Agreed. Plus I worry about the reliability of that middle layer. It seems overly complicated.
1 Like
Spoken likely somebody with experience 
I built my own full length fore/aft rocker, using construction grade 3/4 plywood, and using a half PVC pipe with rollerblade wheels for the fore/aft. The warping of the plywood was annoying, and I didn’t take this into account in my layout, so I ended up with the convex side down. I’ve weighted the bottom down at the front and back to keep it flat on the ground, otherwise it would not be as stable as I would like. I think planning to have the concave side down, so the ends contact the ground would be the preferred way if you are building your own and accounting for warp in the boards.
1 Like
New design about to be released from one of the longest running rocker makers around.
Uses a virtual axis based upon curved supports and bearing wheels, to locate the main pivot around the BB height of the bike, instead of around “ground contact” of the tires like other rockers.
Sounds like pricing will be $1000 USD, and the actual unit will have the same high quality plywood and rubber deck like their other rockers. The clear deck on this is only for showing the design features.
3 Likes
Interesting for sure and good luck to them.
1 Like
I guess I’d like to see some data to back up that ‘outside bikes tilt at the bottom bracket’. This may be the case, but right now it is just a claim. I would expect the axis of rotation to be above the ground, but I would not be surprised if it is even higher than the BB, and closer to the center of mass of the bike/rider system.
So I agree that simple rockers are getting this aspect wrong, and this should be ‘better’, but I’d like data to show that this is ‘right’, or matches outside riding.
1 Like
Yeah, I am convinced its generally above ground in many cases. I also believe it is a moving axis that will vary from rider to rider based on the mix of steering and leaning inputs. Seated vs standing will vary outside too.
From my own research, active rocking with lots of lean angle and steering seems to put part of the roll axis above the front wheel axis. It’s a bit extreme and many people might not apply it that much, but I think it can be that high.
Generally speaking, the roll axis is a product of those inputs more than the rider mass. This assumes straight travel and not corners. When maintain forward motion, the rider mass is not much of a factor in roll axis lean motion.
I do think BB height is a fine compromise in the goal of getting closer to what we get outside. But I also don’t expect it to solve the backwards timing problems we can see. It may help, but I still expect people to set leveling spring too high, which is a leading factor for bad timing.
I also happen to have a slight difference of opinion on something else special about the roll axis that I have only seen one other person address. I still keep it to myself, as it’s part of my ongoing testing. But I think it is a piece of the puzzle to get the feel a bit closer. Hopefully I can test and evaluate my 2.0 version since the 1.0 was not what I had hoped. 
1 Like
You have given this lots of thought I see , and I think you have some very good insight.
My ‘gut level physics’ analysis makes me think that the axis of rocking is likely closer to the center of mass than to the ground, at least in non-extreme cases. I don’t think that the center of mass is moving that much side to side (as this would take more force), and so I think that this suggests the axis of rocking is ‘fairly high’ above the ground. I agree that tops of wheel height could very well be possible. I would also suspect that the more ‘violent’ rocking (ie sprinting, out of saddle climbing) would have a lower axis as there is more side to side force.
Add to this all kinds of personal variability in riding style, and this axis could vary quite a bit between people and riding ‘mode’ (ie seated, out of saddle sprint, out of saddle climbing).
I wonder if part of what makes current designs feel ‘not like outside’, is that we become a pendulum with lots of mass going side to side, which clearly is not happening outside. I have no idea if this is the ‘main’ problem, or just one of many…
All that said, I would expect the experience to be ‘better’ on their rocker with the raised axis, but I think they go too far in their claims.
1 Like
I noticed the other day that the folks at Inside Ride have released the E-Flex for the Kickr Core. I had been waiting for this late last year, but ended up buildin my own vibration-damper-style rocker plate instead.
(Apologies if this is old news, but I didn’t see it in the thread and a quick search didn’t turn up anything.)
2 Likes
Good to post the InsideRide E-Flex Core model. I knew about it, but I think I didn’t post it here yet, so thanks for the reminder 
It is a great option and one of the best out there.
1 Like
Sweet! So curious to ride one and see how it feels.
Same. Especially on my SB20. Really curios how that will feel.
I’m really psyched to see companies push forward on rocker plates. I wonder how long till Garmin / Wahoo offer one 
1 Like
I have been using my rocker plate for a few months now, my conclusion is you only need minimal side to side movement in order to improve indoor riding comfort. Anything more than that and I find the whole experience distracting/extreme.
All I ever wanted was to lessen saddle soreness, a slight side to side motion achieves this for me. I use two extra rubber bladders to reduce the movement on my current plate.
Try before you buy if possible is my best advice for anyone out there who is thinking of going with a rocker plate. A simple design allowing a small amount of side to side movement may be all you need.
1 Like
Yeah, from my testing, saddle pressure relief can come from even mild amount of motion. Even simple mats or foam stashed under the trainer feet can be enough for some riders.
But I also really like the greater freedom of motion that comes from a more capable rocker. I do LOTS of standing inside and outside, so that is a more important aspect for my rocker use. The simple setups work great seated, but still lack the feel I want when standing.
The great thing is that I see room for a range of options to suit riders needs, preferences, budgets, space and such. I look forward to a few years from now when people have those all to choose from and get the motion solution that is best for them
1 Like
Buy cheap, buy twice.
Standard wheelbarrow inner tubes starting to perish, split and deflate after six month’s use.
I’ve since replaced them with these 5" inflatable kids’ golf balls from Decathlon. I should have bought these right from the off as they’re so much better. The quality looks and feels so much better than the inner tubes. Interestingly enough, the rocker feels noticeably better as well - more nuanced and responsive. I hadn’t really experienced any issues with the inners but I definitely feel an improvement with the balls. Its possible that this could be down to a smaller diameter, better quality material or more accurate positioning. Who knows? Either way, I’m one happy bunny.
2 Likes
Thanks for sharing your experience. It totally parallels mine and shows why I really prefer inflatable balls over any of the tube options. The feel is WAY better with a proper ball vs the somewhat stale and damped version from the tubes. Some may like it, but it makes the rocker feel dead, like a MTB with too much compression and rebound damping.
1 Like
Spot on, Chad. Although I didn’t realise it until I fitted the balls, the tubes produced a dull, damped ride versus the nuanced, alive feel that the balls give.
1 Like
Just got an omnirocker for my sb20 stages bike 
Great piece of kit. Very good quality build and great service.
These new ones have 3 layers so move like a normal rocker but also has rollers so it rolls forward and back and feels so much better
Will do a full review when I’ve used it a bit more
1 Like
Congrats. The build quality on those seems quite good from what I have seen.