smart trainer as dumb

bobmcstuff

I think Ugo has got a fair point with regards to out of the saddle climbing on really steep climbs - that's really hard to simulate indoors.

You obviously can get out big power numbers on the turbo (which is what I was disputing initially) but that's not the same as wrestling with the bike on a 16% climb.

I would recommend doing some properly structured workouts rather than just getting on and riding, since it sounded like you were more or less just getting on and riding Z4 for a while, "basically 90% zone 4" (if you are interested, I can give you a free month on TrainerRoad for example). I like to feel that all my time on the turbo has been serving a purpose, so I prefer to be doing a proper workout etc. (unless racing on Zwift...).

ugo.santalucia

bobmcstuff said:

I think Ugo has got a fair point with regards to out of the saddle climbing on really steep climbs - that's really hard to simulate indoors.

You obviously can get out big power numbers on the turbo (which is what I was disputing initially) but that's not the same as wrestling with the bike on a 16% climb.

I would recommend doing some properly structured workouts rather than just getting on and riding, since it sounded like you were more or less just getting on and riding Z4 for a while, "basically 90% zone 4" (if you are interested, I can give you a free month on TrainerRoad for example). I like to feel that all my time on the turbo has been serving a purpose, so I prefer to be doing a proper workout etc. (unless racing on Zwift...).

Thanks, but I find structured work extremely boring. At least this way I can put a video of Pantani on and see how I fare on the same climb... there is some incentive and some reward... there is also plenty of folks who have filmed themselves climbing the Alpe d'Huez, which makes it quite interesting... with a bit of imagination you almost feel you are on the climb on a really sweaty day!

https://www.strava.com/activities/5019354813

bobmcstuff

But then, you can hardly blame the turbo for the part in bold:

ugo.santalucia said:

pblakeney said:

See if you can repeat the Alpe an hour after maximum effort. 🤣

What I mean is that the work is very different from an outdoor training session.
The latter is a mix of zone 1 to zone 7 in variable proportions, whereas the indoor was basically 90% zone 4, which is hard work, but it doesn't hurt in the long run... doesn't produce the same level of inflammation in the muscles and I don't think it's very effective as a way to improve anaerobic efforts...

There's no reason why you can't do something that's more targeted zone 5, 6, 7 work on the turbo but you'd need to apply some kind of structure (even if you do it yourself rather than using a training program). Most people who train using a turbo are not doing 90% zone 4 work in any case - I know I am not!

The more recent plans I have been doing are supposed to be specifically targetting shorter power durations, and I've seen some good improvements, although I doubt I'll ever be very good over <5 mins.

ugo.santalucia

but I can do that kind of work outdoors, on real hills, which is much more interesting and fun than attempting to damage the frame by churning out 500 Watt.

The way I see the turbo is for when you can't go out... or you don't want to go out. I wouldn't want to use it for anything else.

Don't really want to become one of those bods with immaculate bikes that only see the light of day... on a day like today.

bobmcstuff

Which is fine - but then you can't blame the turbo for the work you're doing on it feeling unproductive. That's all I'm getting at.

webboo

If you find structured work boring you might as well use the bike on the turbo for drying washing.

ugo.santalucia

bobmcstuff said:

Which is fine - but then you can't blame the turbo for the work you're doing on it feeling unproductive. That's all I'm getting at.

I don't know if it's unproductive, time will tell... there might be some benefit in doing long stints in zone 4, which you can't do on the road, for obvious reasons.
What I said is that it is limited... and I stand by my comment... as much as you try to convince me that I can go in zone 6, I feel that it's not very kind on my rear dropouts, which will eventually fail.
After all, there must be a reason many manufacturers recommend not to use the bike on a trainer.

a.palmer

If it was an issue, the forums would be full of people complaining about it. Huge numbers of people use their bikes on trainers without issue. And I'm fairly sure it's a legacy thing that manufacturers don't recommend using their frames on trainers, I don't think there are many at all saying that these days.

From Cycling News, "Canyon was one of the last major brands holding out to change its tune on turbo trainers, changing its warranty policy in November 2019"

pblakeney

Quite topical. I would recommend checking QR tension if you change bikes though.
Thinner dropouts can lead to a bike jumping of the trainer under heavy load.
#embarrasing
A bit of paint damage but nothing structural. Impressed by my dismount. 😉

ugo.santalucia

I removed the battery from my Stages, to see what happens if the Garmin takes the power figures directly from the Kickr.

Well, massive power gain, as it appears.
To go up a 3% gradient at 16 mph, I need 255 Watt from Stages, but 295 Watt from the Kickr...
Shall we say that the truth is in the middle? Do we actually care about the truth?

bobmcstuff

ugo.santalucia said:

I removed the battery from my Stages, to see what happens if the Garmin takes the power figures directly from the Kickr.

