# Do turbo trainers damage your bike ?



## joker (Jul 22, 2007)

Hi folks is it a myth or do turbo trainers damage your bike ? i've heard people say things like never put a new bike on your turbo, is this just hearsay or do they really damage your bike ?


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

joker said:


> Hi folks is it a myth or do turbo trainers damage your bike ? i've heard people say things like never put a new bike on your turbo, is this just hearsay or do they really damage your bike ?


As I understand it, there may have been some truth to this long ago. I don't believe any current manufacturer advises against using a trainer.


----------



## JazNine (Jul 9, 2009)

Riding in the real world is worse. A turbo trainer has no potholes, bad weather or crashes. Turbo trainers can be a nasty business, but I say work that thing like a rent-a-babe in restraints and don't worry about it.


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

joker said:


> Hi folks is it a myth or do turbo trainers damage your bike ? i've heard people say things like never put a new bike on your turbo, is this just hearsay or do they really damage your bike ?


Only if they're carbon fiber. Carbon fiber bikes are meant to be looked at and weighed. They should never be ridden under any circumstances.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

California L33 said:


> As I understand it, there may have been some truth to this long ago. I don't believe any current manufacturer advises against using a trainer.


Seven states that with their carbon bikes, if used in a trainer, the manufacturer warranty on the fram(set) is void.


----------



## Hooben (Aug 22, 2004)

Trainers can really distort and ruin carbon frames, no lie. Use your old rigs for the wind or mag trainer.


----------



## nOOky (Mar 20, 2009)

I separated the tubes on a carbon frame one spring, pretty sure it was from riding on the trainer. I did quite a bit of standing and simulating hills. I suspect the rear wheel being locked down didn't allow the normal side to side sway so I was probably stressing it un-necessarily. It is only a guess, but I'm thinking the bike wasn't designed with those types of stresses in mind. It has a lifetime warranty so I got a new frame, so I'm thinking when I get bored with this one I'll just put it on the trainer and do it again


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

Trainers do put a different load on a frame than road riding, but the biggest damage I've seen from a trainer is corrosion due the sweat. Even on a carbon frame corrosion can develop around bottle bosses, brakes, derailleurs, etc. I even had the adhesive holding the aluminum bottom bracket into a carbon frame crumble and disintegrate after three or four seasons of trainer use. I always cover the bike while riding on a trainer, but somehow the sweat still gets where it's not wanted. I will no longer ride a good bike on a trainer, and as far as sweating is concerned rollers are probably not much better.


----------



## takl23 (Jul 22, 2007)

Yes, carbon and trainers=bad mojo. A friend ruined his Prince on a trainer over the winter, he didn't know he wasn't supposed to put it on a trainer, lesson learned. 

Tim


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

I guess the best thing to do is check with the manufacturer. It seems Sevens are tender. There's a thread here (or one of the bike forums) about someone contacting Specialized about whether his Tarmac could be used on a trainer and was told, 'No problem.' 

I would have thought JazNine was making an understatement, just can't imagine hitting a pothole at 40 miles an hour, or even riding on a rough road, is easier on frame than the forces you put on it on a trainer, but there you go. It's easy enough to buy an old aluminum beater. I just wouldn't have thought it necessary.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Generally there's a possibility to ruin _any_ frame on a trainer (in stark contrast to rollers, mind you). On the trainer, the frame is loaded with bending moments that _never_ appear in normal road use, and _no frame_ is designed for those kinds of loads. If you are lucky, your frame is sufficiently over-designed to withstand such loads, but any sufficiently optimized frame, of any material, may ultimately break due to trainer use. YMMV.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

joker said:


> Hi folks is it a myth or do turbo trainers damage your bike ? i've heard people say things like never put a new bike on your turbo, is this just hearsay or do they really damage your bike ?


A trainer can't damage your bike.

Misusing a bike in a trainer can damage it, but as long as you don't practice bad form (and why would anyone choose to practice doing something badly?) there's nothing at all to worry about.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

danl1 said:


> A trainer can't damage your bike.


That's simply not true. It is impossible not to put bending moments on a frame that is clamped in a trainer, and such moments do not appear in normal riding. That non-standard load can _potentially_ damage a frame. Expensive, lightweight frames are particularly at risk.


----------



## California L33 (Jan 20, 2006)

Pirx said:


> Generally there's a possibility to ruin _any_ frame on a trainer (in stark contrast to rollers, mind you). On the trainer, the frame is loaded with bending moments that _never_ appear in normal road use, and _no frame_ is designed for those kinds of loads. If you are lucky, your frame is sufficiently over-designed to withstand such loads, but any sufficiently optimized frame, of any material, may ultimately break due to trainer use. YMMV.


I would think the only additional force would be side to side force normally absorbed by wheel flex if the wheel has more side to side give than the frame. Maybe that's sufficient to cause damage. It also could result in going into the LBS and saying, "I've got a carbon frame bike. Give me the noodleiest wheels you've got."


