Poll: Do you have a power meter?

Fazz

No, but I'd get one if they were cheaper

Home:Ballyhoura wrote: »

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2011/09/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know.html?utm_campaign=Argyle%2BSocial-2011-09&utm_medium=Argyle%2BSocial&utm_source=facebook&utm_term=2011-09-15-11-49-00

Cheers - yep I've read that one.

More interested in the next version with his actual usage and comparisons against alternatives.
He said it will be ready for release date so until then!

ashleey

No, but I'd get one if they were cheaper

Lumen wrote: »

To what end?

Accurate calorie counting is not necessary for weight loss, and power numbers are only useful for training if they're accurate.

Also, Garmin has licenced better calorie algorithms for the 500. I'd doubt a home-grown effort would produce anything nearly as good.

In that case, which is right, unless racing there isn't a great need to lash out on a power meter and current garmin data is good enough.

Lumen

ashleey wrote: »

In that case, which is right, unless racing there isn't a great need to lash out on a power meter and current garmin data is good enough.

Nicholas Roche doesn't have a power meter either. So it's far from essential, even for a pro.

ryan_sherlock

No

Lumen wrote: »

Nicholas Roche doesn't have a power meter either. So it's far from essential, even for a pro.

Far from essential - totally - but could he possibly be better with one - his time trialing?

He probably (actually does anyone know this) works with a great coach that dictates what he needs to do etc... For the self coached cyclist, a PM can help guide that a little more assuming you want to put in the ground work and understand some of the basics.

Sean Kelly never had a PM

Chips Lovell

Freire doesn't even use a bike computer.

ROK ON

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Freire doesn't even use a bike computer.

Yes, but he will be a dying breed. Once technology becomes viral, ever who wants to just get by must have it.
eg - You dont need a TT bike to do a TT and indeed some of the top TT experts would beat most of the rest of the field if they were riding theor standard road bike. However once you introduce it it becomes a fit for inches.
Power meters will be 80% serious racers from pro to elite amatuer within five years.

ashleey

No, but I'd get one if they were cheaper

And not forgetting that Sunday sportive will find them essential in getting round the An post series and boring the pants off their mates with their stats by next year

Lumen

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Freire doesn't even use a bike computer.

ISTR that Freire claims that he doesn't do any training.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

ISTR that Freire claims that he doesn't do any training.

Nah. He said that if he did as much training as people like Zabel, he'd be dead on his feet.

Slideshowbob

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Lumen wrote: »

ISTR that Freire claims that he doesn't do any training.

Nah. He said that if he did as much training as people like Zabel, he'd be dead on his feet.

Freire is a pure natural so he wouldn't need a pulse meter. He listens to his body

levitronix

No

There are serious bargains to be had if your looking for a powertap, i picked up my second for 710 dollars new a powertap sl that i ll lace into my FFWD FR6, if i had the cash id get a SRM wireless but untill then i like the look of the durace setup i have and stick with the cheapo powertaps

Kaisr Sose

Lumen wrote: »

Nicholas Roche doesn't have a power meter either. So it's far from essential, even for a pro.

Nicholas Roche has a SRM Power Meter since September 2010. He wanted a more scientific approach to his training for this season. Whether he uses it is another thing....

I wonder what Kelly think of them?

tunney

No

yutta wrote: »

Wireless DA on each of my 5 bikes.

And do you find the slope varies much between them all?

tunney

No

Fazz wrote: »

My 310xt has been pretty solid and I love it.
Hr has been good, only odd weakness is ow swim when on wrist but that's my too critical for me.

Its not good though thats the thing, its consistency off. Most just don't notice.

Fazz wrote: »

I don't see the pedals as being fragile at all. The parts are replaceable and I've not damaged a pedal yet, despite having a recent slide it was my shoe that took brunt of it really.
The pm parts are on the inside so really not an issue at all.

Ah handy that, so being on the inside means they can't snap?

Fazz wrote: »

The quality of the power reading has to be just as good or it wouldn't have got this far.

Ever heard of ergomo?

Fazz wrote: »

Again a solid review with comparisons to output against other products will reveal all.
I think dcrainmaker has a Quarq and a Computrainer so it will be evident if the pedal based system is as accurate or not when he does comparisons.

Test of the Quarq by the wattage heads have already shown big problems with the accuracy of that data.......

Fazz wrote: »

Seems to be a bit of Garmin phobia here but my experience is good as are many others.

can you tell me what happened when garmin introduced support for power devices on their head units? (hint smart recording)

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

Test of the Quarq by the wattage heads have already shown big problems with the accuracy of that data.......

References?

tunney

No

Lumen wrote: »

References?

Will find - was when a quarq was used to baseline for a P2M test that problems with the data in certain circumstances were noticed.

Doesn't really matter as Sean Kelly didn't have one.

