer has been flushed out of the 100 aker wood.
I hoped that there might be one lurking in these parts.
Before you darted out of sight behind a freebody diagram,
I got the impression that you were giving a weird example
of a bike being ridden in a straight line down a flat road
with its rider struggling to keep it tipped over to one
side to up to 60 degrees instead of the normal 90 degrees.
Is this somewhat like the wild side-to-side thrashing of
stand-up sprinters, or is it much further? That is, are
you talking about something that Jobst Brandt would do only
to impress a pretty girl if riding no-hands failed, or is a
rapid 30-degree tilt to either side what serious sprinters
actually do? (I could rent a bicycle race video, but it
seems easier to ask experts.)
Since your work involves airplane fatigue damage, do you
see any practical difference between a side-to-side rocking
on a free-standing bike, cushioned by the rider's arms and
legs and the tires, and side-to-side rocking when the frame
is fixed in a vise? That is, there seems to be no rubber
tire involved in the trainer, but I'm not sure if it makes
any difference to the rear frame whether its motion is
arrested by my fleshy heaving back and forth or prevented
by the iron grip of the trainer.
(I'd guess that the trainer is worse, just because I can
imagine breaking a frame held in a vise a lot more easily
than I can imagine breaking it by thrashing side-to-side
while I pedal down the road. But this is why I'm hoping
to intrigue a few engineers--my guesses have led to the
suspicion that the bicycle wheel hangs from its valve stem.)
I suppose my question boils down to this: by exaggerating
normal side-to-side sway, would it be easier to bust a frame
out on the road while riding in a straight line, or easier to
bust it while it was clamped in a trainer? Or just the same?
Thanks,
Carl Fogel
Prometheus
--On Sunday, November 2, 2003 12:57 AM -0500 "S. Anderson"
<scott.a...@zsympaticoz.ca> wrote:
Watch out there Scott, the assumptions have a solid grounding, but I don't
think the physics agrees with you. A bike tire can roll perpendicular to
the direction of travel, which allows you to turn by simply leaning over.
You can also get up out of the saddle and tilt the bike without turning, by
keeping your center of mass firmly over the line of the contact patches, as
people talked about above. There is a RESISTANCE to leaning like this, but
its definitely doable.
FEA of a bike in the trainer would be a complex analysis, as the pedal
stroke is not even. But the dropouts would have to be fixed in place, both
from forward-backward movement and from twisting/bending. This would place
irregular (not reproducable on the road) moments and torques in the
chainstays, bottom bracket, etc. The whole bicycle is a truss, there would
theoretically be a reactionary force in the headtube and fork as well.
Mike (I passed statics, unlike some classmates)
Mechanical Engineering 2006, Carnegie Mellon University
Remove nospam to reply.
Benjamin Weiner
> The dropouts are constrained on the road as well. The wheels, unless
> turning a corner, follow a path, one in front of the other in a line, just
> as in a trainer. They are also constrained by the need to travel in a
> straight line in order to stay upright. The pedal forces you apply are
> exactly the same as if you're riding on the road when you're riding on the
> trainer. And, if anything, tilting would increase the chance of damage to
> the frame as you're changing the direction of force to include a lateral
> load as a result of the tilt, where the frame is much weaker.
Tilting the bike introduces torsion into the frame because the front
wheel is going one way and the rear wheel another, and you're pushing
down on the crank while pulling up at the headtube.
> Put it a different way..if you were to design a FEA for the frame, how would
> it be modelled differently if it were in a trainer, versus on the road? The
> first concern raised would be the effect of the greater side load as a
> result of tilting the frame.
I think that side load stresses the downtube more than the rear triangle.
Let's just think about the BB-chainstays-rear axle assembly.
In the trainer, this is fixed at the dropouts and force is input
at the BB. On the road, I think of this as having another element -
imagine a rod going from the center of the rear hub to the contact
patch, hinged to the ground, so to speak. When you torque the BB
shell, there is a restoring force (so the bike comes back to vertical
rather than falling over). Think of this as being like a spring
on the contact patch hinge. Some of the torsion is taken up by the
"spring" rather than at the dropouts.
Now I am open to the argument that the restoring force isn't correctly
described that way (I just argued that there's torsion in the downtube,
after all), and I know little of FEA design. But I'm pretty sure
there is an extra degree of freedom in the road vs trainer. I don't
have any clue if it's big enough to be important, and there's only
anecdotal evidence. I don't ride my good bike on the trainer, but
have the "luxury" of having beater bikes.
