# CycleOps Classic Mag Turbo Trainer



## CoachMK21 (Jul 27, 2010)

I am new to cycling and would like to put up a fairly cheap, yet decent indoor trainer. I found a good deal on a CycleOps Classic Mag Turbo Trainer. Does anyone have an opinion on this trainer?


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

CoachMK21 said:


> I am new to cycling and would like to put up a fairly cheap, yet decent indoor trainer. I found a good deal on a CycleOps Classic Mag Turbo Trainer. Does anyone have an opinion on this trainer?


I have no firsthand experience with them, but CycleOps has a good rep. 

My only suggestion is to get the remote shifter if you do decide to purchase the trainer. It'll allow you to change resistance at the bars (while riding), rather than having to dismount to do so.


----------



## alexb618 (Aug 24, 2006)

i have owned two

replaced the 1st one because the design made the bike lean to the left

the 2nd one did the same


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

CoachMK21 said:


> I am new to cycling and would like to put up a fairly cheap, yet decent indoor trainer. I found a good deal on a CycleOps Classic Mag Turbo Trainer. Does anyone have an opinion on this trainer?


I've been using one for a few years. It works fine and is good quality. On the other hand I don't use it much because indoor cycling is about the most excrusiatingly boring activity ever invented. I'd rather go out for a ski at -20 F.

As for the remote control someone else mentioned. Mine came with what is probably considered a remote control. It is a cable running from the mechanism to a lever which can be used to adjust the resistance on the trainer. The lever has a velcro clip to put it on the handlebars. I've really never used it. I tried it, but could see no purpose. I now just set it on the "hardest" setting and use my gears to increase or decrease effort. It works, believe me. For intervals, for example, I use my heart rate monitor and my preferred cadence range and use higher gears to increase my HR to my interval zone and then drop gears and spin easier (but at a similar cadence) for the recovery segment. If I want to do some grunting /standing, I put my gears onto big/small and it works. Again, I just set the trainer on the hardest setting and leave it.

I've never used a fluid trainer.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

I really prefer the mag-trainer to the fluid. I like being able to regulate the resistance. I have used both extensively


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

I generally recommend fluid trainers because they're much quieter. 

It may seem odd that you can't adjust the resistance on a fluid trainer, but shifting to higher gears is where resistance comes from.


----------



## Touch0Gray (May 29, 2003)

spade2you said:


> I generally recommend fluid trainers because they're much quieter.
> 
> It may seem odd that you can't adjust the resistance on a fluid trainer, but shifting to higher gears is where resistance comes from.


 Only if you CAN shift gears, i keep my fixed on the trainer for the winter...I have seriously worn components on a trainer....fixed drivetrain is as cheap as it gets to repair/replace


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

spade2you said:


> I generally recommend fluid trainers because they're much quieter.
> 
> It may seem odd that you can't adjust the resistance on a fluid trainer, but shifting to higher gears is where resistance comes from.


Some fluid trainer have the resistance feature, but because of how they differ from mag trainers, the effect isn't the same. With fluids, it's generally more effective to change gears, but with mag trainers I find that using the resistance adjustment (at the bars) and staying in the 53/19 combo keeps my cadence/ speed fairly consistent.


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

Touch0Gray said:


> I really prefer the mag-trainer to the fluid. I like being able to regulate the resistance. I have used both extensively


I prefer the opposite. After having used a mag trainer for a couple years, I much prefer the fluid trainer I've been using the last couple years. With the fluid trainer, it is easier to directly compare one workout to another, since the resistance is progressive and not dependent upon where I adjust the handlebar remote. I can tell if I have progressed simply by seeing if my average speed increases for the same workout. Couldn't do that with the mag trainer, because what if I adjusted the tension differently or for different length of time -- and you have to adjust the resistance, because changing gears on the mag trainer doesn't really do anything other than make you go faster; tension remains the same.

Fwiw, I went from a Cyclops mag trainer to a Kinetic rock 'n roll.

