# front wheel elevated



## spinnertsaf (Jun 3, 2008)

I have my front wheel elevated on a adjustable stand while on my indoor trainer. I train with it up all the way. simulates up hill. Is this doing me good or not. I ride I hour plus this this way. what are going to be my benefits on a flat road etc?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

spinnertsaf said:


> I have my front wheel elevated on a adjustable stand while on my indoor trainer. I train with it up all the way. simulates up hill. Is this doing me good or not. I ride I hour plus this this way. what are going to be my benefits on a flat road etc?


It most certainly does NOT simulate riding uphill. The only thing you've accomplished is riding your trainer w/ your front wheel higher than your rear. How on earth do you think this 'simulates' actually riding your bike up a real hill?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

cxwrench said:


> It most certainly does NOT simulate riding uphill. The only thing you've accomplished is riding your trainer w/ your front wheel higher than your rear. How on earth do you think this 'simulates' actually riding your bike up a real hill?


To amplify, the relationship between the contact points (bars, saddle, pedals) remains the same, only rotated slightly; and the resistance to pedaling (tangent to the chainring) is also in the same relative position to the body as when level. All that changes is the weight distribution between the arms and saddle, and only slightly at that.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

spinnertsaf said:


> simulates up hill.


this possibly the most hilarious thing I've ever read on this site.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Oxtox said:


> this possibly the most hilarious thing I've ever read on this site.


Really?

Stationary Indoor Bike Trainer - Kinetic by Kurt

Indoor Cycling Basics, Tips, and Trainer Workouts | Bicycling Magazine

Endurance Factor | Indoor Bicycle Riding


----------



## ParadigmDawg (Aug 2, 2012)

I ride my trainer with the back wheel elevated so I am always going down hill. I don't even have to pedal most of the time yet my bike doesn't even fall over.


----------



## Carverbiker (Mar 6, 2013)

I think you are partially correct. Elevating your front wheel can help simulate your position on your bike as you ride uphill, which can aid in activating those muscles used when climbing if the pedaling resistance is increased.

Elevating the front wheel and spinning a low gear at 90 rpm with easy resistance will not do didley for helping your climbing ability.


----------



## Randy99CL (Mar 27, 2013)

I bought one of those distorted mirrors that make me look slim. Now I don't have to lose any weight.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Carverbiker said:


> I think you are partially correct. Elevating your front wheel can help simulate your position on your bike as you ride uphill, ...


Exactly how would that work? How is the bike distorted by gravity?


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

I'm going to recycle this 7 1/2 months from now.

(Cannot believe CX took it seriously )


----------



## spinnertsaf (Jun 3, 2008)

I did some reading and CTS says change your climbing position by elevating your front wheel. Who is laughing now. Carmichael is no fool!!!


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

spinnertsaf said:


> I did some reading and CTS says change your climbing position by elevating your front wheel. Who is laughing now. Carmichael is no fool!!!


Listen...raising the front wheel alone will NOT ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING more than having it level. If you want to change your body position on the bike, that's great. That alone will not accomplish anything. To simulate climbing you'll have to increase resistance. 


Which you can obviously do w/ the bike flat.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

spinnertsaf said:


> Who is laughing now.


most of us...


----------



## phoehn9111 (May 11, 2005)

Aside from this silliness about varying trainer resistance by changing
static level of bike, it is important to note that one indisputable fact
is that you will only succeed in changing the static fitment of your
bike, upsetting everything and possibly causing imbalance\injury\
discomfort issues at numerous points. Especially since most of the time
you are sitting in one position for hours at a time.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Agree that the impact is minimal at best. I still elevate the front wheel out of habit.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

You guys should cut Spinnertsaf a break. There are benefits to raising the front.

Mr Asgele already posted 3 solid links talking about this, and their reasons are all sound reason to me. I would not be so quick to discount what is said in those 3 links. Those links represent knowledge from real-world racers and trainers. 

While Spinnertsaf did say "_simulates up hill_", and this wording may not be precise, but Joel Friel (in one of the last link by Asgele) did say "_simulates hill-climbing position_". The keyword here is _position_. The hill-climbing position is different from a flat position and different from a TT position. And the steeper the gradient, the more one has to bend down one's back, and this causes the hip angle to be narrower, which engages more glut muscles. It will force the rider to use more arm power to pull on the bars, and between the arms pulling and the back being bent down deeper, this puts a tremendous strain on the back over a hard effort as fatigue sets in. Anyone who has climbed, say, a 4-mile 10% gradient, will know that half way thru, the experience of latic acid is painful not only in just the legs but also in back and the arms. Bottomline is, different anatomical position engages different muscles, and this is a benefit. The real debatable issue here is "how much of a benefit", not if there is a benefit.

