We know that many factors affect how far and how fast. Let's first begin by recognizing that modern, successful cycling training is based on power measurement: workout sessions are often prescribed and always analysed based on the actual power output by the athlete during the session, not how far or how fast she rode. The Erg mode and course mode are vastly different, and I'll try to explain. ErgVideo operates in what is known as "Ergometer mode", and products like RacerMate™ RCV operates in elevation profile mode, what I'll call "course mode" in this discussion. The main difference is that ErgVideo is power-profile based, and other simulations are elevation-profile based.
Your experience will be 10 times better than with a manual trainer, with or without a power meter. With a smart trainer, you get to watch the video more closely and involve yourself more mentally and emotionally with the action. It also pushes you to succeed and complete each interval or effort. You can watch the ACTION and not the numbers, and you are always on-target for your training. The end result is a workout that's always exciting. All you really need to do is watch the action and keep pedaling. and many people seem satisfied with this, having a smart trainer means all of the power-tracking is done automatically, keeping you always at the set-point power despite your speed or gear. Every ride really becomes about watching two numbers. and not really watching the video action. Even if you have a power meter on your bike, you will be watching the power reading, always trying to match the target power levels that ErgVideo displays. With a manual trainer you will be adjusting the resistance by hand, or selecting gears, as you ride. The key is that the smart trainer automatically controls the load to precise power levels according to the workout. But the experience with a smart trainer is vastly different and superior compared to using a manual trainer.
No, you don't absolutely need a smart trainer, and indeed we market this product for use with manual trainers.
Please provide a screen shot of any diagnostic message, and the most recent error-file found in Documents\ErgVideo Data\ErgVideo Errors that your error may generate. If the faq or other resources on the website do not answer your question, use the contact page. Hopefully, if you are strictly using the subscription service, you won't need to look in that tab.Īnd finally, if you don't see the question or answer you are looking for. We've tried to re-focus the faq to address the ErgVideo 6 subscription-based operation, and moved most of the questions about the legacy-licensed ErgVideo operation into the 3rd tab. If your question is technical in nature, or you encountered some technical issue with the application on your system, look in the technical section. We've tried to manage the list so your answer is easy to find. If it's a general question about how ErgVideo works, what it's good for, or what its features are all about, use the "general questions" tab.
Pages 14-15 explain how to do the rolling resistance calibration and page 23 gives more information on the values that work best.It's common to have questions, and these are the questions most common. might be considered an absolute minimum value when riding flat course, but higher values may be needed to eliminate tire slip if grades exceed that of a level road. because this happens to be the default value displayed when you first power up the CompuTrainer. One of these days I'll have to ask why 2 is the magic number.Ī common misconception is that the “optimum rolling calibration number” is 2.00 lbs. For the periodic field tests they do on the CT, they have us re-calibrate a couple of times (still to 2) after a long warm-up & before beginning the test. Now I'll admit that I don't have the foggiest as to what that number represents, but since I'm a good soldier, I do what I'm told by folks who I take to be experts in the matter.
In Reply To:fwiw - At the computrainer studio at Cadence in Philly, we're instructed to calibrate to 2.0 (2.0 to 2.1, actually).