Turbo or Rollers?

leswill

Hi all
I am fairly new to road cycling.
My average speed for trip to work and back, about 65 Km fairly flat is about 24Km/h. Circular routes of about 20Km from where i live, my average is only about 21Km/h, it is quite hilly. Do hills make this difference?
With winter not too far away, should i get a turbo trainer or rollers for the winter nights.
What are the advantages/dis-advantages of each type.

Thanks

geoff_ss

Hills make a lot of difference but usually make for a more interesting ride. Forget average speed. IMO that facility on a cycle computer is the invention of the devil. What matters is that you enjoy the ride and average speed is immaterial unless you're training for racing. In fact I'd be happy just to have a distance recorder.

I would say a turbo trainer is more useful than rollers because it simulates the load you experience when riding.

litwardle

+1 for not worrying about average speed, as for rollers, I hear they are a bitch to stay upright on!

unixnerd

I had a turbo and sold it, no fun at all and you'll sweat like crazy. I had the option of going cross country skiing most days instead - so I did. If there wasn't much snow then it was onto the mountain bike with big bright lights even if it was raining. Anything is more fun than a turbo (and mountain biking at night is great fun).

I think rollers would have done me more good as they require a better pedalling technique and mine could stand some improvement.

merak

Depends whether you are wanting to improve pedalling technique or fitness. Turbo is probably better for the latter cos you have realistic resistance but be warned that turbos are monumentally boring. I can only stand to use mine in the very worst of weather conditions and after 10 minutes you feel like you've been on it all your life.

Fenred

unixnerd wrote:

I had a turbo and sold it, no fun at all and you'll sweat like crazy. I had the option of going cross country skiing most days instead - so I did. If there wasn't much snow then it was onto the mountain bike with big bright lights even if it was raining. Anything is more fun than a turbo (and mountain biking at night is great fun).

I think rollers would have done me more good as they require a better pedalling technique and mine could stand some improvement.

I use the MTB during grim weather, then turbo (use sufferfest, it takes out the monotony).Rollers got sold...Sweating is good no? :?

As above on average speed, traffic lights/roundabouts/junctions kill it.

night_porter

Sometime the wind is in your face and you work hard and sometimes it is behind you and you go faster. The same thing applies to hills.

You know whether you are pushing hard or taking it easy so just let that be your guide because it really means nothing what the computer says.

If you really feel the need to measure your improvement then ride alongside someone who is stronger/faster/lighter than you and push yourself to keep up with their pace. Then you will really see improvements and the terrain/weather will make no difference.

unixnerd

Sweating is good no?

Not when you have a painful skin condition over large parts of your body :-(

mouth

Geoff_SS wrote:

Hills make a lot of difference but usually make for a more interesting ride. Forget average speed. IMO that facility on a cycle computer is the invention of the devil. What matters is that you enjoy the ride and average speed is immaterial unless you're training for racing. In fact I'd be happy just to have a distance recorder.

I would say a turbo trainer is more useful than rollers because it simulates the load you experience when riding.

I've recently started trying to find minor hills on my commutes and regular rides (to my Mum's and stuff) just to break it up a bit. But yes you do have to work a little harder. No coasting here.

As for speed, well I kinda agree with Geoff, but again to break up a ride a little I like to try and ride above the recorded average on my computer for a little while. I do prefer the distance feature though. I find myself going around the block or something just to get to the next 5 or 10 miles on the odometer.

Turbo? I was donated an exercise bike and I know people here will call me the devil, but I quite like to watch or read a book or something at the same time. It is frowned upon, but maybe a cheaper alternative. And more socially acceptable. Mine's in the lounge and nobody asks too many questions. A turbo or rollers? BE talking about it all day.

geoff_ss

Certainly riding a turbo trainer is monumentally boring. I can only manage about 30 minutes at one go. Reading or listening to the radio doesn't work for me because I spend the time concentrating on pedalling and timing the intervals via pulse rate. There's no point doing it unless it hurts IMO

You can spin on a turbo just by using low gears. The only problem is, both mine and my wife's are very noisy but they're over 20 years old; perhaps newer ones are quieter.

scottgarrett

Got me some rollers with variable resistance. Do the job of rollers (pedalling technique) and turbo (work hard sweat lots). Best thing I ever bought. Have to concentrate to stop from falling arse over tit; makes for an interesting ride. Can do up to about 90 minutes. Reading a book is out of the question; music's okay though. With practice you can stand, take a drink, do whatever. And soon you'll be pedalling like Lance himself.

unixnerd

The only problem is, both mine and my wife's are very noisy but they're over 20 years old; perhaps newer ones are quieter.

I had one of the magnetic resistance types which are meant to be quieter than the cheaper fan versions. It made a decent amount of noise but wasn't too loud.