Turbo trainer - advice

austinbyrne21

All,

Can anyone shed some light on turbo trainers? From the little research I've done I've found that the gel trainers are the way to go. Is this the case and if so, what's the theory behind this?

Anyway, more importantly... Can anyone reccommend one? The usual websites are full of Tacx ones, are they the dogs? Or are they just the best marketed?

Also, I have to admit - I'd be seriously interested in getting them DVDs that simulate cycling mountains etc. Would these ones be ridiculously expensive?

Any general hints and tips to do with this subject would be very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Lumen

In my opinion (which others might disagree with) if you're simply looking for a way to go faster and need to do a couple of sessions a week, just keep it simple. You don't need fancy simulations, you just need a wide range of resistance, a stable design, and some accurate way of judging effort, e.g. a HR monitor (separate from the turbo so you can use it on the road too).

If you have the money to spend, use it on things to keep you entertained on the turbo or put it towards a power meter.

I've owned three turbos, and my current Tacx Satori is the dogs danglies.

mloc123

Lumen wrote: »

In my opinion (which others might disagree with) if you're simply looking for a way to go faster and need to do a couple of sessions a week, just keep it simple. You don't need fancy simulations, you just need a wide range of resistance, a stable design, and some accurate way of judging effort, e.g. a HR monitor (separate from the turbo so you can use it on the road too).

If you have the money to spend, use it on things to keep you entertained on the turbo or put it towards a power meter.

I've owned three turbos, and my current Tacx Satori is the dogs danglies.

Agree all of this... apart from HR. HR as I found out, is useless on the turbo.. cardiac drift is too high with the build up of core heat on the trainer IMO.

I bought a tacx 1680 recently which has power feedback, the numbers in real world are useless... but if you do all your testing and meaningful training on it it works well. Important to rule out as many variables as possible, tyre preasure etc..

Lumen

mloc123 wrote: »

Agree all of this... apart from HR. HR as I found out, is useless on the turbo.. cardiac drift is too high with the build up of core heat on the trainer IMO.

I found HR response pretty consistent over three months or so of the winter when it was cold enough for heat build up not to be a problem.

Since physiological response is continuous, I'm not sure 5bpm either way matters that much.

Isn't turbo training just a question of pedalling as hard as possible for as long as possible until you can't take it any more?

austinbyrne21

Cheers lads for getting back to me. Is there any great difference between these 2 that warrants the extra €37?

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/SearchResults.aspx?Search=Tacx+Satori

The Tacx 1680 is just slightly out of my price range mloc123 but thanks for the reccommendation.

Lumen

austinbyrne21 wrote: »

Cheers lads for getting back to me. Is there any great difference between these 2

A bag and a DVD.

Cheaper here.

tunney

I have a Elite Hyrdroforce elstogel turbo. I've used it for years and gotten great results from it. It still gets used, albeit not by me. It had a power approximation feature that got me into power. You can knock your nuts out till your heart is content. Short hard sessions, long ones, whatever.

I got a Computrainer last year which does real video courses of famous races, computer generated courses of routes you make or upload from GPS. Entertaining and fun. However the real benefit for this sort of trainer that links upto computers (if the trainer supports it) is erg files. You design sets and sessions, load them up and the computer controls the load, no faffing, no cheating no thinking. The most complicated and painful sets can be written and loaded to absolutely hammer the sh!te out of you and get great bang for buck time wise. They also do funky things like pedal stroke analysis and the angles of torque to work on efficency.

Unless you are happy doing most of your riding on a trainer then a high end trainer is a waste. Save your money, get SRMs and get a entry lvel turbo.

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

I found HR response pretty consistent over three months or so of the winter when it was cold enough for heat build up not to be a problem.

Since physiological response is continuous, I'm not sure 5bpm either way matters that much.

Isn't turbo training just a question of pedalling as hard as possible for as long as possible until you can't take it any more?

Disagree strongly with this whole post.

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

Disagree strongly with this whole post.

You can't disagree with the first bit because it's in my data, though feel free to take the rest of it apart piece by piece.

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

You can't disagree with the first bit because it's in my data, though feel free to take the rest of it apart piece by piece.

For N=1 does not validate your claims. I prefer to go with tests where the sample size is a little larger.

mloc123

austinbyrne21 wrote: »

Cheers lads for getting back to me. Is there any great difference between these 2 that warrants the extra €37?

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/SearchResults.aspx?Search=Tacx+Satori

The Tacx 1680 is just slightly out of my price range mloc123 but thanks for the reccommendation.

http://www.bike24.com/1.php?action=basketinsert;content=8;navigation=1;menu=1000,5,69;product=1788;mid=0;pgc=0;page=1

A little closer to your range maybe?

Having gone from HRM based trainig over the winter to power based* over the past month I can't recommend spending the extra €40 enough.

*like I mentioned, power figures may have no real world relevance but they are consistant once you elimate as many variables as possible.

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

For N=1 does not validate your claims. I prefer to go with tests where the sample size is a little larger.

I make no claims about anyone other than me, therefore N=1 is perfectly acceptable.

If I had said "heart rate response is not affected by ambient conditions" you would have a point, but I didn't, so you don't.

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

I make no claims about anyone other than me, therefore N=1 is perfectly acceptable.

If I had said "heart rate response is not affected by ambient conditions" you would have a point, but I didn't, so you don't.

Strange if you are the exception.

Have you tested your power figures on the road versus the turbo?

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

Have you tested your power figures on the road versus the turbo?

Not in a comparable fashion (i.e. close together date wise). I was only using the turbo in the middle of this last very cold winter when the ambient temperature was very low, and I haven't touched it since the clocks went forward.

I definitely think that having consistent power data is a good thing on the turbo, but plenty of people achieve excellent results with HR-based turbo training so it isn't necessary.

Maybe training for tri is different as you're training for an event with a much narrower target power range.

Regarding turbo training in general, I estimate that I increased my aerobic power about 10% in around 3 months of using the turbo a couple of hours a week and without any road riding at all, so they definitely work. But I'm coming from a very modest base.