Out of the saddle on rollers

Archon2

Rollers riders -- can you do it -- and if so any tips?

I was only able to do it for about 10 seconds and then I rode OFF the front of the rollers and into the basement wall (lol). But I don't like to stay seated for an hour.

KaktusJaque

Hope your ok. I think rollers would be better than a rear wheel trainer. I just dont have the room for rollers. I would prefer to ride on the road and dont like being in one place either, but the trainer does come in handy. I have a 6 DVD set from Cycling Fitnes Results, that really helps improve myself and my riding. I throw one in every now and then.

Archon2

Oh, I'm fine...it was funny...I was more worried about bike damage

I am going to let some air out of the tires for more resistance. Even in the 53-11 combo, the resistance isn't quite enough for proper standing when on the rollers. It is also hard to control the bike on the rollers when you are rocking side to side, even a little bit. Every motion gets magnified like 5x what you get on the road. These are on normal rollers and not the expensive kind that have a floating base that make everything more natural.

I prefer outside too, but it is just getting to cold to always do a proper ride!

TheBigYin

I've seen a few instructions for making a floating base for the conventional rollers... might be worth googling for if you're the handy sort of person.

Archon2

TheBigYin wrote: »

I've seen a few instructions for making a floating base for the conventional rollers... might be worth googling for if you're the handy sort of person.

Thanks, I checked some of the hits suggested by Google at lunch. Might be a good winter project. I can deal with sitting and keeping the bike going, but I'd really like to incorporate standing on them too. The floating base mod doesn't look all that difficult to build. If I do it, I'll post here about it.

cloggsy71

What about these?

youtu.be/4L6Bc2yTTgA

In essence a roller, but not...

Plus you can stand without the risk of flying through a wall

Archon2

Those look pretty cool, Cloggsy. I wonder if the rear wheel drifts side to side on that at all?

TheBigYin

there's also a few "front wheel frames" for rollers, that replace the front roller/wheel with a fork mount bracket...

http://www.babol.co.uk/proddetail.asp?prod=KT-Forkstand for example...

Jakess1971

Rollers are for painting, I'm a big fan of the Kickr, sturdy as a house, lots of fun software, you can program it using it's API and it keeps you in one position thus avoiding any wile e coyote antics .

Jakess1971

cloggsy71 wrote: »

What about these?

youtu.be/4L6Bc2yTTgA

In essence a roller, but not...

Plus you can stand without the risk of flying through a wall

That's a nice low tech option and looks pretty portable too!

kcjchang

"front wheel frames" for rollers = trainer with no resistance. In fact, rollers don't provide much resistance unless you add a resistance unit. One uses rollers to develop/enhance balance and spin. If you are looking something in lieu of riding on the road for strength, endurance, calories burn, etc; spinners are not it. Every tool has it's weaknesses and strength, and sometimes putting lipstick on a pig works. I don't need or want a roller, I have a track bike.

Archon2

I'm thinking of adding either a fan or perhaps making a magnetic resistance unit myself though. Or just get a trainer as a supplement.

TheBigYin

I must admit I pretty much kicked rollers into touch as soon as I saw my first Turbo trainer - a white steel frame that replaced the front wheel, bolted the rear wheel into place over a couple of blue plastic vaned resistance units, weighed about the same as my ford escort van at the time, and was louder than a typical Motorhead Concert. Kept it 3 years until I swapped it for a Cateye CS1000 that was really flash - it had magnetic variable resistance, though still the same front wheel replace build. Again, tough as old boots, and is currently residing with another member of MFP as I didn't have the heart to throw it away, and it was so old and clunky in comparison to modern kit it'd have never sold.

Archon2

kcjchang - i agree with most of your points, but I will say that I get plenty of calorie burn on the rollers in high gear and at 80+ cadence rates. My HR is easily put at threshhold and I can feel the lactate burn. There is no coasting at all and it is quite a workout. In fact, I think I burn more on them than I do on a typical ride when the time spent is the same. That said, the thing I am missing out on is the high resistance, leg muscle building kind of effort I get outside all the time on small hills that I love to just power over and stand up on.

kcjchang

Yes energy will be expended but it's not sustainable or an efficient means as far as fat loss is concerned (implicit assumption made and per chance not applicable to all on this group).

lpherman01

cloggsy71 wrote: »

What about these?

youtu.be/4L6Bc2yTTgA

In essence a roller, but not...