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

Will find - was when a quarq was used to baseline for a P2M test that problems with the data in certain circumstances were noticed.

The last time I browsed around wattage for this stuff, I found lots of talk about statistical anomalies from sample rates, but it seemed to even out over a
few crank revolutions. I couldn't really find anything that was discrediting a particular crank-based meter.

There are some interesting discussions about training load metrics. Is it Allen who reckons he can do 1hr at threshold every single day without getting excessively fatigued?

tunney

No

Lumen wrote: »

The last time I browsed around wattage for this stuff, I found lots of talk about statistical anomalies from sample rates, but it seemed to even out over a
few crank revolutions. I couldn't really find anything that was discrediting a particular crank-based meter.

There are some interesting discussions about training load metrics. Is it Allen who reckons he can do 1hr at threshold every single day without getting excessively fatigued?

The quarq data wasn't being dismissed as useless - just strange in places.

Yes the CTL/ATL/TSB versus HRV one recently was good. given my ATL is rocketing recently and my TSB is through the floor I wish my HRV device was still working.

Fazz

No, but I'd get one if they were cheaper

tunney wrote: »

Its not good though thats the thing, its consistency off. Most just don't notice.

Not good in what way exactly?
- perhaps you've a bad device or not updated to fix bugs?
My 310xt is excellent for gps/speed/pace/time/hr/lap/cadence in bike and run modes. I've correlated with other devices and I'm very satisfied.
And very consistent as I do regular routes.
If you're querying hr consistency then perhaps you should consider dehydration/nutrition/tiredness and how hr is affected here.

tunney wrote: »

Ah handy that, so being on the inside means they can't snap?

Yes. If I haven't broken a pedal then I'm very unlikely to break a part on and inside the pedal fixed and not loose.
Anything can snap as in the inside bit but are replaceable so not a concern as deemed unlikely for me.
I know a guy that crashed and broke his carbon frame on first ride. Did that stop me and many others buying and enjoying carbon frames, no.

tunney wrote: »

Ever heard of ergomo?

Go on...

tunney wrote: »

Test of the Quarq by the wattage heads have already shown big problems with the accuracy of that data.......

So references and what quarq is now inaccurate? To what % level?

tunney wrote: »

can you tell me what happened when garmin introduced support for power devices on their head units? (hint smart recording)

Point?


I can see you're not happy with your Garmin and so have a closed mind on the Vector it seems.
Do you have the same opinion on Polars pedal based power system also?

So in your mind if it's not srm it's not accurate?
Technology has improved there's no reason yet to be sceptical on pedal based systems until real world tests done in my opinion.

tunney

No

Fazz wrote: »

Not good in what way exactly?
- perhaps you've a bad device or not updated to fix bugs?
My 310xt is excellent for gps/speed/pace/time/hr/lap/cadence in bike and run modes. I've correlated with other devices and I'm very satisfied.
And very consistent as I do regular routes.
If you're querying hr consistency then perhaps you should consider dehydration/nutrition/tiredness and how hr is affected here.

Its not just me Lots of people have problems with HR.

Being pedantic, the Garmin knows your location very well.
You know what they say about knowing location and speed......

Fazz wrote: »

Yes. If I haven't broken a pedal then I'm very unlikely to break a part on and inside the pedal fixed and not loose.
Anything can snap as in the inside bit but are replaceable so not a concern as deemed unlikely for me.
I know a guy that crashed and broke his carbon frame on first ride. Did that stop me and many others buying and enjoying carbon frames, no.

Have you seen the Garmin or Polar pedal offerings in the flesh - very exposed.

Fazz wrote: »

Go on...

Power meter brought to market, sold lots, company went tits up. Didn't *really* measure power properly (well it did but only from one leg), getting to market and being up to scratch are two different things.

Fazz wrote: »

So references and what quarq is now inaccurate? To what % level?

The data was seen to be dirty under certain circumstances. reference - not published papers.

Fazz wrote: »

Point?

You obviously don't know what happened when garmin first started supporting power............

Fazz wrote: »

I can see you're not happy with your Garmin and so have a closed mind on the Vector it seems.

HAHA garmin fanboy takes insult at garmin being insulted.
Once bitten twice shy

Fazz wrote: »

Do you have the same opinion on Polars pedal based power system also?

I've seen it in the flesh so to speak and it looks pretty much indentical to the garmin one. Exposed and fragile.

I reserve judgement on it as no one has yet properly tested *any* pedal based system.

Fazz wrote: »

So in your mind if it's not srm it's not accurate?

SRM is gold standard no doubt, Powertap too mind.

P2M looks good but some data quality issues when compared to SRMs, mainly due to the accelerometer based cadence.

Fazz wrote: »

Technology has improved there's no reason yet to be sceptical on pedal based systems until real world tests done in my opinion.

Likewise there is absolutely no reason to suggest that they work.