Well, my second replacement Cyclops Fluid trainer has now begun to leak. So, I am in the market for a new trainer. I know Tom D rated the Kurt Kinetic very highly and many STers have given it good reviews.
Anyone have/use the Kinetic Rock & Roll trainer? How do you like it? Supposedly, it feels more like riding on the road b/c it will rock back and forth when you hammer. So, would this trainer put less stress on the bike frame than a traditional, fixed trainer?
bump
.
We tried it and frankly did not see the benefit. We liked the Kurt Kinetic Road Machine much better. Here’s our review:
I’m curious what stress a fixed trainer puts on a bike?
We tried it and frankly did not see the benefit. We liked the Kurt Kinetic Road Machine much better. Here’s our review:
http://www.bikesportmichigan.com/...s/kurt-kinetic.shtml
Tom: Can you expand on that? What do you mean you did not see the benefit? Did it noticeably move/rock? Would the fact that it does move mean it puts less strain on the bike?
Thanks.
I’m curious what stress a fixed trainer puts on a bike?
Here are the two e-mail responses I received from Guru regarding use of my Crono on a trainer:
Hi Joel. Yes, using a trainer can and will void the warranty of the bike. Just to let you know, no bike manufacturer warranties a bike used on a trainer. They just don’t say it. Normal use is riding in the saddle, and not under heavy load. You have to think that when riding outdoors, when you are out of the saddle or hammering, the frame flexes little because the wheels have less tension than the frame. Therefore the wheels take all the abuse. On the trainer, it’s the reverse since the frame is held in a vice, and the wheel therefore has very little to do in the equation. For traditional aluminum and steel frames, having the frame clamped therefore creates flex and will reduce the quality and feel of the ride because it is under greater loads. For carbon, it can do the same, but because the frames are so much stiffer, and the material more brittle (there is no elasticity in the material), you can therefore create stress points and get cracks in the paint and possible un-bond the drop-outs. So that is why we do not advocate the use of trainers, nor do any other manufacturer for that matter. The solution is really for you to use an older welded frame, or to use rollers, which do not stress any part of the bike. We understand your position since we do live north of you.
So use the trainer, but at your discretion. We will not warranty the frame if anything happens.
Customer Service
Guru Bicycles Corp.
www.gurubikes.com
Good Afternoon Joel. Thanks for the update. To be honest, we do not advocate the use of any bike on a trainer, due to the stress it creates on the bike.
Under normal use, it is not a problem, but long term use can and will affect the ride quality and performance of the bike. For that, I would advise you to use rollers, or your spare bike, should you have one, to do your trainer rides. I hope this answers your question. We are currently working on a disclaimer to be posted on the website, as well as sent to our dealers.
Regards,
Customer Service
Guru Bicycles Corp.
www.gurubikes.com
none.
none.
Tom: None? Why does the bike creak so much when you jump out of the saddle and hammer?
Seriously, I am not trying to challenge anyone, I just seem to keep getting conflicting information. See my post above, which includes two e-mail messages from Guru. I haven’t even owned my Crono for a year yet and, based on these e-mails, I am now terrified to ride her on the trainer. Based on your experience, is Guru just covering their six, or, is this a legitimate concern?
I’ve never done a formal analysis of the loads a bike experiences on a trainer vs. road, but I doubt the implications being made in those emails.
The loads will be applied differently, but I suspect the magnitude of the loads are less on the trainer vs going over a bumpy road at high speed. Regardless, the bike flexes in both cases.
I suspect people get nervous about putting a bike in a stand because you have to crank down the clamp to secure it. But this is simply putting the skewers in compression, and those things are quite stiff under axial compression. The more you turn the knob, the more axial load on the skewer. It’s a significant load not present on the road, but it doesn’t affect the bike.
Sorry for the one word response. I was also having a phone conversation when I replied. let me give you a more complete reply.
Firstly, in fairness, I am not an engineer nor do I have the test equipment to conduct an empiracle test on the load distribution of a riding pedalling a bike on a trainer. Why a trainer company hasn’t done this I dont know since it would likely contribute once and for all to getting rid of the urban legend of trainers being hard on bikes.
We use our road and triathlon bikes all season long on the Computrainers and we ride them very hard. We have nver had a single failure. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence points to the road being the more damaging environment to ride a bike. When bikes fail, they fail on the road.
