Tracking cadence and distance whilst on a turbo?

clembo

Hi there

I have just recently started using a turbo and would be interested to hear recommendations on what the best device would be to use in measuring cadence and distance travelled?

Topeak PanoBike Speed and Cadence Sensor? Not entirely sure if it measures distance?

Many thanks

imposter2.0

You don't tend to travel anywhere on a turbo, so distance is not really relevant. Neither is cadence really. IMO the only things worth knowing on a turbo are time at intensity..

xavierdisley

The PanoBike will do what you're after as long as the app works with your phone

Xav

diamonddog

I have a Cateye Strada Cadence (wired) set up on the permanent turbo bike, it gives max speed, current speed, distance and cadence so everything you need, cost £35.

wallace_and_gromit

I use a cheap speedo wired to the back wheel of my permanent turbo bike. I've played around with the wheel circumference settings to give me Wiggo-level speeds over the hour, which is funny once and then utterly futile! It is the same from one session to the next, though, allowing progress to be tracked.

For cadence at any point, I just count the revs in a minute. It's as good a way of passing a minute on the turbo as any other, though I tend to worry more about speed, heart rate and perceived exertion (and of course, how long until I can stop!)

Colinthecop

I moved the sensor of my wireless cateye from the front wheel to the back so I can keep track of time, distance and speed.

The distance was too far for the cateye to reach so when i'm on the turbo I stick the computer on the crossbar with some blutac.

Very ghetto, but it works for me.

diamonddog

Just to add the Strada I have is for use on the rear wheel so speed and cadence sensors fit nice and neatly on the chain stay.

Buckled_Rims

Probably a bit more expensive, but I use a garmin 500 with cadence and heart. Not only do I get speed and distance, I have set the garmin to do a 10 mile TT training with outputs of my timing for each 1 mile. There's loads of options that a simple device can't really do. BTW, I switch the gps option off as it's a bit pointless on a turbo :-)

I thought it might be overkill at first, but I really enjoy watching heart, cadence, speed and the time for each mile of a 10 miler.

dw300

The speed and distance will be totally inaccurate unless your trainer has a remotely realistic power-curve. If you're using magnetic then one setting might get close. You'll find most trainers might get close for a certain range of speed, but are far out for other ranges of speed.

You just need to get on, set some benchmarks, and then improve on them.

A Garmin GSC10 will work with some iPhones and some Samsung Galaxy S4 variants and Note 3, as far as I know.

nigeldoyle

Garmin Edge 510 for me. Obviously my main use is for out on the road but it does a great job for trainer rides especially as I use Sufferfest videos that have effort and cadence to ride to. Apart from speed, distance, cadence and heart rate data being visible as you ride (if you want them to be), all this data can be uploaded to the likes of Garmin connect, Strava etc. I can then analyze my heart rate and cadence data. Distance and speed data while recorded are of little use although if you're doing Strava trainer challenges it's important.

I use a Cycleops Fluid 2 trainer. The distance travelled seems about right for the time and effort I put in.

FatTed

I use the Lemond Revolution with power pilot and export to Strava, Garmin, Golden Cheetah and training peaks using an online convertor to convert the Lemond csv files to TCX
http://reedjrs.com/ConvertToTcx/Convert.aspx

wallace_and_gromit

dw300 wrote:

You just need to get on, set some benchmarks, and then improve on them.

This sounds an "old school" philosophy and has much to recommend it!

cougie

As has been said - distance is irrelevant - just count it as a training session. I doubt Usain Bolt adds up his training distances as a measure of success.

Cadence is easy. Count for 15 secs and multiply by 4. Computers are available....

Going by Rate of Perceived Exertion is pretty decent. Download some Sufferfest vids and you're away.....

BrandonA

diamonddog wrote:

I have a Cateye Strada Cadence (wired) set up on the permanent turbo bike, it gives max speed, current speed, distance and cadence so everything you need, cost £35.

Before I bought my Garmin Edge this was my original setup. A good cheap option that ticks all the boxes.

I disagree with a previous posters comments about cadence not being worth noting. I do some intervals which require high cadences. Most of my efforts though are done at within my "normal range".

clembo

Hi All

Just wanted to say thank you for the responses. Cateye Strada Cadence unit is now on order.

chrisw12

Top tip, if you're using speed and average speed to track improvements on a turbo then use km/h rather than mph.

NeXXus

chrisw12 wrote:

Top tip, if you're using speed and average speed to track improvements on a turbo then use km/h rather than mph.

Why?

YellaBelly

I can only think it's a smaller unit, making it slightly more accurate in showing up small changes. Wouldn't have thought it makes *much* difference though....

chrisw12

Higher resolution using km so more precise (don't know if that's the right word). Say you're riding 40km which is roughly 25 miles, you're dividing the ride into 40 parts rather than 25 parts.

or put another way, say you improve from 40km/h which is 24.9 mph to 40.1 km/h which is also 24.9 mph (due to rounding). The higher resolution of km as picked up the improvement but the miles hasn't.

chrisw12

YellaBelly wrote:

I can only think it's a smaller unit, making it slightly more accurate in showing up small changes. Wouldn't have thought it makes *much* difference though....

You're right the effect is small but at slow speeds it becomes more pronounced. eg 5.1km=3.1690(3.2) 5.2km=3.2311(3.2)

So again km has picked up the improvement whereas miles hasn't. Now at those slow speeds a 0.1 km improvement could be highly significant.

Mikey23

You lost me...

dw300

I use cubits/millennium. Am I doin it wrong?

You'll find that the cycle computer is recording revolutions/second or minute and making a calculation from that to your chosen measure, so the computer has only 1 level of accuracy.

wallace_and_gromit

chrisw12 wrote:

Higher resolution using km so more precise (don't know if that's the right word). Say you're riding 40km which is roughly 25 miles, you're dividing the ride into 40 parts rather than 25 parts.

or put another way, say you improve from 40km/h which is 24.9 mph to 40.1 km/h which is also 24.9 mph (due to rounding). The higher resolution of km as picked up the improvement but the miles hasn't.

Even my very basic speedo records distance to the 2nd decimal place (i.e the nearest 0.01km or mile), so even if using miles, this should give sufficient precision for meaningful analysis, given that 0.01 mile is only 16 metres.