Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About Impressum
It is currently Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:46 pm

All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 287 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 520 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: San Francisco, CA
Okay -- I stand corrected. I was sloppy in my language. I should have written "targeted".

I think the key message is that if you want power for the bulk of the 2010 season, I wouldn't bet my training on this one being installed and running by 31 March. But if one is happy for example with ones present powertap, but is contemplating something race-wheel-compatible, it might make sense to watch this one rather than invest in a Quarq or SRM.

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


Top
   
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:15 pm 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 pm
Posts: 870
So how does this compare to the ICYCLOPOWER: E’SY POWER? Basically same idea?

New power meter: http://www.o-synce.com/en/cyclometer-power.html
ICYCLOPOWER: E’SY POWER

ICP enable to measure the exact vertical & horizontal power the biker is using on the pedal. It‘s the only solution in the world which can be easily mount w/o complicated tools or knowledge, can be changed to any kind of bicycle in a few minutes and will be able to get:
    • an exact power measurement over the crank set angle position.(biomechanical analyzing)
    • enable to a comparison of power with each leg (performance optimization)
    • utilizate the aerodynamic drag force (to optimize to the most economic position on the bike -aerodynamic in relation to biomechanical movement) Combinable with the MACRO X series. Available mid of 2010.

Image[/quote]


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 pm
Posts: 870
The Stig wrote:
I would think that measuring power at the pedals is like measuring HP at the crankshaft in an engine...I think that the best way to measure power accurately are at the wheels or wheel horsepower as they say, minus the rotational weight/friction of the drivetrain....


Anyone have an idea how much power is lost through the drivetrain? I know a rough estimate for a FWD/RWD car is 10-12% and an AWD car is ~20-25% from the crankshaft horsepower compared to the wheel horsepower.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: San Francisco, CA
Approx 3%. Although Kraig Willett reported the difference between a new and old chain can be around 3 watts, by his measurements of SRM + Powertap.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:51 am
Posts: 841
Location: Herndon, VA
Thanks for the info! I'm really looking forward to following this product's development!


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:36 pm
Posts: 870
3% isn't really that much, seems like that is well within the SD so probably isn't statistically significant.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:03 am
Posts: 415
Location: Madison, WI USA
djconnel wrote:
Right: You could imagine looking at a DFT of a recent time sampling of the signal, where you'll find peaks at f and 2f, where f = 2 pi / cadence. It would take a few pedal strokes to totally lock in to this. But those guys know more about this stuff than I do....



Your comment about Fourier transforms got me thinking...why does this device have an accelerometer at all? I know in a previous post I mentioned getting cadence as a function of time, but now I'm not sure that's such a good idea. These accelerometers are going to be very small, and their natural frequency will be quite high. They'll be picking up all sorts of extraneous stuff, and you'll have to do a fair amount of signal processing to filter it out. After all that, the velocity number you get may not be any more accurate (or any higher resolution) than a simple chainstay pickup. So why include accelerometers?

Maybe I'm wrong about the amount of data teasing required...I guess we'll find out in 6-12 months :)

Cheers,

Jason


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:19 am
Posts: 130
tranzformer wrote:
3% isn't really that much, seems like that is well within the SD so probably isn't statistically significant.
\

3% maybe insignificant over a short distance but over long distances like stage racing, it could be mean the difference between winning and loosing...just like in motorsports, 1 or 2/10's of a second difference per lap is small, but over a race distance is significant. But that's just me....

_________________
Sempre Ferrari


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:31 pm 
Offline
Shop Owner

Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 10:28 pm
Posts: 1323
Location: Arizona
The Stig wrote:
3% maybe insignificant over a short distance but over long distances like stage racing, it could be mean the difference between winning and loosing...just like in motorsports, 1 or 2/10's of a second difference per lap is small, but over a race distance is significant. But that's just me....


But why does that matter if your hub based powermeter reads 3% lower then your crank based powermeter? As long as they are both reading consistently the same numbers it doesn't matter if one is reading the 3% drivetrain loss.

On a side note one of the guys that is behind the design of this powermeter is a member of this forum so maybe he will come in this thread and answer the questions.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:02 pm
Posts: 222
Location: so cali
isn't what matters most is using the power meter for a training utensil and matching it with your zones, and not how big the wattage # is weather its coming from the hub or the cranks or hear in the pedal?

thanks for the awesome info dj.

