First Trainer

In article <[email hidden]>,

Richard Stanz said:

There may be a really obvious answer to this question, but are any of you tracking mileage while on
an indoor trainer and, if so, how/what do you use to do so? Thanks.

Assuming you have a trainer that only touches the rear wheel, choose any computer that uses a rear
wheel sensor.

For example, Cateye makes a long-wire sensor kit you can use with many of their models such as
the Mity 3.

Quoted message said:

There may be a really obvious answer to this question, but are any of you tracking mileage while on
an indoor trainer and, if so, how/what do you use to do so? Thanks.

I guesstimate.

I use both an indoor trainer and a lifecycle at the gym.

The life cycle shows about 8 miles in 30 minutes, which is pretty reasonable given my "real" biking,
and the fact that I use significant "random" resistances on the life cycle. So, I credit myself with
8 miles for 30 minutes.

At home, I use the Spinergy videos for 45 minutes, and given the effort I put in, I give myself 12
miles for 45 minutes.

Obviously inaccurate, but there are two factors to be considered.

1. If I spin with no resistance at home on a rear-mounted Cateye, I can rack up miles like crazy
(i.e., cadence of 110 with a fact gear ratio), but it really means very little.

2. If I have a high resistance and a good cadence, I have obviously put a great amount of effort
into the workout, and the comparable road miles/effort would be greater.

The same with comparing any kinds of miles. Flatlanders with igh mileage have a whole different ball
game than folks in mountains and hilly areas with the same mileage.

It is all quite subjective and inaccurate.

In any event, I also gauge my effort by my Heart Rate Monitor, which I try to get to about the same
range, no matter which trainer I am on. That is likely much more accurate and effective.

members.aol.comfoxcondorsrvtnsOpen ↗ (Colorado rental condo)

members.aol.comdnvrfoxOpen ↗ (Family Web Page)

Denver C. Fox wrote: ...

Quoted message said:

The same with comparing any kinds of miles. Flatlanders with igh mileage have a whole different
ball game than folks in mountains and hilly areas with the same mileage....

Unless of course the miles are done in flat and windy conditions. I have done "out and back" rides
where my average speed on the return leg was over three times what it was on the outbound leg.

Tom Sherman – Close to 41½? N, 90½ W

Richard Stanz said:

There may be a really obvious answer to this question, but are any of you tracking mileage while
on an indoor trainer and, if so, how/what do you use to do so?

Good question. Using a bike computer to measure "distance" *may* give you a reasonable indication,
but probably not. It depends on how well the resistance of the trainer simulates actual riding
conditions for a given speed, rider weight, etc.

I usually go by perceived effort. In other words, if I feel like I'm working as hard as I would to
go 20 mph on the road, then I credit myself with a mile for every 3 minutes on the trainer.

Using a bike computer with a rear wheel sensor lets you do repeatable workouts, and helps you track
your improvement. But the readings don't necessarily translate to what you would do on the road with
a similar effort.

Art Harris

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Good question. Using a bike computer to measure "distance" *may* give you a reasonable indication,
but probably not. It depends on how well the resistance of the trainer simulates actual riding
conditions for a given speed, rider weight, etc.

Using a bike computer with a rear wheel sensor lets you do repeatable workouts, and helps you
track your improvement. But the readings don't necessarily translate to what you would do on the
road with a similar effort.

Now hold on. I think a bike computer with a rear-wheel sensor will measure distance on a trainer
just fine. Everytime the wheel makes one revolution, you have traveled that distance on the trainer.

I will agree that there are plenty of other differences with a trainer. With my fluid trainer, you
can't coast, for example. And I know that the effort in a particular gear on the trainer is
significantly higher than that same gear on the road. However, the distance is going to be the same
either way.

Patrick

In article <[email hidden]>,

Patrick Free said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Good question. Using a bike computer to measure "distance" *may* give you a reasonable
indication, but probably not. It depends on how well the resistance of the trainer simulates
actual riding conditions for a given speed, rider weight, etc.

Using a bike computer with a rear wheel sensor lets you do repeatable workouts, and helps you
track your improvement. But the readings don't necessarily translate to what you would do on the
road with a similar effort.

Now hold on. I think a bike computer with a rear-wheel sensor will measure distance on a
trainer just fine. Everytime the wheel makes one revolution, you have traveled that distance on
the trainer.

