All you have to do is the math. No trainer presently on the market comes close to matching the inertial load of cycling outdoors, but using the small chainring only makes it worse.
Again, the issue exists whether you use ERG mode or not.
I absolutely agree with this. My ride today made use of 3 modes, and each serves it’s own purposes–at least in my mind if not in my legs. I started with a threshold workout and I used ERG mode for warm up and rest intervals and resistance for threshold intervals (at least I think it’s the equivalent of resistance since I’m using ZWIFT and their terms are different, it might have been standard). And then afterwards I did some Z2 in simulation mode. I like the combination of different modes and readily acknowledge that they have different amounts of realism and different pros/cons.
And they’re all better than my old dumb trainer.
BINGO! Leveraging each of them if/when appropriate seems the “best” consideration than declaring one and only one as the winner.
I’m not arguing whether or not the big ring better simulates cycling outdoors (there are multiple threads on this forum alone where people argue about that, and I’ve also heard people say that it varies considerably from trainer to trainer). So I am still not sure why you responded to my post to say that.
What I’m saying is that if your trainer’s erg mode does not work well in the big ring–which is a problem with multiple trainers, including the one I use at least before an update, and which might or might not be a problem with the OP’s trainer–then it doesn’t really matter how effectively you’re mimicing the outdoors. I’ve had rides where the ERG mode was at least 20 watts below target (though not consistently–so I couldn’t just bump up the target to fix it). If issues with ERG mode can be fixed by riding in the little ring, I don’t see any reason not to ride in the little ring, even if it sacrifices some amount of some realism. I suppose you could try to argue that one should abandon the use of ERG mode in that case, but that’s not what you’ve been doing so far.
Thanks to ALL who have chimed in. I usually prefer to thank each one individually but taking care of Dad, 89.5 yrs old, plumbing issues and work, I didnt get to check the forum as quick as I’d hoped. So thank you to everyone, i’m going to try and blanket answer where I am.
The ride: Iron Horse Bicycle Classic, Durango, CO, 46 mi.
Start elevation: 5600’. Gain: 6500’
2 passes to crest. 10,636 ft, 10,910 ft.
https://www.strava.com/segments/702313
Me:
Trainer: Kickr Move
56 yrs old. Live in Phoenix, elevation here is 1200’ elevation.
Trying to offset lack of elevation with intensity and distance.
My bike is set up for climbing, I plan on spinning, not grinding, up the long, 4+ mi climbs at 9500’ and higher. I don’t mind climbing. In my young days I loved mashing up long climbs. I’m 6’2", 208lbs, which is what my numbers were when I was in my 20’s and in the best shape of my life. I know I can’t grind like that today so spinning is my plan
I now see my error when riding in erg mode. The last ride I set into a pace and let it adapt to me. No spin of death spiral.
The plan I selected:
Masters Training-> Specialty-> Road-> Climbing Road Race-> Low Vol
I travel for work every week so I thought Low Vol would provide a more intense workout. With erg I do not think that’s going to work. My last ride, which I did in erg, was very doable. I am thinking of redoing my Ramp Test. I feel like my FTP was quite low. But, it was done in erg and I ended up with the spin issue that started this thread. I question the accuracy, do to my ignorance.
I dont care what or how the training feels, i.e. simulated or not, I want to stress my body to prepare best for what I lack in elevation.
Again…THANK YOU ALL for your input!
I responded to your post because you implied that avoiding ergometer mode avoids the problem. It doesn’t.
Again, my advice: use the big chainring, not the small one. If your trainer is too easily overwhelmed by the higher “speed”, get a different trainer.
If you’re going to keep responding, I think you need to go back and read carefully. This is not at all what I was saying. I was saying that changing the chainring to the small ring to get ERG mode to work better. Here’s the relavant portion:
“I’ll add, though I don’t think this is the problem, that most advice I hear for ERG mode on modern trainers is to be in the small ring in the front and somewhere in the middle on the back (and stay there). So that could be contributing to your problem, but it doesn’t sound to me like it’s the only problem.”