Tim McNamara
of which were the bikes I used for my trainers. I've never seen this
failure in any other bike in 30+ years of riding, so my conclusion has
been that using the trainer puts extra stresses on the frame. That's
not necessarily the correct conclusion, but the damage is two for two
(I have switched to rollers now, so I won't be repeating the
experiment).
JayofMontreal
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
news:m2n0bd7...@localhost.bitstream.net...
Tim McNamara
> How many years of use in the trainers, how old were the frames.
Age of the frames doesn't really matter. They don't age like their
riders do!
As far as use, I suppose both frames saw two to three years of
wintertime trainer use, maybe 3-4 times a week for two to three months
of the year. I didn't really keep records.
FWIW one was a 1979 Carlton-built Raleigh Super Course with Reynolds 531
main tubes and who-knows-what stays; the other was a 1984 Japanese built
Raleigh Super Course with "Raleigh 555" (probably Ishiwata) tubes.
Robert Brown
Hi all,
What Tim describes is exactly the kind of thing I fear if I go out and buy
a trainer. My frame's a Colnago Chic and I doubt it's built for the
lateral stresses that will arise with the back axle clamped.
One option I have is buying rollers with a magnetic brake. Frame will last
longer ...
I am, for the first time in my cycling life, living in a part of the world
where it freezes during the winter, so I've not had to get familiar with
either rollers or trainers, previously. With my fairly good balance and
control I could probably handle rollers but I'd like someone , who's used
both, to tell me:
1) are rollers just as good a way to train, compared with a trainer that
fixes the back axle?
2) can one get a fairly decent resistance on rollers even without a
magnetic brake
3) is the balance issue (vs. landing on the floor every once in a while)
difficult to master or is just as easy as learning to ride a bike ;-)
4) is it really so noisy that TV watching is out of the question?
Thanks!
/Robert
Mike S.
"Robert Brown" <xrobert...@xtripnet.se> wrote in message
news:3FA6CD14...@xtripnet.se...
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > I've had two frames crack at the left seat stay/seat lug joint, both
> > of which were the bikes I used for my trainers. I've never seen this
> > failure in any other bike in 30+ years of riding, so my conclusion has
> > been that using the trainer puts extra stresses on the frame. That's
> > not necessarily the correct conclusion, but the damage is two for two
> > (I have switched to rollers now, so I won't be repeating the
> > experiment).
>
> Hi all,
>
> What Tim describes is exactly the kind of thing I fear if I go out and buy
> a trainer. My frame's a Colnago Chic and I doubt it's built for the
> lateral stresses that will arise with the back axle clamped.
>
> One option I have is buying rollers with a magnetic brake. Frame will last
> longer ...
>
> I am, for the first time in my cycling life, living in a part of the world
> where it freezes during the winter, so I've not had to get familiar with
> either rollers or trainers, previously. With my fairly good balance and
> control I could probably handle rollers but I'd like someone , who's used
> both, to tell me:
>
> 1) are rollers just as good a way to train, compared with a trainer that
> fixes the back axle?
>
Rollers make you smooooooth. Trainers allow certain bad habits to creep
into your riding since you don't have to pay attention to staying upright.
> 2) can one get a fairly decent resistance on rollers even without a
> magnetic brake
>
You'll end up at the small end of the cassette. Should be almost the same.
I've heard of guys with no resistance units putting rugs or towels under
their drums. Haven't tried it, so if you do, be careful!
> 3) is the balance issue (vs. landing on the floor every once in a while)
> difficult to master or is just as easy as learning to ride a bike ;-)
>
Rollers aren't that hard to ride. If you can stay upright on the road, you
can stay upright on rollers. All ya gotta do is pay a little more
attention...
> 4) is it really so noisy that TV watching is out of the question?
>
Rollers noisy? Only if you have a fan unit attached. The most noise is
going to come from the spokes.
> Thanks!
>
> /Robert
Mike
>
Tom Paterson
>What Tim describes is exactly the kind of thing I fear if I go out and buy
>a trainer. My frame's a Colnago Chic and I doubt it's built for the
>lateral stresses that will arise with the back axle clamped.
How about a Goodwill clunker bike (or something better), set up for trainer.