Plus you can stand without the risk of flying through a wall

I wonder if they are really just for a light warmup spin or if that have any real resistance to them.

kcjchang

Resistance is from a combination of your weight and friction on the bearings in the three rollers, the drive train, and your tires on the rollers (depending on slippage). Basically, the more you weight the more resistance but it's not much to write home about as the bearings are very efficient. On the road, the primary resistance is from drag. As your speed increases, the resistance is squared. You don't get that on a roller. What resistance the roller has, stays pretty much constant as you spin faster (actually slight/negligible increase in resistance due to heat). You get a workout by dipping into anaerobic zone while keeping yourself on the bike. Again, it's primary purpose is to improve spin and balance.

Archon2

Well, I definitely am getting some good sweat going at least. And my balance is getting better. Did a couple miles no hands! Watching TV is no problem now as well. And managed to drink from the water bottle without stopping on the rollers too...but it was a close call I still can't stand for long without risking going off the thing. I am going to supplement at the local gym on a stationary bike with more resistance to simulate hill training for now.

Archon2

Just put an order in for a Cycleops II fluid trainer...I hope this is a decent enough? I plan to alternate with roller work.

Just need some videos to keep the brain occupied.

Oh, and roller workouts are getting easier as far as balance. I can drink without crashing and also go no hands when I like. It is really helping with the smooth pedaling and cadence.

matsprt1984

I spend hours and hours on rollers. I use rollers even during season as they provide training aspects difficult to replicate elsewhere.

First one aspect to resistance is roller diameter, the "standard" 4.5" roller is easier to ride both for control and resistance. The 2.25" have much more resistance to them. The 3" obviously fall in between. I doubt there are many, if any, on this site that would not get a very robust workout from them. I absolutely guarantee that I can in 60 or so minutes give you a work out you will not soon forget. Again based on roller diameter, the 4.5 not so much, the 2.25 leg breaker. I use a 2 X 20 roller session quite often during the winter months. Quick W/O to maintain FTP during the off season / winter / bad weather months.

Leg speed, smoothing out your cadence and balance are all positives to rollers. Easy to move them around, no bike wheels to remove, no frame stress and a reasonable "road" feel. This is also the only time I will wear earphones...good music is a must.

Archon2

matsprt1984 wrote: »

First one aspect to resistance is roller diameter, the "standard" 4.5" roller is easier to ride both for control and resistance. The 2.25" have much more resistance to them. The 3" obviously fall in between. I doubt there are many, if any, on this site that would not get a very robust workout from them. I absolutely guarantee that I can in 60 or so minutes give you a work out you will not soon forget. Again based on roller diameter, the 4.5 not so much, the 2.25 leg breaker. I use a 2 X 20 roller session quite often during the winter months. Quick W/O to maintain FTP during the off season / winter / bad weather months.

Interesting info. This is probably why I was a little perplexed at some comments that rollers did not give much exercise. The only set of rollers I have and used are aluminum "reduced radius" 2.25" as you detailed. So the type that has more resistance. In top gear and going 20+ mph at around 90-100 rpm it is sufficiently hard and I sweat buckets as I mentioned. Pushing to 25+ in top gear can really burn me out in less than a minute.

Anyway, I got my CycleOps Fluid II and have about 5 workouts on it so far since I posted last. So I finally can compare. Yes, the trainer can ramp up to more resistance than I am feeling on the rollers once the fluid gets warm. So I like that. But the difference is as large as I was expecting. Nice thing about the trainer is that I can really focus on the legwork without thinking about losing control like on the rollers. OTOH, I am going to continue to do both ... just in case I have to ride across frozen lakes in the future (heh), the roller work is going to prove invaluable.

Still can't stand for long on the rollers without something bad happening. And still thinking about building that free-motion frame for them to solve it.

Mats, can you stand on your rollers without losing control?