(That’s the full paragraph, you originally quoted from the middle)
Now, it so happens that, in addition to one of the other reasons that I switched from ERG to Resistance mode (for threshold and VO2 interval) was because I was having a problem similar to the one described by the OP. I hadn’t mentioned it before (not here, at least) but, actually, I have tested this. So, actually, I can say, contrary to what you just said, it does avoid the problem. Sure, N=1.
Maybe it will help to clarify/repeat what problem we’re talking about. Specifically, erg mode having problems hitting target powers, no matter what effort we’re able to do with our legs. So, if erg mode is having trouble hitting the power, I don’t see why it would be surprising that switch over to resistance mode (or standard mode) and manually adjusting trainer resistance and controlling gearing and cadence would make it easier to hit power targets. Sure, it changes some other things that other people might not want to change. But it can be used to the fix this particular problem.
No one brought up outdoor ride simulation as an issue until you did.
To the rest of your message–most of us need to figure out how to make the trainer we already have work instead of buying a new one. Usually there are ways to get it to work that don’t cause many problems (or, in fact, any problems except ones that we don’t notice unless someone else insists we’re actually having that problem).
As I said originally, that’s a bad idea. If your trainer can’t handle higher rotational speeds, the solution is to get a better trainer, not make your indoor training even less like cycling outdoors.
And yes, I am apparently the only one posting to this thread who seems to understand the physiological significance of differing inertial loading conditions. The latter is the primary why so many people can’t generate as much power indoors, not lack of adequate cooling or motivation.
You’re not the only one who considers it. I have long wondered about the delta between trainers and real riding outside. However, I lack the background to “do the math” you mentioned above as I’m not entirely sure I know where to start.
I suspect setting a baseline with rider & bike mass, road pitch (level at the very least), speed and such are key elements. Then figuring the trainer side related to axle speed, drive ratio of the flywheel along with it’s mass & polar moment of inertia are likely elements on that side. If you have a ready resource to share on that, I’d review and/or apply if possible.
We’re going around in circles here. It might be interesting to actually hear something to back any of this up–I might even have questions about details. But I’m not going to listen to assertions of ‘Don’t do that’ on the basis only of argument from authority. Especially when a ton of others say that the small ring is fine.
You’ve instead chosen to repeatedly misconstrue what I’ve been saying, and when I call you out on that, pretend like you didn’t.
Another reason why I won’t listen to argument from authority from you–the best authorities are willing to acknowledge mistakes.
I’m not misconstruing what you said at all. You were the first person in this thread who suggested using the small chainring, which is bad advice, so I pointed that out. It’s as simple as that.
You can google for the equations, but you already recognize the concept: calculate the (mostly linear) inertia of a cyclist of a given mass going a given speed, then compare that to the (rotational) inertia of a trainer’s flywheel at a typical velocity. You will find that the former is significantly larger than the latter - even my wheel-on Velodyne provides only about 1/3rd of the inertial load of cycling outdoors at the equivalent speed, despite having a 10 kg flywheel spinning at several thousand rpm. Modern “smart” trainers have even less, and the slower the flywheel is turning, the worse the problem.
The common “wisdom” is to go small ring to simulate sustained climbing due to the lower inertia, and big ring to simulate flat riding. Does this hold up, even if the absolute inertial values don’t approach parity?
I thought the small ring recommendation is an engineering limitation as its easier for the trainer to hold erg power accuracy with lower flywheel speeds.
That said I agree that the inertial loads of riding outside vs a trainer are different. I just dont see why that matters. Ive done ramp tests in both little and big ring on my trainer with equal ftp results.
I agree that the big ring seems to be better but I do most of my stuff in the small ring after a neighbour in my old block of flats complained. They never complained before or after when I was in the small ring. I briefly experimented again with the big ring when these maisonettes were empty bar me. I think I could have got away with the big ring here but I resorted to the small ring again for an easy life.
In a word, no. Pedaling your typical trainer in a large gear is comparable to climbing a steep-ish grade.
Only because modern trainers are poorly designed. IOW, there is no physical reason for it; all you need is a larger (or faster spinning) flywheel.
Now I’m worried all my training has been a waste because I’m a little ringer.
It’s definitely been less specific.