To each their own.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Jwiffle said:


> I prefer the opposite. After having used a mag trainer for a couple years, I much prefer the fluid trainer I've been using the last couple years. With the fluid trainer, it is easier to directly compare one workout to another, since the resistance is progressive and not dependent upon where I adjust the handlebar remote. *I can tell if I have progressed simply by seeing if my average speed increases for the same workout. Couldn't do that with the mag trainer*, because what if I adjusted the tension differently or for different length of time -- and you have to adjust the resistance, because changing gears on the mag trainer doesn't really do anything other than make you go faster; tension remains the same.
> 
> Fwiw, I went from a Cyclops mag trainer to a Kinetic rock 'n roll.
> 
> To each their own.


You're describing the resistance adjustment on the mag trainer like it's different than changing gears on a fluid trainer. It's not, so progress can be tracked on a mag trainer just as you described, but IMO a HRM is a better gauge of effort. 

Also, using your logic you'd have to know precisely when you shifted gears on your fluid trainer to know if your effort was harder, or you just did a faster spin. No different than using the resistance adjustment on a mag trainer.


----------



## Jwiffle (Mar 18, 2005)

PJ352 said:


> You're describing the resistance adjustment on the mag trainer like it's different than changing gears on a fluid trainer. It's not, so progress can be tracked on a mag trainer just as you described, but IMO a HRM is a better gauge of effort.
> 
> Also, using your logic you'd have to know precisely when you shifted gears on your fluid trainer to know if your effort was harder, or you just did a faster spin. No different than using the resistance adjustment on a mag trainer.


No, it's not the same, at least it wasn't between the two trainers I have used. With the mag trainer adjustment, there are now two variables: the unit adjuster and changing your gears. the unit adjuster gives more resistance as you add clicks, the gears just make you go faster, but don't add much/any resistance. So I could go faster without upping the resistance, but that wouldn't tell me if I improved. And there were a lot of clicks on the unit adjuster, so I couldn't always tell I went back to exactly the same one during the same parts of the workout.

Doing a faster spin on the fluid trainer, at least in the same gear, does add resistance. Doing a faster spin on the mag in the same gear just meant having a faster spin. The Kinetic fluid trainer (and I'm assuming most others, as Kinetic provides equations for others) provide a consistent progression of resistance that you can actually calculate power based on your current/average speed. (Won't be able to tell power spikes like with a powertap unit or SRM).

And I can know which gears I am in on the Kinetic trainer to know if my effort is harder. Say I do the 20 minute threshold test. If I average 90 rpms, and my speed is 20.0 miles an hour one time (ave watts calculate to 258.237), and the next time I do it, and average 21 mph (287.652 watts), then I know I have made progress. With the magnetic trainer, I couldn't measure the progress like that. I could have kept the average rpms, but depending on which gear, then also what click on the remote adjuster, the average speed could be all over the place, and no way to know the average wattage. HR could help some to make sure I was in a similar resistance setting as before, but only so much. The fluid trainer, in my opinion, is better for keeping consistency between workouts.

A mag trainer still can provide an excellent workout, it's just not nearly so precise for providing consistency between workouts. Some of the newer mag units (like the Magneto and Supermagneto Pro), I understand, are designed to provide a more progressive power curve than the unit I had (Mag+). Whether they work as well as a fluid, I don't know since I haven't tried one.


----------



## PJ352 (Dec 5, 2007)

Points taken. I think this is one of those times when YMMV applies.

For the record, from what I've read the fluids resistance doesn't increase markedly when adjustments (via the resistance lever) are made, but gear changes (as you mentioned) _do_ have a noticable effect. Mags IME are just the opposite, so in light of what you've offered I think _how_ one uses a trainer might dictate which will work best for them.

I gauge my 'performance' on the trainer primarily by HRM stats, keeping a cadence of around 90. The longer I stay in a given target zone and the higher the resistance, the higher my performance. Conversely, days when HR is in the same general range (or higher), but resistance is lower, lower 'performance' results. The variable being that under the same conditions our HR's can vary daily depending on a number of factors.


----------