Archon2

(I meant "the difference is not as large as I was expecting" when comparing resistance/effort levels from rollers to trainer.)

matsprt1984

Here is a nice link...it matches pretty closely with what I see on my PM.

http://www.kreitler.com/wattage-information/

And, yes, I have no problem standing. In fact it is a needed skill for a "butt break" while doing longer sessions.

Keep working on the standing, you will get it down sooner or later.

If you are turning a 53 X 11 at 80+ RPM's on 2.25" rollers and not getting a workout...you should have a pro contract. That is close to 500W and if you can crank that out for 15-20 mins you are right up there with the best.

Archon2

Nice chart - and it explains a lot. I'll keep trying the standing effort. I'm going to keep the roller frame through a door frame next time just for loss of control insurance. Might hit some roller work today as I have been using my new trainer all week.

kcjchang

matsprt1984 wrote: »

If you are turning a 53 X 11 at 80+ RPM's on 2.25" rollers and not getting a workout...you should have a pro contract. That is close to 500W and if you can crank that out for 15-20 mins you are right up there with the best.

Same gearing 53x11 at 80 rpm or around 30.3 mph, is 850 watts on a Kurt Kinetic Road Machine (fluid resistance) and MUCH higher on mag and wind. You must have super handling to stay on a roller while putting out that kind of wattage. Not saying it's impossible but takes a lot of practice. Average rider going 20 mph is 126 watts on rollers based on the chart you provided vs 250 watts on KK road machine (nearly same as road conditions on flats and no wind). Don't know where your critical power is at but mine is pretty low and 126 is just hitting my L2 (endurance) while 250 is around L5 (VO2Max). One thing I don't have to worry about is falling off the bike as I find my concentration and handling is not so great after 30 or so minutes on the road at near or above my FTP let alone at CP output. On my trainer, I can hit all power zones for whatever duration I can stomach again and again without falling off . Good luck duplicating that on a roller.

Archon2 wrote: »

Nice chart - and it explains a lot. I'll keep trying the standing effort. I'm going to keep the roller frame through a door frame next time just for loss of control insurance. Might hit some roller work today as I have been using my new trainer all week.

Was referring to addition of a front wheel mount on rollers and need to change the comment to: "front wheel frames" for rollers = trainer with no little resistance. Might want to see the following if you find me biased.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/108989-comparison-bike-rollers-vs.-trainers/
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2009/04/rollers-vs-trainer/

Or better yet, do a FTP test on a roller. Your handling and balance will be up there with the best.

ntnunk

kcjchang wrote: »

Same gearing 53x11 at 80 rpm or around 30.3 mph, is 850 watts on a Kurt Kinetic Road Machine (fluid resistance) and MUCH higher on mag and wind. You must have super handling to stay on a roller while putting out that kind of wattage. Not saying it's impossible but takes a lot of practice. Average rider going 20 mph is 126 watts on rollers based on the chart you provided vs 250 watts on KK road machine (nearly same as road conditions on flats and no wind). Don't know where your critical power is at but mine is pretty low and 126 is just hitting my L2 (endurance) while 250 is around L5 (VO2Max). One thing I don't have to worry about is falling off the bike as I find my concentration and handling is not so great after 30 or so minutes on the road at near or above my FTP let alone at CP output. On my trainer, I can hit all power zones for whatever duration I can stomach again and again without falling off . Good luck duplicating that on a roller.

Speaking personally, the KK numbers here a little bit high. Looking at a ride from Saturday, I spent 10 minutes at about 230 watts (coming from my Power2Max power meter) and I was averaging right around 21 mph. There are some variables here related to tire pressure and trainer tension though.

I agree with the statements about doing the work on a trainer. I always do FTP tests on my Road Machine, plus any hard interval efforts just because it's safer and I can't find a road long enough to spend 20 minutes at tempo or above without having to stop for something. That said, I am currently eyeballing the new Kurt Kinetic rollers for use during my recovery effort spins.

TheBigYin

@kcjchang - I wouldn't worry about Mats abilities to handle the bike, you are aware he's on the U.S. National track racing team ?

Also, wrt to the power figures he quotes, I've no doubt that they are proper ones from a real power meter, not the approximations that turbo trainers make...