Muov TiltBike [formerly Muoverti]

I wonder how ‘realistic’ this can be, since it still just tilts along an axis near the ground. In particular, when out of the saddle and rocking back and forth, I really don’t think that outdoors we are really tilting the entire bike/person unit along a fixed axis on the ground - there is some side to side movement of the contact patch as well. This is all just “gut feel” high-school physics, so I could be wrong, but I think that the movement in center of gravity of sprinting outside vs on this bike are going to be different enough to be noticeable - the actual side to side movement doesn’t seem that different from other rocker plates.

This certainly looks very polished, but I remain skeptical about ‘realistic outdoor feel’, while still a fan of rocker plates.

Funny
@dcrainmaker mention something in this same vain on his article.

1 Like

Yeah, the reality is that the bike tends to ride a ‘S’ pattern when standing. The front and rear track different paths with the front swinging a wider set of curves, with the rear chasing about half that range. I’ve spent TONS of time watching this when I ride for my motion and that of friends, in an effort to better understand what might be best for indoor motion.

As much as I want to “match” that basic motion, I think it falls into the 20% side of the 80/20 rule. Sure, it would be ideal to get close to that, but most of the gains we need for inside motion come with something well short of that perfection.

I do think they have at least shown something much closer to what I envision despite the low roll-axis location. I have done some testing and have more ideas on trying to refine what I think is a “better” roll-axis design, but again, that is likely something that won’t matter to the majority of riders. We see great feedback on what I consider super basic setups in the rocker plate world. I have an eye to something more refined and accurate, but much can be gained from those simple setups.

2 Likes

Ha, I giggled a bit when I read that too. :wink:

1 Like

Side note…they are gonna have to come up with a better name than Muoverti.

Only read DCRainmaker:

“Fall 2022”

:yawning_face::sleeping:

which mean fall 2023

:man_shrugging:

1 Like

If they haven’t already ordered their IC chips, then Joel is correct, regardless of any other inevitable delays!

:scream::scream:

2 Likes

Haha…sorry, finally catching up here.

Yeah, Zwift had to be aware of that investment opportunity. It was well-publicized, and given both of them are in the UK (with Eric being in London), undoubtedly he knew of it - and probably even tested the bike at some point. Zwift has looked at/contemplated acquiring almost all of the indoor players at one point or another, though none of them have accepted the offers (obviously).

Given that undoubtedly if Zwift felt there was merit to this tech, they’d have easily picked it up for relatively cheap (now or then). Or, perhaps Muoverti simply said no.

4 Likes

To me, its surprising that didn’t happened.
As a small startup its the dream to have a huge company like zwift wanting to buy you off.
Granted I dont know if it happened (zwift offer to buy it) or how much they even offered. But in the current environment, chances of this actually getting to market in a timely manner are very slim.
I know you say Spring 2023, but I think that is very optimistic.

1 Like

Adding a tad to this, there are two companies that have addressed the roll-axis issue to some degree. The original that I know is the Grow-Tac roller we discussed in a separate thread. They have some great documentation and thoughts on the roll-axis. They also recognize that it is actually a variable detail when we ride outside, where it shifts up and down depending on our inputs. They are the ONLY option I have seen that address this with something other than a single and fixed location roll-axis.

The other more recent one is the pending Rockr Axis, which elevates the roll-axis to about BB height. We have seen this and other similar approaches to elevate the axis above the general tire contact location. My testing shows some promise with these, but like anything, is a bit of a compromise in ways while improving in others.

This TiltBike seems to have a fixed axis and lower one at that. The relative success of rocker plates that follow that basic location shows it can work and still give tangible benefits. But in the search for “better/best” motion, the ideal may be something different.

1 Like

HAH! That brings up one of the comments my wife made after watching me on the trainer. ‘Do they have crashes and flat tires?’ Well, yeah, but you have to roll your own…

Looks like they covered most of the ‘have to haves’. Swaying, steering; looks like fun. And they have crashing. My wife can sleep now… :smile:

1 Like

For an ‘early look’ product, it looks like they have spent a lot of time on making it look awesome. It also looks aluminum, or even carbon fiber. (I am so amazed that so many ‘smart’ trainers have so much steel in their construction. Steel and sweat don’t go well together.)

