Fave new Trainer: Wahoo KICKR

[HammerTime2]

CharlesM, have you been on these babies (credit to jo.k for first posting about it, but his link is now dead)?

Rodby Innovation, http://www.rodby.com/english/eng_home.htm has informed that the RL2500E and their other bicycle treadmill products, are not available in the United States, as they do not have a dealer there. That seems a shame. However, it may still be possible, with some effort, to get one in the United States - stay tuned.

How about the no longer available, not that it ever really was to Joe Quadpack, Super Trainer?

... Inside Ride produced a small number (at least one, anyhow) of something called the "Super Trainer" Cyclingnews Tech News article from 2004 which includes write up on and pictures of the Super Trainer and http://www.operationgadget.com/2005/03/inside_ride_sup.html, which used to be shown on its website, and was basically a giant adjustable incline treadmill for riding your bike. That was real climbing.



.

Of course, these units are somewhat pricier than your Joe average trainer or rollers.

[nathanong87]

35,000$ ^ , at that price, i hope the boffin in the lab coat comes with.

where yal at?

[glepore]

IMO that is the only good way of training with a trainer. Having a good, structured, FTP scaled trainer workout (see: Trainerroad) is totally different than just riding along and watching movies.

Or Ergvideo, another excellent ftp scaled option with a great editing tool that allows the creation of multiple different interval workouts from one video.

[SpinnerTim]

Thanks Charles,

I take it the Wahoo has at least one or more advantages over comparable systems provided the user doesn't already have a bike with on-board power. Wahoo gets your nod on the basis of one or more of the following: road feel, power metrics, open-source applications/additional room for growth. How would you rate its noise output compared to the TruTrainer?

I've already got the crank-based power meter, so I'm leaning TruTrainer at this point. I'm sure the Wahoo is more entertaining, but I'm not one of those heroes who's going to do five hours on a trainer. Three hours is my limit on a bike that doesn't move, and shorter interval-based training sessions are intense enough to do without diversions.

While I like the idea of the computer varying the cadence/effort to keep you fixed on a target power, I do think there is something to be said for using your gears to vary the effort and keep the cadence in the zone that reflects your actual power point on the road. If I make peak sustained power at 95 RPM, and the computer's plan doesn't include high cadence, do I wind up fighting the comp and have to deactivate the feature?

My long-time a-frame trainer seems to be at the end of its rope, so I'm approaching a replacement decision. Even though I have power on board, I'm going to try to sample the Wahoo since it impressed so deeply.

-Tim

[airwise]

Increasing the resistance on flat riding is NOT the same as climbing. Climbing works muscles differently and brings different muscles into play. It doesn't matter how much programming and videos the device has - if it ain't climbing, it ain't climbing. That doesn't mean it's not a good trainer, but it ain't climbing.

This is not something I'd really agree with. Unless you are climbing in the wrong position or with the wrong gearing - or you are maybe trying to simulate 15% gradients, I find riding indoors remarkably similar to the real thing. I climb around 250,000m a year so I get plenty of practice

[CharlesM]

CharlesM, have you been on these babies (credit to jo.k for first posting about it, but his link is now dead)?

Rodby Innovation, http://www.rodby.com/english/eng_home.htm has informed that the RL2500E and their other bicycle treadmill products, are not available in the United States, as they do not have a dealer there. That seems a shame. However, it may still be possible, with some effort, to get one in the United States - stay tuned.

How about the no longer available, not that it ever really was to Joe Quadpack, Super Trainer?

... Inside Ride produced a small number (at least one, anyhow) of something called the "Super Trainer" Cyclingnews Tech News article from 2004 which includes write up on and pictures of the Super Trainer and http://www.operationgadget.com/2005/03/inside_ride_sup.html, which used to be shown on its website, and was basically a giant adjustable incline treadmill for riding your bike. That was real climbing.



.

Of course, these units are somewhat pricier than your Joe average trainer or rollers.

Actually yes!

There's one of these on the east coast thats in a private home...

They're a tad bit more money than the Wahoo, but the road like feel is there for sure You could also call the set up and storage "involved", but then I'm guessing anyone having one will also have a pretty nice training room. The one that I used was in a 3500 sq foot "work out room"...

I'll also say that it's pretty unnerving to use. I bet you get used to it though... And I could get used to having a 15,000 sq foot house with a training wing .

[CharlesM]

Thanks Charles,

I take it the Wahoo has at least one or more advantages over comparable systems provided the user doesn't already have a bike with on-board power. Wahoo gets your nod on the basis of one or more of the following: road feel, power metrics, open-source applications/additional room for growth. How would you rate its noise output compared to the TruTrainer?

I've already got the crank-based power meter, so I'm leaning TruTrainer at this point. I'm sure the Wahoo is more entertaining, but I'm not one of those heroes who's going to do five hours on a trainer. Three hours is my limit on a bike that doesn't move, and shorter interval-based training sessions are intense enough to do without diversions.

While I like the idea of the computer varying the cadence/effort to keep you fixed on a target power, I do think there is something to be said for using your gears to vary the effort and keep the cadence in the zone that reflects your actual power point on the road. If I make peak sustained power at 95 RPM, and the computer's plan doesn't include high cadence, do I wind up fighting the comp and have to deactivate the feature?

My long-time a-frame trainer seems to be at the end of its rope, so I'm approaching a replacement decision. Even though I have power on board, I'm going to try to sample the Wahoo since it impressed so deeply.

