HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1617 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 ... 108  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:03 pm
Posts: 2010
Location: San Francisco Peninsula
SLC -> Salt Lake City? Does the temperature profile of your rides look like this?

Image

Spinning backwards a few times is not something you'd ideally want to do in the middle of a threshold test. That and when trying to do it quickly, I'd occasionally get some funky results (Quarq S975).

_________________
2013 Wilier Cento1 SR || 2009 Ridley Crossbow || 2011 Yeti AS-R 5 Carbon


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 7295
Location: San Francisco, CA
airwise: excellent analysis, even using the Ferrari grade adjustment. Fully consistent with DCRainmaker's test. Indeed, I won't criticize his test, but he could have compared analytic power to the recorded powers to put the nail in the coffin of the assertion the Quarq was correct with PowerTap and Stages coincidentally wrong and each consistent with heartrate.

I've plotted analytic power (calculated from altitude, distance, time) with PowerTap on climbs and the two typically agree well, although there's fitting parameters like CdA, Crr, and total mass (typically uncertain to 2 kg or so).

_________________
http://djconnel.blogspot.com/
Fuji SL/1
\


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:09 am 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 3:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:52 am
Posts: 178
jmilliron wrote:
SLC -> Salt Lake City? Does the temperature profile of your rides look like this?

Image

Spinning backwards a few times is not something you'd ideally want to do in the middle of a threshold test. That and when trying to do it quickly, I'd occasionally get some funky results (Quarq S975).



I can't say it's identical to that, no. Similar? Yup. And yes, Salt Lake City.

Luckily I don't do a threshold test every ride, so the 3 back spins isn't ruining my ride. Again, I download every ride and havent to this point experienced any drift on long climbs or any other ride for that matter.

Just reporting what I see. I assume you're seeing something different?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:47 pm
Posts: 1703
Location: Santa Cruz, California, USA
Airwise- which Quark was this?

Rchung- I suspect you have something in mind. Could you post a pointer to it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 10:33 pm
Posts: 167
RChungs referring to his virtual elevation program/testing protocal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:47 pm
Posts: 1703
Location: Santa Cruz, California, USA
I didn't know it could do that.

Here's a comparison test between PMs using VE: http://www.bikeradar.com/blog/article/t ... als-32678/

it looks like you can compare drift between PMs, but not absolute drift.


Would it be possible to detect drift from a single PM's data by comparing the power to the standard calculated model for multiple segments of a climb? If the PM drifts then the relationship between the real power data and the calculated power would change. You would want to use a climb with consistent grade at the top and bottom, consistent road surface and wind, but a good temperature variation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:03 pm
Posts: 2010
Location: San Francisco Peninsula
SLCBrandon wrote:
Luckily I don't do a threshold test every ride, so the 3 back spins isn't ruining my ride. Again, I download every ride and havent to this point experienced any drift on long climbs or any other ride for that matter.

Just reporting what I see. I assume you're seeing something different?


Yes, saw. I've got a ~20 minute climb near my house that's a pretty good control. Rode it a number of times for a year with a PowerTap PRO+ and a number of times the following year with a SRAM S975 Quarq. The PT seemed seemed much more consistent and I didn't have to do any spinning backwards silliness.

Got a new frame at the beginning of this year and my Quarq didn't fit on it. So I sold it. Wasn't bummed.

YMMV.

_________________
2013 Wilier Cento1 SR || 2009 Ridley Crossbow || 2011 Yeti AS-R 5 Carbon


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:05 am
Posts: 11
Location: san francisco bay area, ca
Jason, I'm guessing you're talking about Old La Honda. :) I used to ride with a Powertap, but have been riding with a SRAM S975 Quarq the last couple years. I've gotten very inconsistent readings in my power up OLH and on my climbs in general. For some of my rides this year up OLH, I just don't believe the power data at all. It's kind of a bummer when you have no faith in the power data from your power meter... I wasn't really calibrating the Quarq very often, so I now try to consciously manually calibrate it before every ride. I'm going to also try the auto calibration by spinning backwards, but my concern with that has always been whether or not the calibration actually occurs, because there is no indication to let me know if the calibration was successful. I really liked having a Powertap and not worrying about the calibration, but I really like being able to use any wheels I want with the crank-based system. Of course, it's kind of meaningless if you don't trust the data being generated by your crank-based system.... argh...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:52 am
Posts: 178
I'm finding anything short of an SRM is going to have its issues/detractors.

Seems everyone of them has their shortcomings or people debating and wondering about their accuracy. I used an iBike Aero for a few years before getting the exogram quarq recently. I still use the iBike head unit as the head unit for the quarq, so I get both data when I download. One thing that has surprised me is how close the iBike actually is.

On things like sprints or other short, high output efforts the ibike is very generous, but steady state climbs or long rides its astonishing how close it is. Last weekend I did a 91mi/8600ft ride and the ibike showed only a 2.2w ave diff.

On a very well known climb in my area it was .9w ave off for 29mins. Now, again, on sprints and other rides its anywhere from 30w ave off (2 min VO2+ efforts) to 200w off peak for sprints.

Anyway, I've been very happy with the quarq so far. Hopefully I don't experience the issues others have.



Ps- the reason I didn't go powertap was because I interchange 2 sets of wheels regularly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 7295
Location: San Francisco, CA
I have issues with SRM, as well. No reason to believe it's appreciably better than Quarq. For example...

_________________
http://djconnel.blogspot.com/
Fuji SL/1
\


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 3:52 am
Posts: 178
Good to know, thanks for the link.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:58 am
Posts: 266
FYI: There's a post on the wattage list related to DCr's stages review and the Quarq temperature drift from a Quarq employee calling out DCr's Quarq as being faulty and that any other users experiencing similar problems should contact customer support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:17 pm 
Offline
Shop Owner

Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:58 am
Posts: 461
And all of this applies to power meter rumours?

Sure wish you all opened up a new thread so we can get back on the subject.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm
Posts: 986
eric wrote:
Airwise- which Quark was this?



Eric it was the Rotor 3d+.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:45 pm 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:47 pm
Posts: 1703
Location: Santa Cruz, California, USA
That's the Cinqo power meter, the older design.
The new one's spec'd to a tighter tolerance of 1.5% vs 2%. For whatever that is worth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1617 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1 ... 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 ... 108  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], campagnolo321, Exabot [Bot] and 48 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. 2015 Rumours: Specialized Tarmac, Giant TCR, Cannondale S6

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

GeeTee

16

3357

Sun Jul 13, 2014 12:53 pm

CAFERACER View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Powermeter, for SiSL2

in Road

TheDarkInstall

12

698

Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:17 am

mrlobber View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Powermeter choice - Vector or Rotor power crank

in Road

greenplay

13

2742

Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:35 pm

HammerTime2 View the latest post


It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 6:54 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB