Kinetic trainer making clacking sound

lets hope nothing is broken in there,

Seemed like it only did it 12 minutes into each 20m interval. I know it is a pretty simple design. I will try a fan on trainer tomorrow. I cannot see how it is heat related ...but I will see tomorrow

Kinetic got back with me today (Saturday) - after I contacted them on a Saturday morning!

what did they say, caused by heat ?

He made no comment.

Heat just my idea - seemed to go away during recovery then come back 10-12m into interval

Looked like Kinetic rep contacted me via his droid - just wanted serial #, place of purchase and my address.

Just got done emailing him back with info 5 min ago

If you are interested - below is a review with a youtube video of cutaway of Kinetic with description of how it works - just curious how noise could be happening.

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/493591/preparing-for-first-mtb-race-of-the-season

wrong link on kinetic cutaway video

http://cycling-review.com/accessories/bicycle-trainer/kurt-kinetic-road-trainer/

scottz123 said:

Looked like Kinetic rep contacted me via his droid - just wanted serial #, place of purchase and my address.  Just got done emailing him back with info 5 min ago

" Kurt guarantees the Kurt Kinetic Road Machine with an Unconditional Lifetime Warranty " you might get lucky here !

Kinetic rep sent me an email 20 m ago saying he would send out a new resistance unit.!

I am impressed!

I Contact customer support on a Sat morning and give serial # and place of purchase and issue seems to be resolved!

I would have thought they would want me to ship old one out, inspect, etc.

I would like to say my Kinetic warranty claim went totally smooth, but it didn't.

Resistance unit did not ship out initially. I should have asked for tracking #.

Originally filed claim on Saturday & Kinetic Rep said he would ship out new resistance unit, I asked customer service rep on Friday on status - he said he could not find shipping #. So, he re-filed claim and shipped out Monday and I received it Wed.

New unit feels much different (smoother) than original. I do not think old unit never made 'gurgling' sound at low speed I heard some kinetic users comment on. Cannot say unit was bad when new or it deteriorated.

It may be slight (and I realize there are variances) but I track HR & watts with Kinetic speedo. I believe I picked up about a 10 watt difference (was 245 - now 255 for 2x20's)

scottz123 said:

I would like to say my Kinetic warranty claim went totally smooth, but it didn't.  Resistance unit did not ship out initially. I should have asked for tracking #.  Originally filed claim on Saturday & Kinetic Rep said he would ship out new resistance unit, I asked customer service rep on Friday on status - he said he could not find shipping #. So, he re-filed claim and shipped out Monday and I received it Wed. New unit feels much different (smoother) than original. I do not think old unit never made 'gurgling' sound at low speed I heard some kinetic users comment on. Cannot say unit was bad when new or it deteriorated. It may be slight (and I realize there are variances) but I track HR & watts with Kinetic speedo. I believe I picked up about a 10 watt difference (was 245 - now 255 for 2x20's)

thats a 4% difference, not too bad, powermeters with ant.+ protocol claim to have a 2% margin

vspa said:

thats a 4% difference, not too bad, powermeters with ant.+ protocol claim to have a 2% margin

There's a big difference. Powermeters like SRM, Quarq, and PowerTap have an error of ± x% (±2% or example). All we know about the two Kinetic resistance units in question is that their measurements varied by 4%.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

There's a big difference. Powermeters like SRM, Quarq, and PowerTap have an error of ± x% (±2% or example). All we know about the two Kinetic resistance units in question is that their measurements varied by 4%.

And those two units COULD have been the two extremes of their production tolerance--one was +2% and the other was -2%.

jpr95 said:

And those two units COULD have been the two extremes of their production tolerance--one was +2% and the other was -2%.

Did you read the part about all we know is that the difference in the power measurement was 4%? You need to do some learning on incomplete data. We could imagine all sorts of things, that the other unit was 4% off perfect; that the other unit had a 64% error and the new one had a 68% error; or maybe magical pixies were introducing noise into the measurements. The difference one line of thought involves critical thinking, and the other doesn't.

i don't know if it is a good comparison but devices measuring calories show often different readings, in one device against the other, for the same effort, the only thing you can do is to forget what your old device showed and adapt to the new readings,

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Did you read the part about all we know is that the difference in the power measurement was 4%? You need to do some learning on incomplete data. We could imagine all sorts of things, that the other unit was 4% off perfect; that the other unit had a 64% error and the new one had a 68% error; or maybe magical pixies were introducing noise into the measurements. The difference one line of thought involves critical thinking, and the other doesn't.

What about my post suggests that I need to do some learning on incomplete data? What I posted was so that other readers don't get the (wrong or incomplete) impression that a 4% difference is somehow worse than +/- 2%.

