Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcsb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!thielges
From: thielges@uiucdcsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.bicycle
Subject: Re: Rollers vs. Wind Trainers
Message-ID: <16200089@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Feb-85 11:28:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.16200089
Posted: Fri Feb 22 11:28:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 07:33:44 EST
References: <83@uw-june>.UUCP>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:uw-june>:-8300:uiucdcsb:16200089:000:888
Nf-From: uiucdcsb!thielges    Feb 22 10:28:00 1985


I don't believe that the 'realistic' load curve on wind trainers makes
much difference.  Remember, on any trainer, you are really standing
still.  So what if you are cranking at 90rpm in high gear.  Sure that
isn't realistic in terms of road conditions (except if you're screaming
down a grade with a tailwind) but I think what really matters is that
your heart, legs and lungs get a good workout.
   When I ride rollers, I usually only use two or three different power
output levels (cadence and gear ratio).  So what good would a 'realistic'
load curve do for me ?  I have never had a problem with getting a good
{workout on rollers yet.  I think the balance practice is well worth the
value.  I have cheapie Roto-rollers.  From the parent posting, I guess I
should try some fancier ones.  Maybe there is even better performance to
be found.
					Bart Thielges
					...uiucdcs!thielges