which computrainer

slowfoot

i'm looking to buy a used computrainer

can you guys fill me in on the pros or cons of the models?

i frequently see 8001's for sale much cheaper than the pro 3d models. does it matter much?
it will get a lot of use due to long off seasons and much bad weather here.

thanks

dave

rmur17

i don't know the gory details on the older units. Personally I think I'd stick to one no more than five years old and preferably less than that.

Some of the older units can be way off. Personally I experienced that with one the LBS brought in for a junior team in the mid 90's. That sucker made everyone feel like Indurain!! That's not to say they cannot be adjusted in the field but I'm not *sure* that can be done. I believe the load-gen max. power was 1000W back then vs. 1500W currently. That would likely make little difference unless you want to try sprint workouts indoors.

Basic vs. Pro3D vs. ProLab are your options now and there no difference in the hardware either way. Add on software and the Basic goes to 3D. Add extra calibration checks (linearity) and you have a Lab version. They are all good.

__________________
rmur

slowfoot

thanks,
it's always tempting to pounce on a cheap unit..
i guess that's a reason the pro and lab go for much more.

now back to ebay "watching"

dave

JIM WV

http://www.computrainer.com/html/model_notes.htm

Check this link out from racermate's site -- it gives you the specifics of the various models and how they have changed over time. If you go the used route, you should be able to figure out if it's upgradeable (to 3D if an older unit, etc) and approx. when the unit was made.

As for my own experience, I first bought my unit as a Nintendo Pro version back in early '96. It's bomb proof, very accurate and I've upgraded it to the 3D system a couple of years ago for a $200 or so. Agree with rmur, I would avoid one over 5 years old -- it's a piece of electronics and you just don't know how it may have been treated.

Plus, the older ones on ebay may also be the Nintendo "donkey-kong" version. I suspect that you would want to upgrade to 3D for when you aren't using ergo mode. It's much nicer to look at and you can download files for review in WKO+, etc. You would need to add that cost to the equation. You also need to note that some of the old NES models aren't so cheaply upgraded to 3D (depends on load generator model).

No doubt a CT is a pretty expensive piece of equipment new (and the ebay prices I've seen really aren't that much of a discount) but my CT is, hands down, the single best piece of cycling equipment that I have ever purchased in 22+ years of racing. This is the 13th winter I've been on it. I don't know how may frames, wheelsets, etc. I've been through in that same time period.

rgaillar

I posted a Racermate Computrainer PRO #8001 Bicycle Indoor Trainer yesterday in the classified ads. It was used about 2 seasons and then moth-balled. It's practically perfect. The software is included, but it was purchased in 2000, so you may want a later version. I ran the unit mostly without the software interface.


Kim

strader

I tried out a used 8001 Computrainer today I spotted on a craigslist ad. The copyright on the CD case was from 1999-2000, so I assume this is about how old it was? After doing the warm-up and coast down per the manual it read about ~50 watts lower than my Power Tap. I went through a range of 50 to 250 watts, and when it was set to 200 watts my powertap was reading about 250. Is this typical of the Computrainers? Is the 8002 any better in this regard?
My Powertap is only a few months old and seems very consistent. I plan to put a bike on the CT with no power tap, so I'd like them to track reasonably well.

rmur17

50W low I'd suggest is way outside the norm. A batch of 2002 models I tested (and later corrected) were off from 4-8% - all reading low but here you're talking ~20%?

It's possible there's a problem with how you checked the unit (assuming you're not really familiar with them). Or the load-generator could be way off on this unit.

Would you mind describing exactly how you did the RRC check? Are you sure the check was repeatable and you accepted the final setting? Did you zero out the PT?

Not saying you did anything wrong but over the years, when folks have reported large discrepancies - procedural issues have been the root cause rather than either of the devices per se.

If everything is up to snuff, then there could be a slope (correctable) problem with the l/g or there could be a problem with the RRC (zero-ing) hardware ... in which case it's back to Racermate!

__________________
rmur

strader

Yeah, it's definetly possible I screwed something up in the calibration. The people who had it bought it to train for a tri, and then never used it. They did not know how to calibrate it or put it in erg mode (or know what ergometer mode was). Basically what I did was hop on the machine, pedal for a few minutes at 150 watts, enter the calibration menu (+ and - key) and spin up until it stops displaying "UP", then do the coast down and go back to erg mode by pressing F2. I rode for a few more minutes in erg mode, noticed how far off the wattage numbers were, and tried the calibration a second time to see if the unit just needed more warm up time. Same result.
As far as my powertap... I have it set to auto zero, and I've read you still need to perform the manual coast down, which of course I didn't do. The numbers it was displaying felt right based on RPE. I think if I did a ftp test on that computrainer it would put my FTP at around 220 watts. I'd like to think my race results this season are better than what 3.2 w/kg would indicate.
Thanks!

daveryanwyoming

Something that the manual doesn't really make clear is that the roll down calibration number is directly related to pounds of press on force. If your roll down numbers don't come pretty close to 2.00 then you should start by increasing or decreasing roller tension until you get a number close to 2.00. You should also warm up for longer at a higher power. It takes me 15 minutes or more to get stable roll down readings at 150 watts but if I ride warmups up to 220-250 watts I get stable roll down values in five to six minutes.

If you're consistently getting stable roll down values near 2.00 and your CT power readings still don't agree with your PT then it's time to talk to rmur about the going price on his very valuable calibration protocol. I ran through that with mine a few months ago and now my PT and CT track each other within a couple of watts.

-Dave

strader

Right I forgot about that part. It displayed 3.1 after the second coast down. In the manual I thought it said any coast down value under 5 was okay?
I'll have to think about whether I want to drive clear across town again to check it out. They said $800 was their firm price, but if I end up having to send it back to Racermate I might be better off paying more up front for a newer unit.
Thanks for the help guys.

rmur17

no problem ..

__________________
rmur

rmur17

there is a reasonably good chance there will be a cheaper option than sending it back. I figure it's worth another check! $800 is about half-price on a new unit ...

__________________
rmur

Steve_B

I don't have a CT but I use one every so often. Just curious - is there a way to offset the torque (I assume that it is measuring torque) by a slope and intercept factor in the CT software so that the displayed power is "right"? Or does Rick's magic method involve fooling the CT by mucking with the coast down calibration?

daveryanwyoming

There's a slope calibration potentiometer hidden in the unit. Tweaking the slope allows you to user calibrate the unit but it also voids the warranty.

-Dave