So get off your high, self-worship horse. Constantly trying to belittle others by being a legend in your own mind makes this otherwise wonderful forum unwelcoming to others trying to learn about cycling. That's where YOUR lack of critical thought lies.

jpr95 said:

What about my post suggests that I need to do some learning on incomplete data?  What I posted was so that other readers don't get the (wrong or incomplete) impression that a 4% difference is somehow worse than +/- 2%. So get off your high, self-worship horse.  Constantly trying to belittle others by being a legend in your own mind makes this otherwise wonderful forum unwelcoming to others trying to learn about cycling.  That's where YOUR lack of critical thought lies.

Actually, if you knew what you were talking you'd first realize that you don't know whether that 4% is explained by the ±2% because all you know is that one measurement was different than the other by 4%. Second, your ±2% completely lacks credibility since the Kurt Kinetic site doesn't mention that figure for power meter accuracy on its site or in the owner's manual. Third, if you understood what you were talking about you'd know that that 4% difference could actually be worse than the claimed measurement error in the power unit. I'll use small words so you understand: computer say power is x. x is outside of measurement error. y is second measurement with second thing that make bike hard to pedal. y is 4% not like x. Now why is farther outside of measurement error measurement because of 4% y different than x. Do you understand now? Since it is absolutely true that you have no information to conclude that the original measurement on the original unit was within the ±2% measurement error that you assigned to the KK power unit (one which KK doesn't specify), it is also absolutely true that you have no idea whether the second measurement falls within your assigned measurement error. In other words, you're making claims for which you have no evidence, or in other words, you're speaking out of your anus when you make such claims. Alas, I don't ride horses, and I don't do the self-worship thing. I will happily point out, however, when people--people like you in this case--are making ridiculous statements.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by alienator [IMG]/img/forum/go_quote.gif[/IMG]

Actually, if you knew what you were talking you'd first realize that you don't know whether that 4% is explained by the ±2% because all you know is that one measurement was different than the other by 4%. Second, your ±2% completely lacks credibility since the Kurt Kinetic site doesn't mention that figure for power meter accuracy on its site or in the owner's manual. Third, if you understood what you were talking about you'd know that that 4% difference could actually be worse than the claimed measurement error in the power unit. I'll use small words so you understand: computer say power is x. x is outside of measurement error. y is second measurement with second thing that make bike hard to pedal. y is 4% not like x. Now why is farther outside of measurement error measurement because of 4% y different than x. Do you understand now?

Since it is absolutely true that you have no information to conclude that the original measurement on the original unit was within the ±2% measurement error that you assigned to the KK power unit (one which KK doesn't specify), it is also absolutely true that you have no idea whether the second measurement falls within your assigned measurement error. In other words, you're making claims for which you have no evidence, or in other words, you're speaking out of your anus when you make such claims.

Alas, I don't ride horses, and I don't do the self-worship thing. I will happily point out, however, when people--people like you in this case--are making ridiculous statements.

Blah blah blah. Again, you're acting as if you're the all-knowing on the topic at hand (no surprise there). Your first post was an empirical claim that there is a big difference between a 4% variance in the data points and a +/- 2% tolerance. There is a difference to be sure, but they COULD still have the same tolerance, which is also a true statement--and is all I claimed in my original statement, yet you felt the need to try to belittle it (again, no surprise). I wasn't arguing, only adding a possible scenario BECAUSE the data is incomplete so that others don't assume everyone here is bashing Kurt Kinetic for a perceived shortcoming. You're trying to make the case that you're way ahead of me on this, and you're falling flat because you're reading things into my post that simply aren't there.

jpr95 said:

Blah blah blah.  Again, you're acting as if you're the all-knowing on the topic at hand (no surprise there).  Your first post was an empirical claim that there is a big difference between a 4% variance in the data points and a +/- 2% tolerance.  There is a difference to be sure, but they COULD still have the same tolerance, which is also a true statement--and is all I claimed in my original statement, yet you felt the need to try to belittle it (again, no surprise).  I wasn't arguing, only adding a possible scenario BECAUSE the data is incomplete so that others don't assume everyone here is bashing Kurt Kinetic for a perceived shortcoming.  You're trying to make the case that you're way ahead of me on this, and you're falling flat because you're reading things into my post that simply aren't there.

Talk about reading things that aren't there, I didn't make any empirical claim, fella, I just pointed out the facts. You're the one that was sprinkling pixie dust. I didn't make any claims about being way ahead of anyone. I just pointed out where you were wrong. Mine was a simple statement that was true no matter how the information was interpreted by you. You're critical thinking skills are right up there with your buddy's, you know, BigotBob.

That's quite the debate tactic--calling people names who aren't even involved in the discussion. How...big of you.

jpr95 said:

That's quite the debate tactic--calling people names who aren't even involved in the discussion.  How...big of you.

We're not debating, as you've got nothing to debate.