No, we do occasionally see a circumstance where a rider *notices *a frame failure on an indoor trainer. Interestingly, they tend to notice them *early during trainer use. *In other words, when a problem surfaces ("Hey, I just noticed this crack in my chain stay…) it tends to surface very early once the bike is installed on the trainer. I have my own theory on this: I think people don’t *notice *the problem until they bring the bike indoors, hopefully clean it up some and then put it in the trainer to do a few miles. On the trainer you can look down at your bottom bracket and see the effects of pedalling forces. We generally don’t do that on the road since it would be unsafe and, if we were foolhardy enough to do so, there is not a static point of reference while riding on the road as there is when pedallig the bike fixed in the trainer.
The long and short of it is we simply don’t (anecdotally) see any correlation between trainer use and accelerated frame wear or failure. Not on our own equipment or on our customers.
Not sure how I lost my post. I was going to say: I had always been told the skewers take the bulk of the stress. I guess I am more concerned about Guru claiming they will void the warranty.
I’m not a great coach, triathlete, cyclist or anything…but I don’t think it is all that wise or necessary to regularly get on the trainer and jump out of the saddle to hammer. I guess that’s my own personal opinion. Seems like the trainer is a place to maintain fitness or even build some types of fitness (LT or aerobic) under a controlled setting. I’ve never thought of it as something to build out of the saddle/hammering fitness. Maybe this has been my problem these past few years.
Second of all, there are a number of different possibilities for creaking, and the frame failing is one of the last ones I would look for (though it is always important to check regularly for such things, on the road or not).
Third, I pick a) Guru is just covering their six.
But then again, I’m an anonymous poster on an internet forum, so…
Thanks Tom, that makes me feel a lot better. Great question regarding trainer manufacturers performing an in-depth stress analysis. Maybe they feel there is not enough concern about using a trainer to justify putting money into a study.
“I guess I am more concerned about Guru claiming they will void the warranty.”
That’s garbage in my opinion and significantly deters me from considering their company for future purchases. If they, or any bike company, is going to make such outlandish claims they better be prepared to back it up with testing.
All I hear is work to shave 0.00001 seconds off a 40K, and how stiff this bike is, or how lightweight yet strong bikes are - and now the manufacturer is going to tell me not to put the bike on a trainer or it voids my warranty?
I’ll look elsewhere.
This of course assumes you didn’t make up those emails.
“Maybe they feel there is not enough concern about using a trainer to justify putting money into a study.”
If true, how can they justify voiding the warranty!
I’d like to get further details on all of this.
Bummer, I am interested in what people think of the “rock n roll”, as it holds promise of a more natural feel for out of the saddle riding indoors. Standard trainers just suck in this respect.(feel free to use this quote in any official reviews :)) Not to disagree with the herd, but on the older trainers with fork mounts, you could watch the BB sway back and forth under load a lot. These days, with the front wheel free, things are not as bad, but those kinds of forces on a bike with bonded dropouts, chain/seat stays, etc, can’t be good. Still, maybe it’s within the envelope of “safe” stresses.
Having contacts at Trek, Specialized and Serotta I have asked all three this quesiton in the past. Same answer, an indoor trainer is not the intended use for the product. This, like it or not, is how warranties are crafted. In defense, though not agreement, of this policy by bike manufacturers, is the fact that without some limitation on the warranty (i.e. intended use) they would be forced to accept any “problem” with the frame, wheels, etc. It is not different than, for example, HRM’s like Polar which have the same warning language r.e. their watches. They can be used in the water but only to a certain depth, not in salt water without thorugh rinsing afterwards, etc. It does not mean you can’t use your bike on an indoor trainer but should be aware that most (in fact I have never heard of any bike manufacturer who will cover damage to a frame used on an indoor trainer) will void the warranty.
Should they “test” their bikes for use on an indoor trainer? Maybe, but remember that the vast (90%) of purchasers do not use their products (bikes) on an indoor trainer. Now maybe some will counter that 90% of P3C or Madone 6.9SSL users use them on indoor trainers. That “seems” to make sense. But still, that is not their “intended use” and will void the warranty.
It comes down to one simple fact, cost. It would cost them more money to test the product in this regard, a cost which either must be absorbed by them or passed on to us.
Peace out.
Tom is suggesting that the trainer manufacturers do the testing, not the bike companies. If the trainer companies were concerned about this fear, they could do testing to prove that the trainer causes no damage. I suspect they will/do not do this b/c:
There is zero feasibility in trainer compaines coduting testing in this regard.
There is zero feasibility in trainer compaines coduting testing in this regard.
Not suggesting they test it on every bike. In addition, I am certain this would not impact the warranty coverage by the respective bike manufacturers. I am just following up on an idea floated by Tom D. The suggestion was to test the stress on one or two bikes to show that the strain placed on bikes (in general) on a trainer is not greater than that placed on bikes on the road. This was just a, “hey, wonder why they don’t” rather than a mandate that such testing be done.