-Tim

If you have a Power meter that can link up to some of the training apps available, that's a real plus. The Teutrainers make some noise but they're pretty quiet. It's been a little while but I remember them not being loud enough to bother me watching TV etc... Again, the fans I use were louder than the rollers.

I really like having the variability that comes with the wahoo versus using the Quark or Tap I have and running rollers. I think the different courses set up (and automatic regulation) and all of the data feeds are better across the board.

But I also have a screwed up view of reality because a lot of this gear shows up and I get to pick and choose. If I had any sort of budget, I could be VERY happy with a good set of rollers and a Power meter. In fact I would have killed for a nice set up like that several years ago...

[HammerTime2]

Increasing the resistance on flat riding is NOT the same as climbing. Climbing works muscles differently and brings different muscles into play. It doesn't matter how much programming and videos the device has - if it ain't climbing, it ain't climbing. That doesn't mean it's not a good trainer, but it ain't climbing.

This is not something I'd really agree with. Unless you are climbing in the wrong position or with the wrong gearing - or you are maybe trying to simulate 15% gradients, I find riding indoors remarkably similar to the real thing. I climb around 250,000m a year so I get plenty of practice

You're right. I don't spin at 100+ rpm up 15% grades ... or 6% grades either, for that matter. Regardless, climbing is NOT the same as riding on the flat in a higher gear (or against more resistance). If it is for you, more power to you. It's not for me.

[airwise]

I'd agree it's not the same as riding in a higher gear but it IS the same as riding against a higher resistance - physically if not mentally.

Stay seated in the saddle, lower cadence to circa 75-80rpm, and keep upper body as unstressed and stable as possible - therefore directing all power to the pedals. If you are really worried, raise the front wheel by three inches.

As I say, physically is remarkably close to the real thing, only altitude effects really being absent IME.

With regards to the KICKR, if I climb Alpe d'Huez in Segments at 4.3 w/kg it will be very similar to doing so from Bourg, the difference is that the gradient is smoothed out a bit and, with no wind calculation, the average speed will be up about 7% IME. If I increase my "weight" in the settings, this allows for the lack of wind data.

[HammerTime2]

airwise, you may have misinterpreted what I wrote, which I stand by.

climbing is NOT the same as riding on the flat in a higher gear (or against more resistance)

This is two different, but related, statements.

First statement: climbing is NOT the same as riding on the flat in a higher gear
Second statement: climbing is NOT the same as riding on the flat against more resistance

Re: second statement: climbing is not the same as riding on the flat against more aero resistance, and is not even the same as riding on the flat in a stronger gravity field (for instance on the surface of a more massive planet than Earth). Remember what your GF told you, "angle matters", as does the motion (dynamic aspect).

[Gearjunkie]

My very unscientific take (based on feel only) on this is that climbing does feel different to riding flat with more resistance. I think it's to do with two things:

+ I can't pedal perfectly evenly around my pedal stroke. At certain points of the pedal stroke I can generate more power than others.

+ Why this matters to climbing vs more resistance is because at those points of my pedal stroke where I'm producing less power it's more noticeable when climbing than when riding flat with more resistance. I put this down to when climbing the gravitational force holding you back is there even if you're not pedaling - if you stop on the flat you won't go anywhere, whereas if you stop on a hill you'll go backwards (unless you put your foot down or brake). So at those points of the pedal stroke with less power, gravity is acting to slow you down causing the peaks and troughs of power in my pedal stroke to be greater.

Another way of putting this is if I'm riding a big gear on the flat, I can "free wheel" the lower power points of my pedal stroke but when climbing my bike speed drops much faster during those lower power points so I have to work harder when in the higher power points of my pedal points.

Probably complete rubbish scientifically, but it's how it feels to me on the bike.

And, for what it's worth, I far prefer climbing!

Cheers
GJ

[CharlesM]

This is two different, but related, statements.

And lets be clear again...

Neither of the statements nor the counter arguments related to any kind of trainer being the same as riding outside are a part of the article...


I CAN UNDERSTAND how it might be interpreted as one is the same as the other but I wasn't implying it.

[SpinnerTim]

Yeah, this thread's heading into the weeds. The question of which trainer best balances road feel, useful and accurate metrics, and entertainment value seems to have been answered by the original review, as featured in post #1.

Then, to humor my fragile self, Charles added that Trutrainers and a power meter are also cool

Now we're hung-up on whether you can truly climb on a trainer (answer: no). Trainers to trainers was a better course of discussion. Mountains to trainers... not so much. Unless someone can propose a trainer model that *does* replicate a climb...

-Tim

[CharlesM]

I see these guys today (theyre builing an Alchemy custom that I bought)... Really slick function on this fitting platform, but again not the same as climbing. You cant move the bike around.


I get Hammers point and it's valid and completely true. People shouldnt expect the exact same training effect indoors to out (climbing or not actually). If Anyone manages to replicate that full effect, it would likely be a HEADLINE rather than a part of the story...

But things are certainly getting A LOT better than they were a few years ago...

[airwise]

You can't replicate any form of outdoor riding "to full effect" on a bike strapped to an immovable frame and flywheel - but to single out climbing is somewhat misleading.

What we can surely say is that is a hell of a lot more realistic that riding flat terrain or even valonnee if you are training for riding mountains.

The KICKR is the first indoor trainer I have used that has a brake powerful enough to make it nigh on impossible to turn the pedals - at least for a lightweight like me.