The other variable is resistance. Resistance should be treated independently from body position. In order for the muscles to adapt, there must be resistance. But this is true regardless of body position.

the other issue is that if one spends a large amount of time on the trainer, then changing bike position can add variety to an otherwise monotonuous routine, and variety may add motivation to the rider, and this also has some value.


----------



## Chader09 (Jun 10, 2014)

Well said, aclinjury. I do this on occasion. I often find that my hands and wrists fatigu sooner on a trainer than riding outside. 

My theory is that the lack of sufficient wind resistance or some other factor seems to place more load on my hands than real riding. So I sometimes raise the front a bit higher just to offset this issue for my purposes.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Chader09 said:


> Well said, aclinjury. I do this on occasion. I often find that my hands and wrists fatigu sooner on a trainer than riding outside.
> 
> My theory is that the lack of sufficient wind resistance or some other factor seems to place more load on my hands than real riding. So I sometimes raise the front a bit higher just to offset this issue for my purposes.


Could be that you need to change hand position more often. I force myself to do this on the rollers every minute due to pre-existing wrist issues.


----------



## Chader09 (Jun 10, 2014)

Yes, but I still wonder why that is necessary? 

Do other people have similar issues on trainers?

I also have rollers mounted on a motion platform, so it is much more natural to me and I stand more about as often as I do outside. I don't have the same hand issues like I do on my Road Machine.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> Mr Asgele already posted 3 solid links talking about this, and their reasons are all sound reason to me. I would not be so quick to discount what is said in those 3 links. Those links represent knowledge from real-world racers and trainers.


Whoa nelly, there. I only posted those links to show it wan't totally ridiculous to be asking the question. My first post should make it clear it is ridiculous to think raising the front wheel changes anything about the pedaling dynamics.



aclinjury said:


> The keyword here is _position_. The hill-climbing position is different from a flat position and different from a TT position.


Apples and Oranges. The TT position is different because the position of the contact points is different. If one is using the same bike for hills and flats, this is not true. As long as the bars, saddle, and pedals don't change relative position, how can the rider's position change? The answer is only by moving her body into a different configuration. The thing is, that movement around the fixed points can be accomplished whatever the orientation of the bike; it isn't necessary to angle it up or down. So if you want to train in your climbing position, go ahead; bend your back, narrow your hip angle, strain your arms, but don't think you need the bike in any orientation to do this. That can all be accomplished with the bike angled up, down, or flat.



aclinjury said:


> I would not be so quick to discount what is said in those 3 links. Those links represent knowledge from real-world racers and trainers.


The old appeal to authority argument. Sadly Euclid was more of an authority on geometry than any of those authors and his work has stood for over 2000 years.

(by the way, people are using resistance when they mean inertia. The resistance to pedaling 300 W at 80 rpm is the same whether going uphill, downhill, or flat.)


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Chader09 said:


> Yes, but I still wonder why that is necessary?
> 
> Do other people have similar issues on trainers?
> 
> I also have rollers mounted on a motion platform, so it is much more natural to me and I stand more about as often as I do outside. I don't have the same hand issues like I do on my Road Machine.


Could be fit related or perhaps you're gripping the bars harder during the intervals.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

asgelle said:


> Whoa nelly, there. I only posted those links to show it wan't totally ridiculous to be asking the question. My first post should make it clear it is ridiculous to think raising the front wheel changes anything about the pedaling dynamics.
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges. The TT position is different because the position of the contact points is different. If one is using the same bike for hills and flats, this is not true. As long as the bars, saddle, and pedals don't change relative position, how can the rider's position change? The answer is only by moving her body into a different configuration. The thing is, that movement around the fixed points can be accomplished whatever the orientation of the bike; it isn't necessary to angle it up or down. *So if you want to train in your climbing position, go ahead; bend your back, narrow your hip angle, strain your arms, but don't think you need the bike in any orientation to do this. That can all be accomplished with the bike angled up, down, or flat.*
> ...


