Parabolic Rollers?
11-23-11 | 09:56 PM
#26
makn'a phonecall to doggy
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
From: The blue suit.
I'm liking what both you and Brian are coming across with.
Calamar, in the end, how much seat-time did you give to gather your thoughts, and...
Did this get you faster, and/or feeling stronger, +/- fluid/supple (or whatever) on the road?
This all is great sense
I'm in a place, though, that indoor riding is not needed.
Calamar, in the end, how much seat-time did you give to gather your thoughts, and...
Did this get you faster, and/or feeling stronger, +/- fluid/supple (or whatever) on the road?
This all is great sense
I'm in a place, though, that indoor riding is not needed.Thanks for your thoughts. Really, no snideness at all.
Another thing about cycling I love is that it is different things to everyone, and what works great for one, is crap for another.
It was actually the top of my stroke (11-to-2 o'clock) that was weak, not hamstrings. When I started focusing on hip-flexors, aductors and abductors, my flat spot assuaged and I had another FTP breakthrough. True, lessening my weakspot did allow me to pedal more comfortably at higher rpm, but my avg cadence for the test went up only 3 or 4 rpm on the 20 min test.
It was shortly before learning this from Nate Loyal, that I'd experimented with the flywheel.
I absolutely concur that my ~200 pounds @ 20mph is a colossal amount of inertia, but after looking at 1.5 years of workout data, my avg cadence has remained roughly the same, but my avg & lap wattages have gone up while avg HR has gone down. (At least this was the trend before meeting my gf in May and my training going into the toilet.)
What works for me might not work for everyone, but I'm convinced that flywheels cause stagnation in the minor muscle groups, and we're better off without them. The fact that I was able to get the stupid thing in nearly new condition for $30 delivered (and the freight was more than $10), suggests to me that someone else drew a similar conclusion.
Thanks again. Peace & safe riding.
Another thing about cycling I love is that it is different things to everyone, and what works great for one, is crap for another.
It was actually the top of my stroke (11-to-2 o'clock) that was weak, not hamstrings. When I started focusing on hip-flexors, aductors and abductors, my flat spot assuaged and I had another FTP breakthrough. True, lessening my weakspot did allow me to pedal more comfortably at higher rpm, but my avg cadence for the test went up only 3 or 4 rpm on the 20 min test.
It was shortly before learning this from Nate Loyal, that I'd experimented with the flywheel.
I absolutely concur that my ~200 pounds @ 20mph is a colossal amount of inertia, but after looking at 1.5 years of workout data, my avg cadence has remained roughly the same, but my avg & lap wattages have gone up while avg HR has gone down. (At least this was the trend before meeting my gf in May and my training going into the toilet.)
What works for me might not work for everyone, but I'm convinced that flywheels cause stagnation in the minor muscle groups, and we're better off without them. The fact that I was able to get the stupid thing in nearly new condition for $30 delivered (and the freight was more than $10), suggests to me that someone else drew a similar conclusion.
Thanks again. Peace & safe riding.
11-24-11 | 08:08 AM
#28
Banned.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,434
Likes: 277
From: Carlsbad, CA
Bikes: '09 Felt F55, '84 Masi Cran Criterium, (2)'86 Schwinn Pelotons, '86 Look Equippe Hinault, '09 Globe Live 3 (dogtaxi), '94 Greg Lemond, '99 GT Pulse Kinesis
Definitely got faster, and more fluid/efficient on the road. Despite running out of water and weighing 180 pounds, I was the chubbiest guy at the l'Etape du California finish line, then found out later I'd finished 146th of 955 finishers, out of 1600+ entrants. (And that Dave Zabriskie had finished 25th.) No way I could've managed that with my previous choppy spin.
11-24-11 | 10:01 AM
#29
Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
I made my own rollers a few years back. Made them out of 3/4" thick hard maple, glued together. They started out at nearly 5" diameter, but due to they varying density (and weight) of each board, balancing them was nearly impossible. They spin at something like 40 revolutions per second!
I turned them down to 3 1/2" diameter and balanced them with no more vibration or bounce.
Here's a picture:
https://i655.photobucket.com/albums/u...amibay/003.jpg
I turned them down to 3 1/2" diameter and balanced them with no more vibration or bounce.
Here's a picture:
https://i655.photobucket.com/albums/u...amibay/003.jpg
11-24-11 | 11:11 AM
#30
Go, Dog. Go!
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 709
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
Bikes: '09 Fuji Team; '11 PedalForce QS3
I made my own rollers a few years back. Made them out of 3/4" thick hard maple, glued together. They started out at nearly 5" diameter, but due to they varying density (and weight) of each board, balancing them was nearly impossible. They spin at something like 40 revolutions per second!
I turned them down to 3 1/2" diameter and balanced them with no more vibration or bounce.
Here's a picture:
https://i655.photobucket.com/albums/u...amibay/003.jpg
I turned them down to 3 1/2" diameter and balanced them with no more vibration or bounce.
Here's a picture:
https://i655.photobucket.com/albums/u...amibay/003.jpg
12-01-11 | 05:33 PM
#31
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
So not to beat a dead horse here, but back to one of my original questions about Larger diameter rollers. Take a look at this link, and tell me what I am missing here, and why almost all these setups are significantly larger than todays rollers.
https://bikecult.com/works/rollers.html
I guess I could buy an argument that they didn't know any better long ago (particularly the huge drums near the top of the page), but even the Goldsprint competition setup looks like it is in the 7-8" range. What am I missing here... Is ther no benefit to a larger roller drum with some type of added resistance?? Thanks
https://bikecult.com/works/rollers.html
I guess I could buy an argument that they didn't know any better long ago (particularly the huge drums near the top of the page), but even the Goldsprint competition setup looks like it is in the 7-8" range. What am I missing here... Is ther no benefit to a larger roller drum with some type of added resistance?? Thanks