Fewer worries about sweat damage, also.
IMHO, if you've never "mastered" rollers, a useful thing to do. Just provide
yourself with a place you can catch your falls (doorway, solid chairs on either
side), and "faster is easier" for balance. Probably more "noise per training
unit" with rollers, esp. with wind load accessory added, compared to fluid or
mag trainers. You can go harder on a trainer because you don't need to balance
as much to stay up.
Gym/Spin class membership? Our local YMCA includes Spin with membership. Plus
sauna, steam, whirlpool, v. nice when it's cold outside. --Tom Paterson
KinkyCowboy
wrote:
>
>"Robert Brown" <xrobert...@xtripnet.se> wrote in message
>news:3FA6CD14...@xtripnet.se...
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> 2) can one get a fairly decent resistance on rollers even without a
>> magnetic brake
>>
>You'll end up at the small end of the cassette. Should be almost the same.
>I've heard of guys with no resistance units putting rugs or towels under
>their drums. Haven't tried it, so if you do, be careful!
Anybody care to expand upon this? I've got the rollers (Tacx T1200,
the 110mm diameter roller model with no brake) on order, I've stripped
an old bike out of the shed and put a big chainring on it. What gear
should I expect to use compared with gearing on the road? I usually
ride 80" fixed at about 100rpm trying hard on a level road, so what
gear should I expect to turn at 100rpm on the rollers? I'm guessing
about 100", so I've fitted 57x15 to start off with, which gives me
scope to go up to 128" (57x12). Last time I rode indoors, I was on a
weird roller/turbo hybrid and found 50x12 a bit too easy for really
hard efforts, but I was fitter in those days. Any thoughts?
Kinky Cowboy
*Your milage may vary
Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts.
Richard Ney
>> I've had two frames crack at the left seat stay/seat lug joint, both
>> of which were the bikes I used for my trainers. I've never seen this
>> failure in any other bike in 30+ years of riding, so my conclusion
>> has been that using the trainer puts extra stresses on the frame.
>> That's not necessarily the correct conclusion, but the damage is two
>> for two (I have switched to rollers now, so I won't be repeating the
>> experiment).
>
> What Tim describes is exactly the kind of thing I fear if I go out
> and buy a trainer. My frame's a Colnago Chic and I doubt it's built
> for the lateral stresses that will arise with the back axle clamped.
>
> One option I have is buying rollers with a magnetic brake. Frame will
> last longer ...
>
> I am, for the first time in my cycling life, living in a part of the
> world where it freezes during the winter, so I've not had to get
> familiar with either rollers or trainers, previously. With my fairly
> good balance and control I could probably handle rollers but I'd like
> someone , who's used both, to tell me:
>
> 1) are rollers just as good a way to train, compared with a trainer
> that fixes the back axle?
>
> 2) can one get a fairly decent resistance on rollers even without a
> magnetic brake
I've used trainers and I hate them. Rollers give me an excellent
workout, and they're not as boring as a trainer.
I use rollers with 2.25 inch drums. Ride intensity can vary from easy
(lower gear, lower rpm) to quite difficult, similar to road cycling. I
don't use a fan or any mag device, and I typically ride them for 60 to
90 minutes.
> 3) is the balance issue (vs. landing on the floor every once in a
> while) difficult to master or is just as easy as learning to ride a
> bike ;-)
If you can ride a bike, you can ride rollers. Just get on, RELAX, and
ride the bike. Just like riding, look where you want to go (straight
ahead) and just do it. Don't stare at the front wheel or obsess about
falling. I'm sure some people pedal out of the saddle on rollers; I
don't, because I want to rock the bike back and forth, something rollers
prohibit. To prevent numbness, I unweight the saddle from time to time
or sit up and ride no hands. (It's actually easier to ride a
dead-straight line with no hands on the bars)
> 4) is it really so noisy that TV watching is out of the question?
No.
JayofMontreal
1. A trainer will destroy a wheel quicker than you can say
"buymeanewtirenow".
2. I have a cycleops fluid2, and I am extremely happy with it. You can get a
very good workout, simulate hills, and do so without driving yourself crazy.
I can watch TV while doing it without pumping up the volume whatsoever.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com
"Richard Ney" <r...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:5KBpb.3074$Wy2....@typhoon.sonic.net...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/27/2003
Carl Fogel
Dear Tim,
While I think that you're right about frames not aging in
the sense of "going soft," isn't this a different case?
