Magnetic trainer readings

[Mattk50]

Getting better. Average cadence 90, moving time 1:10, distance 9.22 miles and average speed 7.9m. Still unsure why the distance is so low. My friend does a comparable ride outdoors and the distance is 3 times further!

 

[vickster]

Getting better. Average cadence 90, moving time 1:10, distance 9.22 miles and average speed 7.9m. Still unsure why the distance is so low. My friend does a comparable ride outdoors and the distance is 3 times further!

Because you don't actually go anywhere on a turbo trainer! There's no movement between points as outside to be calculated

 

[the_mikey]

When turbo training on a magnetic or fluid trainer, speed can be a distraction as it's not likely to match your real world speed for the same given effort, much better to monitor Heart Rate and Cadence, as this can better indicate how hard you're working.

 

[Mattk50]

When turbo training on a magnetic or fluid trainer, speed can be a distraction as it's not likely to match your real world speed for the same given effort

Why is this? Do any trainers give a more comparable speed/distance?

 

[Eziemnaik]

Thread hijack
Is it normal for the ftp to vary by 30 % depending on flat vs hilly course on a trainer?
It was done on Bkool go in it's own app

 

[ColinJ]

Why is this? Do any trainers give a more comparable speed/distance?

Because they only measure how fast the wheel is going round, not how hard it is to make the wheel go round! I could turn the resistance off on my turbo trainer and cycle at '50 km/hr' for an hour but it wouldn't mean anything - I can't ride for more than a few seconds at that speed on the road! On the other hand, if I turned the resistance up to max I would barely be able to do 10 km/hr and I can do that for hours on the road.

 

[Mattk50]

Getting better. Average cadence 90, moving time 1:10, distance 9.22 miles and average speed 7.9m. Still unsure why the distance is so low. My friend does a comparable ride outdoors and the distance is 3 times further!

I'm now up to 10 miles even though the distance is a false number. My cyclist friend says I should aim to improve my cadence as 90 is low for road cycling. If I try and cycle at say 100 I just feel my legs are running away from me and it doesn't feel natural or sustainable. Are my legs not long enough?

 

[Dogtrousers]

I'm now up to 10 miles even though the distance is a false number. My cyclist friend says I should aim to improve my cadence as 90 is low for road cycling. If I try and cycle at say 100 I just feel my legs are running away from me and it doesn't feel natural or sustainable. Are my legs not long enough?

Odd. 90 is often bandied around (not by me) as the "ideal" cadence for road cycling. I've never come across anyone saying that 90 is low

There may be some marginal improvement for elite racers riding at their personal ideal cadence, but for the rest of us ... meh. Just as long as you dont go to extremes, do what feels right.

Personally I use a higher cadence on the turbo than on the road. Not sure why that is.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Because they only measure how fast the wheel is going round, not how hard it is to make the wheel go round! I could turn the resistance off on my turbo trainer and cycle at '50 km/hr' for an hour but it wouldn't mean anything - I can't ride for more than a few seconds at that speed on the road! On the other hand, if I turned the resistance up to max I would barely be able to do 10 km/hr and I can do that for hours on the road.

The smart trainers do, they don’t just go on wheel speed but work out rolling resistance and have aero dynamic and gravity equations in there etc.

 

[ColinJ]

The smart trainers do, they don’t just go on wheel speed but work out rolling resistance and have aero dynamic and gravity equations in there etc.

True - I was assuming that it was an uncalibrated 'dumb' trainer like the one that I've got!

I had one years ago which had a computer that gave a calorie readout. It had a simple friction brake which I could wind up so tight that I couldn't turn the cranks, or so loose that I couldn't pedal fast enough to actual expend much energy. The computer was blissfully unaware of what resistance I had selected!

 

[Mattk50]

Managed 1 hr 20 mins today, 91 average cadence, 159 heat rate avg, 1357 calories (that's wine o clock sorted). But it says I only did 10.67 miles. I need a smart trainer.

 

[bigdosser]

Just got a smart trainer and didnt realise the difference between the road and the trainer. Im no racing snake but usually cycle outside 30/40 miles a couple of times a week. The trainer fairly puts you through your paces as mentioned above the numbers seem a wee bit different to what i experience on the road. Usually average about 15mph on the road. The trainer on the couple of rides ive done prob half that...

 

[Dogtrousers]

Just got a smart trainer and didnt realise the difference between the road and the trainer. Im no racing snake but usually cycle outside 30/40 miles a couple of times a week. The trainer fairly puts you through your paces as mentioned above the numbers seem a wee bit different to what i experience on the road. Usually average about 15mph on the road. The trainer on the couple of rides ive done prob half that...

I get the opposite. I find I'm a bit quicker* on the trainer.

I think it's all to do with calibration and the parameters you put in. For example on my Tacx training setup I've entered my own weight and the weight of the bike but I've left the rolling resistance, frontal area and drag coefficient as the defaults as I don't have a clue what to enter. The defaults will be for some skinny athlete in lycra on an aero bike with racing tyres - none of which describes me.

My view is it doesn't really matter - it's just numbers. It would only be a problem if I rode a simulation of a particular climb, and then actually visited it and expected things to be the same.

* Yeah yeah, you don't actually move on a trainer so your speed is zero. I know.

 

[bigdosser]

I get the opposite. I find I'm a bit quicker* on the trainer.

I think it's all to do with calibration and the parameters you put in. For example on my Tacx training setup I've entered my own weight and the weight of the bike but I've left the rolling resistance, frontal area and drag coefficient as the defaults as I don't have a clue what to enter. The defaults will be for some skinny athlete in lycra on an aero bike with racing tyres - none of which describes me.

My view is it doesn't really matter - it's just numbers. It would only be a problem if I rode a simulation of a particular climb, and then actually visited it and expected things to be the same.

* Yeah yeah, you don't actually move on a trainer so your speed is zero. I know.

Yip agree there regarding the numbers the main reason i got it was to try and up my fitness and loose a bit of timber 😀 so far not having really using one before certainly seems to give a good workout...👍