like this: https://www.amazon.com/CycleOps-Stack...0927504&sr=8-6

It clearly says that this is used to level the bike and/or raise the bike up to "simulate climbing workouts." I'm pretty sure that's impossible.

I'm in college to be a mechanical engineer and I like to believe I have a firm grasp on how physics works and interactions between forces. On a trainer, the resistance is provided by the magnets/fluid in the trainer, and raising the front wheel should have zero effect on the resistance. You could even be riding a vertical bike on a trainer and it should be the same workout.

Now, I know CycleOps employs many engineers to design these things (plus every other trainer manufacturer out there), and I don't believe they would sell and market a product that absolutely does not perform its function. Am I missing something? or is this a full blown marketing scam?

If you don't ride much when not on trainers, perhaps you don't realize this - but when riding uphill, bikes do not remain level.

If you want to simulate riding uphill, you have to do more than just turn up the resistance. You'll want to...raise the front end of the bike.

yeah, but its the exact same workout. Its the exact same thing to have a level bike and have the front wheel be higher than the back on a trainer. So people pay $20 for something that literally does nothing?

Yes. Have you heard of a Snuggie, by chance?

It is only the 'same' workout to the mechanical parts of the trainer. If the bike is angled up then your body is in a different position relative to the pedals, saddle, handlebars and so on. This changes how your muscles are working. Your body reacts to this - therefore the workout is no longer the same.

Another example...Your bike doesn't notice if you are out of the saddle - it's a dumb lump of metal/carbon/etc. After a couple of minutes you as sure as hell notice the difference!

Typical engineer - always forgetting the end user!

Do you climb hills in the exact same riding position as flats?

Quit now if you can't figure this out.

Take a physiology class next semester instead of physics... Or better yet, go ride your bike up some hills, and realize that you use slightly different muscle groups. Think of the effort required to ride a recumbent vs. an upright bike.

It reminds me of the scene in the film "The Right Stuff" (about the early space program) where the engineers build the capsule, but don't even put a window in for the astronauts (amongst other things).

i think there are no hills in the OP's area

this, among other recent threads, appears to be proof that college does not teach one how to think.

LOL...well said.

Well, look who is teaching them.

I have a niece who is working on her PhD in physics and is currently employed at the accelerator in Switzerland. She disagrees with you. But she rides a bike regularly up and down mountains.

By the way, when my treadmill goes to 5 degrees of incline and my heart rate goes up rapidly, it must be a figment of my imagination.

when I work as a clinician I have to spend a lot of energy getting them to unlearn things.

I prefer to raise the rear wheel that way I can ride downhill the entire time I'm on the trainer.

A block of wood will save you the $20. Physiology will cover the difference in position.

I agree with awesomejack. When you go uphill it's harder not because of your bike position but because you gain elevation. Changing bike position when stationary makes no difference in how much effort you put into it. The only benefit I can see is that it allows you to practice the riders position on the bike when climbing.

Shift to a harder gear.

I use the training block because it's annoying to ride without one and be tilted downwards. I tend to agree that unless you're jacking your bike up a LOT, the positional differences are near-meaningless compared to the actual power/work you put out on the trainer which can be done regardless of position.

I've got the CycleOps climbing block with multiple heights, and I just ignore the heights and use the level one - I wasn't getting any more climbing benefit from the inclined ones.

And while you can just use a block of wood, phone book, etc to prop up your bike, I found all the solutions wanting, as I use my trainer a fair amount. The big CycleOps block is very stable, which is useful when doing a lot of hard riding on the trainer. (Damn you SPinervals!)

After trying this, with any kind of thing for a block, the mystery is over, things change. It becomes obvious.

I just use a couple of books.

You can practice climbing by changing position and upshifting to add resistance.

I guess Voltaire was right, common sense is not so common.

Uh, no. You body position on the bike changes and if you ride a lot this is quite apparent. In fact I feel the difference when I don't level the back at all on the trainer because the rear tire is higher. Of course a couple of cookbooks work as well as a climbing block and cost me nothing

Exactly. There was no need for the window since the astronaut was not in control of the capsule. It was purely PR. And how did those explosive bolts work out?

As for the case at hand, the OP's correct. The relative position of the bars, saddle and pedal is fixed at any angle of rotation of the bike, and all pedaling resistance comes through the chain tangent to the chainring; gravity plays no significant part in the mechanics of rotating the crank. If different muscle groups are used when climbing, it's only due to the difference in inertia and has nothing to do with the very slight change in the angle of the gravity vector.

Think of the relative position of the feet hips and shoulders on a road bike and a recumbent (not to mention the relative weight and CdA of the two). Talk about teaching people to think critically.