So if the bike is angled downward, say, 10 degrees, versus the bike angled upward 10 degress, are you telling me that the cyclist will engage the *exact* same groups of muscles in the legs, arms, and core? Then please explain what muscles of the arms are used to push against the bars in a -10 degree position, and what what muscles of the arms are used to pull when a +10 degree position.

And saying something like "_straining your arms_" is not very precise isn't it? I can flex my arm against a weight, or I can extend my arm against a weight, and in both processi I'm "_straining_" my arms, but yet engaging opposing muscles.



> by the way, people are using resistance when they mean inertia. The resistance to pedaling 300 W at 80 rpm is the same whether going uphill, downhill, or flat.


When a bike is fixed and locked in a trainer, it does not get pulled down by gravity any lower than the locked position even if you stop pedaling. In this sense, it does not represent "real world" climbing; and I have already acknowledged this fact by emphasizing the keyword _position_. But then you say position makes no different, and I have explained why I completely disagree with your statement. And yes pedaling at 300 watts represent the same amount of work done whether you're going uphill or downhill, but what I'm contending here is that on the uphill, you're actually requiring to enage more than just the leg muscles, you also need some core, back, and arms to pull on the bars too, and the engagement of these extra muscles has to do with the incline that the bike is on. So to imply (as you seem to be doing) that 300 watts on the downhill uses the same muscles as 300 watts on the uphill, is just plain wrong. If that is the case, then why do cyclists bother climbing at all? Can't they just do the same work on the flat as well? 300 watts is 300 watts, right?

And no, I do not appeal to authority because of authority's sake. I look at what they have to say, I use my knowledge of what I know about anatomy, and I assess the final validity of their statements, and to what extent they are true or false. So far, the authority has a lot of valid points. And if you want to bring Euclid, a guy who's work I know a little about, into this discussion, then you to be a little more specific about what you're trying to say. Be precise so we don't get confused and debate about totally different things.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

aclinjury said:


> And if you want to bring Euclid, a guy who's work I know a little about, into this discussion, then you to be a little more specific about what you're trying to say. Be precise so we don't get confused and debate about totally different things.


I believe I have said that since the rider's contact points on the bicycle and the resisting force vector all remain fixed relative to each subject to solid body rotation, it doesn't matter at what angle the bicycle is pedaled. If the rider chooses to arrange themselves differently for uphill riding than for level ground, then that same position can be achieved for any bicycle orientation. Therefore, changing the orientation of the bicycle, per se, accomplishes nothing with respect to pedaling dynamics.


----------



## Chader09 (Jun 10, 2014)

asgelle said:


> As long as the bars, saddle, and pedals don't change relative position, how can the rider's position change? The answer is only by moving her body into a different configuration. The thing is, that movement around the fixed points can be accomplished whatever the orientation of the bike; it isn't necessary to angle it up or down. So if you want to train in your climbing position, go ahead; bend your back, narrow your hip angle, strain your arms, but don't think you need the bike in any orientation to do this. That can all be accomplished with the bike angled up, down, or flat.


This is true, but neglects the impact of the related weight shift required to change body position. Moving into a "climbing" position on the bike while it remains level will likely increase loading on the arms, hands and neck. That may be fine for a some, but it may be too much for others depending on how much time they plan to be in that position.

Rotating the bike to simulate a climbing angle and moving the body into the "climbing" position should result in loading on the body that is more similar to a real climb outside. It's not that wild of a concept

I don't see how there is nothing "wrong" with tilting the bike for this purpose, and for some, it may offer benefits.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Chader09 said:


> This is true, but neglects the impact of the related weight shift required to change body position. Moving into a "climbing" position on the bike while it remains level will likely increase loading on the arms, hands and neck. That may be fine for a some, but it may be too much for others depending on how much time they plan to be in that position.
> 
> Rotating the bike to simulate a climbing angle and moving the body into the "climbing" position should result in loading on the body that is more similar to a real climb outside. It's not that wild of a concept
> 
> I don't see how there is nothing "wrong" with tilting the bike for this purpose, and for some, it may offer benefits.


That's nice. I believe I said as much in post #3.