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

California L33 said:


> I would think the only additional force would be side to side force normally absorbed by wheel flex if the wheel has more side to side give than the frame.


No, since it is the rear axle that is clamped in the trainer, the frame (mostly the rear triangle) will have to absorb almost all of the load.


----------



## Swish (Jul 31, 2004)

Mr. Versatile said:


> Only if they're carbon fiber. Carbon fiber bikes are meant to be looked at and weighed. They should never be ridden under any circumstances.



This made me giggle!


----------



## threebikes (Feb 1, 2009)

Just riding a trainer is probably ok.
Standing and sprinting on a trainer might be harder on the bike than normal riding.
On a trainer the tire is unable to compress and take any load off of the rear triangle.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

Pirx said:


> That's simply not true. It is impossible not to put bending moments on a frame that is clamped in a trainer, and such moments do not appear in normal riding. That non-standard load can _potentially_ damage a frame. Expensive, lightweight frames are particularly at risk.


False.

If you can ride rollers without falling off, or ride a straight line on the road, you can ride in a trainer without applying bending moments. Elsewise, the bike would barrel-roll with each pedal stroke in the 'normal' case.

The only way bending moments are applied on a trainer is if the rider is practicing doing something indoors that they ought not be doing outdoors. That grabbing and pitching the bike about is a terrible waste of power, and implies someone losing, not winning. Smooth, even application of power - the only thing that should ever be 'trained' for - presents no additional load on the trainer than in 'real' riding.

The brainless flailing of someone working hard to lose a sprint or hopelessly try to stay latched on during a climb applies generally the same force outdoors (via the wheels and axles) as indoors (via the clamping system.) The only difference is that indoors, the bike stays upright while bodyweight moves, and outdoors, the bike is angled under the bodyweight. The results are largely identical, the only difference being a relatively small increase in tension forces on the chainstays during certain phases of the stroke. But those forces are in no way higher than those created by a half-decent pothole hit or railroad grade crossing. The only problem is that they are more repetitive, and then only if the rider is doing something stupid - like training bad habits.

Perhaps it's bad idea to put an "ultralight" bike on the trainer. But if so, then it's not a terrific idea to put it on the road, either. I'd much rather have it fail in the living room than with a car closing on me at 45mph.


----------



## wawaski (Dec 15, 2002)

*Turbo trainers and frame damage*

I ran across the same info from one of the UCI training facilities, for the same reason: frames were meant to flex and if you lock them in, they can't. Good info, needs to get "out there" !








nOOky said:


> I separated the tubes on a carbon frame one spring, pretty sure it was from riding on the trainer. I did quite a bit of standing and simulating hills. I suspect the rear wheel being locked down didn't allow the normal side to side sway so I was probably stressing it un-necessarily. It is only a guess, but I'm thinking the bike wasn't designed with those types of stresses in mind. It has a lifetime warranty so I got a new frame, so I'm thinking when I get bored with this one I'll just put it on the trainer and do it again


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

wawaski said:


> I ran across the same info from one of the UCI training facilities, for the same reason: frames were meant to flex and if you lock them in, they can't. Good info, needs to get "out there" !


Thread dredge aside... Sweat, as mentioned already may be an issue, but bolting the bike into a trainer isn't.


----------



## pittcanna (Oct 2, 2014)

As someone who has used a variety of trainers.

They can be bad for bike if you dont follow the instructions, from the trainer manufacturer and the bike manufacturer. I would never put a carbon bike into a trainer, just because of the overly rigid frame the bike is locked into.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

pittcanna said:


> As someone who has used a variety of trainers.
> 
> They can be bad for bike if you dont follow the instructions, from the trainer manufacturer and the bike manufacturer. I would never put a carbon bike into a trainer, just because of the overly rigid frame the bike is locked into.


How have you damaged a CF bike in a trainer?


----------



## pittcanna (Oct 2, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> How have you damaged a CF bike in a trainer?


I have only had a cf bike in a trainer a handfull of times. But i will never put it back in. The rigid fixation that trainers provide is just too much.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

pittcanna said:


> I have only had a cf bike in a trainer a handfull of times. But i will never put it back in. The rigid fixation that trainers provide is just too much.


which units are rigid fixation measured in?


----------



## factory feel (Nov 27, 2009)

den bakker said:


> which units are rigid fixation measured in?


parasec


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

pittcanna said:


> I have only had a cf bike in a trainer a handfull of times. But i will never put it back in. The rigid fixation that trainers provide is just too much.


Hmmm. You tried it a few times with no adverse effects and concluded CF will get damaged in a trainer?


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

den bakker said:


> which units are rigid fixation measured in?


furlongs-foot-fathoms per firkin per degree-fahrenheit per fortnight?


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Marc said:


> furlongs-foot-fathoms per firkin per degree-fahrenheit per fortnight?


thought it was the same as one measures bovine flatulence.


----------

