When I was working for a large company and hiring people from college (who thought they already knew everything), I had to do exactly the same thing.

I had to explain to a couple of them that the piece of paper they handed you at graduation was evidence of the fact that you were good at taking tests.

Or just place your front wheel on the ground.

Sadly, a funny thread.

I am amazed at the lengths people will go to avoid using the scientific method and just blather on about what they "know is true", having done nothing more than read theory. there are no sacred truths in science.

How is that relevant to a bike trainer ?

its not, of course!

Theory can tell you a lot, if applied correctly. Sadly that didn't happen when this thread was started.

edit: To be fair, what he says is correct, just incomplete.

Do you guys ever actually ride bikes?

Yes, and sometimes we even think about things like what the common wisdom says and is that right or wrong and is there a better way. Have you ever done that?

For the couple of people that think being at an angle doesn't impact different muscles - raise your bike to < 45 degrees, ride for two hours, let me know how you feel.

It is BS I think those climbing blocks. I do think you need to keep the bike level because it just beats the arms without any kind of block or phone book.

45 degrees means 100% grade. Very few 4WD vehicles can climb 100% grades. That analogy is dumb.

That's the wonderful thing about geometry, I don't have to do the experiment to know the answer. Rotating the gravity vector 45 degrees to the rear will not change the relative position of the hands, hips or feet, nor will it change the direction of the force vector on the chainring. Since gravity plays no role in a balanced system, there will be no additional forces on the legs or cranks from the change in gravity. All this adds up to no change in muscle recruitment to move the pedals against chain resistance.

On the other hand, body weight will now have a component parallel to the frame and back which must be opposed. This can be from some combination of friction with the saddle and pulling against the bars with the arms. Hold on. If body weight is constant and some of this force is directed longitudinally when the wheel is raised, doesn't that mean there's less weight on the saddle? Could I be on to something? Could it be that people raise the front wheel to be more comfortable by reducing weight on the saddle? And as long as the angle is slight, this could come at no cost since saddle friction can supply the force?

Not to mention your balance will be different. The "power" muscles are probably not that different, but the angle you're leaning on your handlebars, etc., to stabilize yourself on the bike will be different. I think this is where one of the big differences is.

What? Do a free body diagram and then get back to me.

The point is not to get a "harder" workout but just to make it feel like climbing, positionally. The bike feels different when it is at an angle, and if you stand, the body is in a completely different position.

I think my first paragraph pretty much described that.

The question was why do these blocks exist... to take someone's money and satisfy the buyer's desire to be on-the-level.

that was funny!..

ding, ding, ding, ding..... we got a winner!!!

the secret of simulating a climb on a trainer; harder gear to represent resistance, and books/climbing block(under tire) to simulate body position!
now people was that so hard!

For some people, apparently yes.

Apparently not. Geometry!

Nevermind what people actually do in the real world.

your position relative to your bike is not what you should be focusing your book smarts on. think -center of gravity-

Wow, talk about being critical...

umd's response was actually helpful, he was telling the truth when he said he was going to start being nice on the forums.

My point is, umd answered my questions and the rest of your arguments are unnessary

Of course we are critical! It's an internet forum and we're going to act just like those two guys in the opera box on the Muppet Show. UMD gave you a good answer, but a few others had done it earlier.

To understand a complex system (ie the human body) you have to remember not to fall into the trap you did. Engineers, especially young ones do it all the time when they forget that the real world doesn't always match the equations and co-efficients. The trainer is a simple system that you can isolate and measure - so you were correct that the machine does the same work no matter what angle the bike is propped up at.

However, the human body is not such a simple machine. Go ask a physiologist.

Let's look at another example...
I do a lot of general weight training for strength and conditioning with the athletes I coach (I'm a professional coach, not cycling. I also studied some engineering math for my architecture degree).

Moving a 10kg weight from your shoulder and lifting it above your head involves a certain amount of work (we know the mass, the height, the time etc). While I've forgotten how to do the math on this one, I'm sure you could give me an answer down to the fraction of a joule.

So what if I change things for you by making you do the same exercise while standing on a BOSU (dome thing) or while kneeling on an exercise ball?

You've done the same 'work' while on the BOSU or exercise ball, but I guarantee that you'll be cursing me doubly hard the next morning when you can't lift that spoon to eat your corn flakes.

But you only did the same 'work', right?

It is the same with the bike. So a raised angle or out of the saddle may, for eg, 'hurt' you more despite the bike/rider having technically done the same work to ride a set distance/time/elevation.

^ Link is broken/picture doesn't work