That is, aren't we talking about fatiguing metal until it
breaks? And wouldn't the fatigue cycles increase over time?
Almost confidently,
Carl Fogel
S. Anderson
>
> Aha! An engineer has been flushed out of the 100 aker wood.
> I hoped that there might be one lurking in these parts.
<<snip..>>
> I suppose my question boils down to this: by exaggerating
> normal side-to-side sway, would it be easier to bust a frame
> out on the road while riding in a straight line, or easier to
> bust it while it was clamped in a trainer? Or just the same?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carl Fogel
Well, there are some heavy hitters with some anecdotal evidence that
trainers may break frames, so I'll have to retreat here. I'm still not
convinced it's THAT much worse ( I envision the riding stresses to be the
same for the most part..) but I definitely could be wrong. The only thing I
can see being much different is the leaning on the saddle, a force that
doesn't exist on the road because you're always balanced over the tires. I
think the side to side sway is worse because the frame is being loaded in
its weakest direction, laterally. On the trainer you're more restricted to
up and down and torsional loads. We need somebody to model this with a FEA.
Any takers?!?!
Cheers,
Scott..
Carl Fogel
Dear Scott,
I don't really know which way to retreat. Some
say no problem even exists, others that frames
break now and then, and my ignorant layman's
squint at the matter makes me think that it
would be easier to bust a frame held in a
vise than one that I'm balancing on.
Experience suggests that you can make money
betting against my theories about bicycle physics.
On the other hand, I'm a little startled that
the engineers who understand such things are
so undecided. I hear about how tricky all this
to diagram or model and must believe them, since
I have no idea how to diagram or model it, but
it worries me a bit when something as apparently
simple as this leads Phil Holman to start talking
about riding a bicycle straight down the street
while tilting it 30 degrees off the vertical. He's
a Boeing engineer, so what's next, 747's flying
in a straight line with one wing dipped 30 degrees?
Given a straight, smooth, paved road to ride on and
the same amount of pedalling clamped in a trainer,
which frame will break first, or will they both
last as long? If necessary, imagine the Hulk doing
the pedalling, but increase the power until something
gives. It's only a theoretical bicycle. Simplify it
if necessary to a unicycle clamped in the trainer
with no pedalling and just a mechanical side-to-side
nudger device to simulate the slight sway of a rider.
Surely a mob of mechanical engineers can come up with
a consensus on this and then move on to argue about
all sorts of practical side-effects and tangential
considerations and how likely a good frame is to break,
free or clamped.
After all, what are we paying them for?
Carl Fogel
Rik O'Shea
> I have started using a trainer as weather in Montreal is less than condusive
> to road riding. I sit and spin in front of the TV at a moderate speed,
> generating a heart rate of 120 (very nice and light).
>
> The front wheel is in a plastic wheel block to level the front end, the rear
> is well supported and tightly held on the provided-with-the-trainer QR
> skewer.
>
> I am not getting out of the saddle other than getting on and off the bike.
>
> Is this damaging the frame?
>
At this easy intensity you dont have to worry, however in the book
"Smart Cycling" by Arnie Baker, which deals primarily with training on
an indoor trainer, Arnie tells us that intensive cycling on an indoor
trainer wrecks frames. He advises using an old frame for exclusive use
on your trainer.
-R
Phil Holman
Arnie is a medical doctor so that statement could be on a par with
"smoking causes cancer" while both statements are correct, they are
not absolutes.
My experience with trainers has been positive in that I've never
damaged a frame. I do lots of intervals (500watts one minute on, one
minute off) as well as TTs at LT but I always do these seated with
minimal rocking motion. My other point is that my trainer is fork
mounted at the front which also helps reduce the stress levels from
lateral flex. IMO trainers that only support the rear wheel will be
more prone to inflicting damage and I don't see a plastic block under
the front wheel as providing any significant load path to reduce this.
Carl Fogel has been surprised that a more definitive answer is not
forthcoming but the number of variables (frame construction, trainer
design, rider weight and power, riding styles etc) are too numerous to
make an accurate evaluation. IMO, the rider should be aware of some of
the detrimental characteristics of trainer workouts already mentioned
here and do as much as possible to avoid or reduce them.
Phil Holman
Phil Holman
By the way, you're behind with your payments. See my response to Rik below.
