Kurt Kinetic v computerised trainers



grahamspringett

New Member
Feb 26, 2004
263
0
0
I do lots of indoor training because of work and family commitments and I have a PowerTap on my trainer bike. I'm looking at getting a new trainer and am very ken on the Kurt Kinetic Rock and Roll as it has a massive flywheel and the rock and roll system is apparently very much like riding on the road.

However, I have also been eyeing up trainers you link to a computer like the Tacx Fortius or Computrainer. Has anybody ridden these computerised trainers and got any comments on the inertia of the system? Lots of my training is steady state threshold or sweet spot stuff so having an enormous flywheel appeals to me. I have a DVD player and telly in the garage so entertainment isn't an issue.

I was just wondering how the computerised trainers feel compared to the inertia and supposed realism of a Kurt Kinetic machine.

Thanks
 
I too am interested in Kurt's stuff. Especially for their big flywheel.

As far as I am aware (I've only really tested a few out at a ahow) computerised trainers can give you "smart" adjustment of resitance so as to follow a simulated course, but you can't simulate inertia without actually having it (ie without a flywheel).
A flywheel stores energy from the times when power output is high (during the down stroke) and gives it back to the system when output is low (during dead spots).
In order to do this a computerised trainer would have to either have the same hefty flywheel or be smart enough to vary the resitance with crank position (highly unlikely).

Sadly I'm not sure if I have enough floorspace to semi-permanently set up a rock-and-roll (the base is something like 1.2m wide) but that's what I'd prefer at first glance. I'm keen to know whether the R'n'R is really that much better than the Pro version (it certainly is more expensive and bigger - the resistance unit is the same).