Correct but you may find the trainer gives more or less resistance than riding on the road. So the
recorded distance will be the same (because the wheel diameter hasn't changed) but the
relationship between power and "speed" will probably not be the same on the trainer as on the
road. This means a ride of a given distance on the trainer may require more or less work than the
same ride on the road.

So having a power meter is a lot more useful than a cyclocomputer for comparing workouts between the
road and a stationary resistance trainer.

--Paul

[email hidden] (Paul Southworth) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Richard Stanz

Quoted message said:

There may be a really obvious answer to this question, but are any of you tracking mileage while
on an indoor trainer and, if so, how/what do you use to do so? Thanks.

Assuming you have a trainer that only touches the rear wheel, choose any computer that uses a rear
wheel sensor.

For example, Cateye makes a long-wire sensor kit you can use with many of their models such as
the Mity 3.

Perfect. Thanks for the info.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So having a power meter is a lot more useful than a cyclocomputer for comparing workouts
between the road and a stationary resistance trainer.

A HRM is essentially a variant of a power meter.

There is certainly a relationship between power and HR. However, HR is affected by lots of body
factors like caffeine, amount of sleep, temperature, etc. Power is not.

True, but over time and with experience, it will give you a pretty good and reasonably repeatable
idea of how hard you are working

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Paul Southworth said:

Correct but you may find the trainer gives more or less resistance than riding on the road. So the
recorded distance will be the same (because the wheel diameter hasn't changed) but the
relationship between power and "speed" will probably not be the same on the trainer as on the
road. This means a ride of a given distance on the trainer may require more or less work than the
same ride on the road.

So having a power meter is a lot more useful than a cyclocomputer for comparing workouts between
the road and a stationary resistance trainer.

Or, you could use a chart that converts trainer speed into watts. Something like this:

geocities.comtrainerpowerOpen ↗

Unfortunately, that page doesn't quite tell you how to calibrate the tire-roller interface, which
can be crucial to getting accurate and replicable measurements.

David Kerber said:

Quoted message said:

There is certainly a relationship between power and HR. However, HR is affected by lots of body
factors like caffeine, amount of sleep, temperature, etc. Power is not.

True, but over time and with experience, it will give you a pretty good and reasonably repeatable
idea of how hard you are working

But the whole interest of home training is in tracking how your performance _changes_ for a given
heart-rate. My doctor has given me a heart-range within which to exercize. The computer on my
apartment bike has gone from registering around 28 km in 60 minutes of training at an average of 131-
134 bpm, to over 32 km. That is how I know I'm making progress. It would be very boring otherwise,
correction, even more purgatorially boring, and quite demotivating.

On the other hand, this has absolutely _no_relation to my performances on a live bike. My max score
there is 11 km in 90 minutes with a heart-rate close to redline.

EFR

In article <[email hidden]>, Elisa.Francesca.Roselli@quadratec-
software.com says...

Quoted message said:

David Kerber said:

Quoted message said:

There is certainly a relationship between power and HR. However, HR is affected by lots of
body factors like caffeine, amount of sleep, temperature, etc. Power is not.

True, but over time and with experience, it will give you a pretty good and reasonably
repeatable idea of how hard you are working

But the whole interest of home training is in tracking how your performance _changes_ for a given
heart-rate. My doctor has given me a heart-range within which to exercize. The computer on my
apartment bike has gone from registering around 28 km in 60 minutes of training at an average of
131-134 bpm, to over 32 km. That is how I know I'm making progress. It would be very boring
otherwise, correction, even more purgatorially boring, and quite demotivating.

On the other hand, this has absolutely _no_relation to my performances on a live bike. My max
score there is 11 km in 90 minutes with a heart-rate close to redline.

You might want to raise the resistance setting on your trainer if it has one, to get a better
approximation of real-life load.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

Tom Sherman said:

Denver C. Fox said:

The same with comparing any kinds of miles. Flatlanders with igh mileage have a whole different
ball game than folks in mountains and hilly areas with the same mileage....

Unless of course the miles are done in flat and windy conditions. I have done "out and back" rides
where my average speed on the return leg was over three times what it was on the outbound leg.

I wish I could do something like that. Seems I'm always going uphill, but the net elevation gain
always happens on the return leg.

Quoted message said:

Tom Sherman – Close to 41½? N, 90½ W

--
Rick Onanian