Phil Holman
Carl Fogel
Dear Phil,
Now I know exactly how Dilbert's boss feels!
Carl Fogel
Rik O'Shea
> I have started using a trainer as weather in Montreal is less than condusive
> to road riding. I sit and spin in front of the TV at a moderate speed,
> generating a heart rate of 120 (very nice and light).
>
> The front wheel is in a plastic wheel block to level the front end, the rear
> is well supported and tightly held on the provided-with-the-trainer QR
> skewer.
>
> I am not getting out of the saddle other than getting on and off the bike.
>
> Is this damaging the frame?
>
> --
Definitive advice from the experts...
Should I use my Waterford on my Windtrainer?
Only if you're careful. When you ride on the road, your bike sways and
leans as you shift your weight from side to side. Clamp it into a wind
trainer, all that force is absorbed by the dropout, dramatically
accelerating frame fatigue. What can you do?
* Avoid wind trainers which clamp at the bottom bracket. These can
be particularly damaging to your bike. Trainers which clamp at the
rear dropouts put less stress on the frame.
* Supplement your wind trainer with a set of rollers which, since
they have no such clamping, take less of a toll on the frame. Rollers
help you develop important handling skills which you can't get from a
regular wind trainer.
* Use your "beater" frame on your wind trainer. This can mean many
more seasons for your Waterford frameset.
* Tell us if you plan to buy a Waterford for use with a wind
trainer. We can substitute extra-strong chainstays and seatstays which
compensate for the extra stress and strain.
What else should I know about indoor training?
Besides the extra wear and tear from wind trainers, don't forget about
other considerations associated with indoor training.
Among such considerations, protecting your frame from sweat is most
important. When on the road, wind dramatically reduces the amount of
sweat which drips onto the frame during riding. When riding indoors,
less evaporation takes place and some training areas are quite warm.
This means a lot more sweat hitting the frame. Be sure to clean off
your frame after every workout! An occasional waxing provides
additional protection.
Lube it up: Just because you train indoors doesn't mean you can ignore
normal mechanical maintenance. In particular, make sure the drive
train and head set are properly lubricated before every ride. Not only
does this extend your bike's life, it makes your spring ramp up
easier.
Keep it warm or keep it cold: Keep your bike indoors if it is your
trainer and outdoors if it's your commuter bike. Great changes in
temperature inevitably create condensation on both inside and outside
surfaces - expecially when you bring your bike in from the cold.
It's just like how an ice-cold glass sweats on a hot summer day. If
you plan on riding all winter, store your outdoor bike in the cold.
Not only does this eliminate condensation from forming, it also keeps
your bike in closer adjustment since your cables don't contract and
expand with the temperature changes.
Brent Olson
> I have started using a trainer as weather in Montreal is less than condusive
> to road riding. I sit and spin in front of the TV at a moderate speed,
> generating a heart rate of 120 (very nice and light).
>
> The front wheel is in a plastic wheel block to level the front end, the rear
> is well supported and tightly held on the provided-with-the-trainer QR
> skewer.
>
> I am not getting out of the saddle other than getting on and off the bike.
>
> Is this damaging the frame?
This WAS my commuting and trainer frame. Snapped the chainstay last
summer. I can't say for sure that the trainer killed it, but I'm sure
it didn't help.
http://photos.bitrealm.com/2003/misc/chainstaysm.jpg
Frame was a 1986 Raleigh Technium.
Robert Brown
> Just as an update:
>
> 1. A trainer will destroy a wheel quicker than you can say
> "buymeanewtirenow".
> ----snip
> > Robert Brown writes:
> >
> ----snip
> > >
> > > What Tim describes is exactly the kind of thing I fear if I go out
> > > and buy a trainer. My frame's a Colnago Chic and I doubt it's built
> > > for the lateral stresses that will arise with the back axle clamped.
>
----cutting much good advice
Hi, just want to thank all respondents to my sub-thread on rollers vs. trainers.
I will probably go out and get a trainer shortly because hardly anyone seems to
be selling rollers here in Sweden.
Then at some point I'll go import some rollers to reduce the risk of chain/seat
stay breakage. And train on both. At about EUR 130 a pop that's not exactly a
huge extra investment. Training indoors is an ugly thought but it might be fun
if I can at least _choose_ the way I'll get bored for the coming hour ;-)
BR /Robert