The Kickr Bike showed that there is a market for ‘The Most Expensive Trainer Ever’, so if they price this over the cost of the Kickr, I’m sure people will be beating down their door to get one. I just hope the ownership experience is better.

1 Like

But its cheaper to create, allowing more margins…
and remember kids… margins is the name of the game!

mmmmm…will stick with my rollers. Or…gasp…consider riding OUTSIDE :crazy_face:

2 Likes

Margin IS the name of the game, but for people like me that ride the hell out of a trainer, I look for durability, and will pass on ‘under designed’ crap. I dumped on our Peloton because it uses a lot of steel. I sweat, a lot. It was beginning to get a lot of rust on it. The wife rides a couple of times a month, so it’s perfect for her. Manufacturers need to realize that they need to take durability and maintenance into account when gifting the market with their latest toy. I am in for the long ride, and if the thing starts to decompose, literally, underneath me, it’s a waste of my money, and time, IMO…

1 Like

I do not disagree with you.
But just keep in mind that a CF (or even AL), frame bike would cost 2 times as much as the steel version.
Because, again, margins.

I dont think manufacturers care about durability much. As long as people buy what they sell, they will make as cheap as possible, and as expensive as the market allows.

So that mean very heavy indoor training bikes made of steel.

Not necessarily…it can be as simple as being able to hit a price point that people will pay for. An aluminum or CF version of a stationary bike could be absurdly expensive, making it unappealing for the majority of consumers.

people already complain that the bikes are too expensive…jacking the price up another $500+ (or even more) would only exacerbate that issue.

And steel has been the default material of choice for exercise equipment for decades…when properly protected and maintained, it can last a very long time.

2 Likes

Don’t disagree, and have been thinking a bit sitting here: They use steel because it’s ‘beefy’, and durable. An aluminum smart bike could still flex enough to cause failure. I guess I adjust my rant by saying that more manufacturers should use more aluminum in places where it makes the most sense.

Case in point: Cranks. It really sucks to have pedals, and the cranks themselves, rusting in place. Another: Seat attachment. Sweat runs off my butt and splashes on the mount underneath. Using more aluminum could make those areas more durable ‘over time’.

Yeah, weight savings is not a goal of making a stationary trainer. Steel would be the perfect choice, but that causes unintended issues. Oh, like adjustment lever screws rusting in place too. Aluminum would add to the cost, but would add to the durability, if used in certain parts/areas, they could maximize the durability, and not have a product with a massively high price.

More durable coating would also go a long way. I had a LeMond stationary bike, and it was built like a tank, and after 3 years of riding, ZERO RUST! I was stunned how quickly the Peloton frame started rusting, after having that previous experience. If LeMond could pull it off… (But margins again, I’m sure)

sigh There is no ‘perfect’ trainer or smart bike, and if there were, we wouldn’t be able to afford it. :worried::disappointed:

  • Only if it was designed poorly, with insufficient material wall thickness and welds. Pure material comparisons are largely irrelevant until you look at exactly how much and how they use it.
  • Proper use of grease on the pedal spindle threads largely resolves this. For an indoor application that I expect get more sweat than outside, I would personally use a heavier grease (moly axle specifically) and LOTS of it.
  • This needs similar attention regardless of material. If left with no lube, aluminum to aluminum contact can gall over time and lead to super nasty freezing between the parts. The remedy is to use appropriate grease that serves as an insulator, just like a typical application for an outside bike.

Most of the issues you mention are worth consideration regardless of, and are not solved with a change of material. They are initial assembly and long term use / care issues required for any bike used in this case (that includes regular bikes on trainers as well as dedicated indoor bikes of any kind). “Set it and forget it” approaches that we see to often will lead to issues for any of these bikes and materials.

  • Correct, proper design and manufacturing, coupled with appropriate care and maintenance effectively eliminate all those concerns above.