Well, massive power gain, as it appears.
To go up a 3% gradient at 16 mph, I need 255 Watt from Stages, but 295 Watt from the Kickr...
Shall we say that the truth is in the middle? Do we actually care about the truth?

What program are you using for this? In e.g., Zwift, Rouvy, RGT etc there is a physics engine where watts in = speed out (plus some account for drag and rolling restistance etc).

Most people find there is at least a small difference between their power meter and smart trainer (as neither are 100% accurate) but if the power source is reading 255 watts that should result in the same in-game speed regardless of whether it is a power meter reading 255 or a Kickr reading 255.

ugo.santalucia

bobmcstuff said:

ugo.santalucia said:

I removed the battery from my Stages, to see what happens if the Garmin takes the power figures directly from the Kickr.

Well, massive power gain, as it appears.
To go up a 3% gradient at 16 mph, I need 255 Watt from Stages, but 295 Watt from the Kickr...
Shall we say that the truth is in the middle? Do we actually care about the truth?

What program are you using for this? In e.g., Zwift, Rouvy, RGT etc there is a physics engine where watts in = speed out (plus some account for drag and rolling restistance etc).

Most people find there is at least a small difference between their power meter and smart trainer (as neither are 100% accurate) but if the power source is reading 255 watts that should result in the same in-game speed regardless of whether it is a power meter reading 255 or a Kickr reading 255.

I'm just using a Garmin and setting a gradient, Kickr decides how hard it's going to be. The Stages has nothing to do with the process, but my Garmin collects the power data from the Stages, unless I remove the battery, in which case it collects them from Kickr directly (no idea why it prioritises the Stages).
So, it's like for like, really... the difference is quite high, but some of it is down to my left leg being about 46%... as I found out when I used a Watt bike in the gym. So that means that if you want to bring 46% to 50%, then you have to add about 9%... so 255 becomes 278... which is not quite the 295 of the Kickr, but it's closer.

whyamihere

Have you done a spindown on the Kickr and a calibration on the Stages? If not, then doing that may bring the numbers closer together. It may also be caused by asymmetry. The 46/54 split of your left and right legs may change depending on the type of effort. My left/right balance changes depending on how tired I am - For a short, hard ride it can be basically 50/50, towards the end of a long ride it can go to 47/53 or worse. If you're working off a 46/54 split, that may not be fully accurate. That's the downside of trying to compare a single sided PM to a total power PM.

ugo.santalucia

Stages is now calibrated regularly and I believe my wife has done a spindown a couple of weeks back... I don't think you can do it, unless you are logged in one of those apps.
I agree 46/54 might not be what happens on the road, but if it happens on a Wattbike, then it's very likely to happen on the Kickr too.

It also explains why I seem to "outperform" others up some climbs given the same power readings

yorkshireraw

Wouldn't it be better to test the Stages vs Kickr at the same time?

Run the Stages with your Garmin and use the free Wahoo app on your phone with the Kickr, and compare the live numbers.

ugo.santalucia

yorkshireraw said:

Wouldn't it be better to test the Stages vs Kickr at the same time?

Run the Stages with your Garmin and use the free Wahoo app on your phone with the Kickr, and compare the live numbers.

Even if I could do that, would that be of any benefit? I was simply noting that the Wahoo reads higher, which it does, how much higher is academic, not particularly useful to know, if you can't be sure of which one is to be believed

yorkshireraw

ugo.santalucia said:

yorkshireraw said:

Wouldn't it be better to test the Stages vs Kickr at the same time?

Run the Stages with your Garmin and use the free Wahoo app on your phone with the Kickr, and compare the live numbers.

Even if I could do that, would that be of any benefit? I was simply noting that the Wahoo reads higher, which it does, how much higher is academic, not particularly useful to know, if you can't be sure of which one is to be believed

could have been an anomaly in the readings when done separately. At least at the same time you'll know how the kickr compares to the stages for the exact same effort, which may or may not be handy for measuring or translating what you do indoors to outdoors.

ugo.santalucia

yorkshireraw said:

ugo.santalucia said:

yorkshireraw said:

Wouldn't it be better to test the Stages vs Kickr at the same time?

Run the Stages with your Garmin and use the free Wahoo app on your phone with the Kickr, and compare the live numbers.

Even if I could do that, would that be of any benefit? I was simply noting that the Wahoo reads higher, which it does, how much higher is academic, not particularly useful to know, if you can't be sure of which one is to be believed

could have been an anomaly in the readings when done separately. At least at the same time you'll know how the kickr compares to the stages for the exact same effort, which may or may not be handy for measuring or translating what you do indoors to outdoors.

No anomaly, on the Kickr 250 Watt feels comfortable, it's only at 290-300 that it gets hard.