eam3@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (edward a. morris) (11/13/85)
Just a follow-up to my query of some weeks past.
I recently spent a Saturday trying out various trainers, including
the new Kreitler "Killer" load simulator. My impressions:
1. Kreitler products are top drawer. The rollers with wind
load simulator are the best indoor training product I've
seen. The "Killer" stationary trainer is a close second
best, although it doesn't force you to concentrate on
good form. Unfortunately, they are expensive and take up
a fair amount of space.
2. The "original" type RacerMate wind load simulator and its
many clones gives you a good workout (sans form, again). As
far as I could tell, though, these types of machines also
give your frame a pretty good stress-test too. Many of the
people with whom I spoke who use these types of trainers
said they used an old, stripped-down bike. One guy had a fixed
gear machine which he swears by for working on smooth cadence.
3. The RacerMate Piggy-Back (tm, I think) is compact, less hard
on the frame, and gives a pretty good work-out. It is also
quite inexpensive (approx. $70).
I live in a *small* apartment, and went with the Piggy-Back. It is
relatively quiet, takes up little space, and gives a good workout at
my level of riding (former cross-country runner in first year of
biking). I am currently working up some cadence/gearing/time charts
based on some workouts a friend of mine suggested. This, combined
with weight training and some running will hopefully keep me ahead
of the game for next spring.
Am also thinking of developing an interface to a PC-compatible micro,
and some software to monitor and trigger different stages of a
stationary workout. Any ideas?
Ted Morris
University of Chicago
Library Computer Systems Group
ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!eam3
(312) 962-8763schley@mmm.UUCP (Steve Schley) (11/15/85)
In article <1327@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> eam3@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (edward a. morris) writes: >Just a follow-up to my query of some weeks past. > >... >I live in a *small* apartment, and went with the Piggy-Back. It is >relatively quiet, takes up little space, and gives a good workout at >my level of riding (former cross-country runner in first year of >biking). I am currently working up some cadence/gearing/time charts >based on some workouts a friend of mine suggested. This, combined >with weight training and some running will hopefully keep me ahead >of the game for next spring. > I have been considering this unit as well, due to the frame-stress troubles I have been hearing about. There's another 'odd-ball' trainer out there, by Eclipse, I think. It, too, leaves the front wheel alone and lifts the rear wheel, but with a roller/fan under the wheel, it works on bikes with rear racks. Has anyone out there tried this unit? >Am also thinking of developing an interface to a PC-compatible micro, >and some software to monitor and trigger different stages of a >stationary workout. Any ideas? > I've long wanted to do something like this. The local YMCA has some exercise cycles that do this, with a fancy LED readout and varying work-load throughout the preprogrammed workout. I think Huffy (!) makes them. One way to do this is to hook a motor/generator up to the rear wheel, through a roller contact or something. Let the computer (anything but a PC! Oh, sorry, got off the subject there...) monitor speed through crank and wheel sensors, and dynamically adjust an electrical load to simulate wind resistance, acceleration inertia, hills, et cetera. One could even simulate deceleration inertia by putting energy _into_ the motor. Another approach would be to use frictional loading, controlling some caliper brakes with a stepper motor or some such affair. This would be simpler, but not as flexible. -- Steve Schley ihnp4!mmm!schley
skip@ubvax.UUCP (Skip Addison Jr) (11/28/85)
In article <319@mmm.UUCP> schley@mmm.UUCP (Steve Schley) writes: > ... >One way to do this is to hook a motor/generator up to the rear wheel, >through a roller contact or something. Let the computer (anything but >a PC! Oh, sorry, got off the subject there...) monitor speed through >crank and wheel sensors, and dynamically adjust an electrical load to >simulate wind resistance, acceleration inertia, hills, et cetera. One >could even simulate deceleration inertia by putting energy _into_ the >motor. > >Another approach would be to use frictional loading, controlling some >caliper brakes with a stepper motor or some such affair. This would be >simpler, but not as flexible. >-- > Steve Schley > > ihnp4!mmm!schley Both acceleration and deceleration inertia would best be handled by some mass, like a fly-wheel. Save a lot on the cost of the generator. Leave it to a physicist .... -- Skip Addison amd!ubvax!skip