----------



## Chader09 (Jun 10, 2014)

You may have stated the facts about the position, but post #3 downplayed the impact or the possible reason for changing the angle to adjust loading on the body as I described.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

asgelle said:


> I believe I have said that since the rider's contact points on the bicycle and the resisting force vector all remain fixed relative to each subject to solid body rotation, it doesn't matter at what angle the bicycle is pedaled. If the rider chooses to arrange themselves differently for uphill riding than for level ground, then that same position can be achieved for any bicycle orientation. Therefore, changing the orientation of the bicycle, per se, accomplishes nothing with respect to pedaling dynamics.


no i did not say that.

in fact i said quite the opposite. when the bike is tilted up, the rider is forced to go into climbing position (by leaning forward) to balance out the tendency of his body to slide backward and also to counter the effect of the front end tending to lift. And that this climbing position requires one to pull on the bars with his arms much more than when compared to a flat position. And when the gradient gets to 12%, and surely by 15%, the rider's only choice is to lean forward; so his position is also dictated by the angle of the bike, especially when that angle gets extreme on the upside.

Try raising your frontend by 20% and you'll see.

And furthermore, I would even argue that making 300 watts while the bike is in the flat or decline position is easier than making 300 watts while the bike is in the inclined postion. The reason for this is that you're forced to use much more upper body to maintain the climbing position and this contributes to lactic acid buildup. This has been my experience from climbing a lot. I train at least 12-15 hrs/wk on the trainer alone, and I've experimented with various bike angle position, from the very extreme +25% gradient to -10% gradient. And it is my unequivocal observed data that at about 90-95% FTP heartrate, I can produce about 10% more watts in the -5% declined position than a +20% inclined position. Furthermore, it is easier for me to keep the power delivery constant (no spiking and dipping) when in a declined position than in the inclined position. And I attribute this to me having to work harder in the upperbody when in the incline. The powermeter only shows the wattage from your legs, but what powermeter doesn't show is how much harder you're working your upperbody to keep the body position. 

If there was such a laboratory experiment, it would be interesting to see the physiological vitals such as O2 consumption and blood lactate of a rider generating a given wattage on a bike that is on a declined versus an inclined position.

Back to the OP's question. Will this help him for the flat riding? and if so, to what extent? Now this is debatable. Experimental data would need to be gathered to find this out.


----------



## spinnertsaf (Jun 3, 2008)

Why then do we ride up hills if we can do it by the resistance in the gearing alone. As one said flat or elevated is still the same. Then we climb hills all for nothing and can generate the same outcome on any flat surface correct. And doesn't the angle of your bike change when climbing a steep grade. Seems to me gearing is what its all about and the type of terrain your on. Just a rook!!


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

spinnertsaf said:


> Why then do we ride up hills if we can do it by the resistance in the gearing alone.


Inertial load changes with grade on the road; it doesn't with rotation of the bike on a trainer. Quadrant Analysis | TrainingPeaks


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

spinnertsaf said:


> Why then do we ride up hills if we can do it by the resistance in the gearing alone. As one said flat or elevated is still the same. Then we climb hills all for nothing and can generate the same outcome on any flat surface correct. And doesn't the angle of your bike change when climbing a steep grade. Seems to me gearing is what its all about and the type of terrain your on. Just a rook!!


When you go up a hill, you're gaining altitude. You're not only moving forward, you're climbing. When you're on a trainer, you're only overcoming the resistance provided by the trainer. You're not raising your body and bike higher. The angle at which you pedal the bike makes no difference when you're on the trainer. 
@asgelle can explain it better than I can, but I'm not sure you will be able to understand given your replies so far. 

When you're on the trainer, you have to overcome:
the resistance provided by the trainer
the rolling resistance of the tires
the mechanical drag from the drivetrain

When you're riding on flat ground, you have to overcome:
rolling resistance of the tires
aerodynamic drag of your bike and body
mechanical drag from the drivetrain

When you're riding up a hill you have all those plus:
the work required to raise you and the bike from the bottom of the hill to the top

Get it?


----------



## Poncharelli (May 7, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Inertial load changes with grade on the road; it doesn't with rotation of the bike on a trainer. Quadrant Analysis | TrainingPeaks


Inertial load can be a tough concept. 

High inertial load happens when you ride on flats. When you coast, the bike keeps moving, thus it's like riding a trainer with a large flywheel (very large, larger than what most trainers have). 

On hills, it's low inertial load. When you try to coast, the bike comes to a stop, just about. It's like having a trainer with small flywheel. 

And since grades constantly change, then inertial load constantly changes. 

I also imagine that the force per angle around the pedal revolution (on hills) cannot be truly imitated on a trainer. The physics is complicated. 

I guess that's why Colombians are such good climbers. I've been there many times. There's hardly a flat road in that whole country. Specificity, specificity.


----------

