Real Ryder -- Interesting concept but does it work?

[RPS]

I saw this in the newspaper today and it looks interesting although there “might” be a basic flaw with the concept that prevents it from feeling like a real bike -- I'm not sure. On the other hand part of what I see I really like.

Granted it’s a little expensive for occasional home use, but I wonder if anyone here has used one in a club or has heard anything about them. Any thoughts you can share?

http://www.realryder.com/

[Charles M]

http://www.kurtkinetic.com/rock-roll-p-112-l-en.html


http://www.kurtkinetic.com/thumb.php?img=images/new_images/T-016_rocknroll/New%20Product%20Page%20images/550px%20main%20images/T-016_rocknroll1.jpg&w=450


a quarter the price, 90% lighter and 22000% easier to store...

[RPS]

Pez, it does look a lot simpler. Have you used either? If so, does it feel like riding in a straight line particularly when standing? I suppose you tilt the bike as needed to keep CG over the wheels’ virtual contact.

For some weird reason I don't fully understand I find myself using a stationary bike more than my trainer. That's the downside I see to the Kinetic -- not sure I'd end up using it as much.

[Ti Designs]

Someone ain't doing the physics here...

Film any good climber while they're out of the saddle, from the front. What you're going to notice is that the bike doesn't take a straight line - the rider's body weight goes in a straight line. I'm making the bold assumption that the rider's weight is significantly higher than the bikes... The pivot point isn't the contact patch of the tires, it's somewhere along the center line of the bike.

[RPS]

Someone ain't doing the physics here...

Film any good climber while they're out of the saddle, from the front. What you're going to notice is that the bike doesn't take a straight line - the rider's body weight goes in a straight line. I'm making the bold assumption that the rider's weight is significantly higher than the bikes... The pivot point isn't the contact patch of the tires, it's somewhere along the center line of the bike.
I think it’s normally unwise to think of a bike rider having a single center-of-gravity point when it comes to analyzing anything complex, particularly when the rider is pedaling out of the saddle. Occasionally a good approximation can be made treating the rider’s body as a rigid singular piece with a single CG, but when pedaling out of the saddle that’s not going to work well in my opinion.

If you view the rider in the Kinetic video (link below) it can be seen that the bike’s tires follow a relatively straight line on the pavement, yet we know that the rider’s “combined” CG is moving all over the place. For the most part the rider’s body moves side-to-side far more than the tires’ contact patches deviate from a virtual line on the pavement, so we can conclude that the bike must be pivoting along an axis that is very close to the pavement if not at the pavement level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQz_u0Vc8Os

[RPS]

BTW, the issue I have with the implied physics I alluded to in the OP is regarding the tilting of the stationary bike to simulate leaning a bike in a corner. On a bike we lean to counter radial acceleration (otherwise we fall over), but since a stationary bike is not actually experiencing any radial acceleration at all, leaning the Real Ryder requires the rider hang off the side rather than remain centered over the bike. Leaning the Real Ryder may be fun, it may be good exercise, and it may break up monotony, but I don’t see how it will ever simulate a bike cornering -- at least without also simulating acceleration a la Disney rides or pilot-training flight simulators. And that would be cost prohibitive.

Having said that, it may still be a cool trainer. It seems to me that anything that leans side-to-side a little when standing should feel more natural than a regular trainer or stationary that remains vertical.