_________________
Theforcetraining.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:03 am
Posts: 415
Location: Madison, WI USA
The Stig wrote:
tranzformer wrote:
3% isn't really that much, seems like that is well within the SD so probably isn't statistically significant.
\

3% maybe insignificant over a short distance but over long distances like stage racing, it could be mean the difference between winning and loosing...just like in motorsports, 1 or 2/10's of a second difference per lap is small, but over a race distance is significant. But that's just me....


But we're just talking about the raw wattage number here. It's not like you'll be making 3% less power in a time trial if you measure at the crank instead of the rear hub.

In training for a 40K time trial, it would work like this:

- Do whatever test to establish a threshold power number;
- Train based on that number;
- Race the time trial based on your improved threshold power number.

The absolute wattage number never plays into it--you're only interested in relative improvements. If your PowerTap data tell you that your threshold power is 300 watts, you're not going any slower (or faster) than your identical twin whose threshold power is 303 watts according to his SRM.

So I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. What exactly is it that you're trying to say?

Cheers,

Jason


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:41 pm
Posts: 1039
youngs_modulus wrote:
djconnel wrote:
Right: You could imagine looking at a DFT of a recent time sampling of the signal, where you'll find peaks at f and 2f, where f = 2 pi / cadence. It would take a few pedal strokes to totally lock in to this. But those guys know more about this stuff than I do....



Your comment about Fourier transforms got me thinking...why does this device have an accelerometer at all? I know in a previous post I mentioned getting cadence as a function of time, but now I'm not sure that's such a good idea. These accelerometers are going to be very small, and their natural frequency will be quite high. They'll be picking up all sorts of extraneous stuff, and you'll have to do a fair amount of signal processing to filter it out. After all that, the velocity number you get may not be any more accurate (or any higher resolution) than a simple chainstay pickup. So why include accelerometers?

Maybe I'm wrong about the amount of data teasing required...I guess we'll find out in 6-12 months :)

Cheers,

Jason



Yes, the pedaling force will oscillate with the pedaling frequency so we do not need accelerometers to get the cadence at all. Even simpler method to get cadence is putting a simple rotary encoder at the pedal axle.

That said, 3-axis accelerometers and gyros chips are very small and cheap nowadays, and I think we can do something better with more sensory data.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:16 pm
Posts: 75
I think a bigger issue will be pedal compatibility. I checked my old set of Speedplay Zero Ti and they do indeed have pedal flats. Neither my Dura Ace 7810 nor my Look Keo Ti have wrench flats. I have no interest in going back to Speedplays. I love the features of this power meter, however, it appears that the trend away from wrench flats on newer pedals may be an issue.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:19 am
Posts: 130
youngs_modulus wrote:
The Stig wrote:
tranzformer wrote:
3% isn't really that much, seems like that is well within the SD so probably isn't statistically significant.
\

3% maybe insignificant over a short distance but over long distances like stage racing, it could be mean the difference between winning and loosing...just like in motorsports, 1 or 2/10's of a second difference per lap is small, but over a race distance is significant. But that's just me....


But we're just talking about the raw wattage number here. It's not like you'll be making 3% less power in a time trial if you measure at the crank instead of the rear hub.

In training for a 40K time trial, it would work like this:

- Do whatever test to establish a threshold power number;
- Train based on that number;
- Race the time trial based on your improved threshold power number.

The absolute wattage number never plays into it--you're only interested in relative improvements. If your PowerTap data tell you that your threshold power is 300 watts, you're not going any slower (or faster) than your identical twin whose threshold power is 303 watts according to his SRM.

So I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. What exactly is it that you're trying to say?

Cheers,

Jason


all I'm saying is that for me, I prefer measuring power at the wheel, net of any drivetrain/frictional losses...I'm looking at it from an automotive background/perspective, which I think is more accurate. Like I said...that's me. We're not quite on the same page as you're referring to raw wattage, while I prefer net wattage.

_________________
Sempre Ferrari


Top
   
Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:59 pm 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 1403
If the price stays at $1000 you could get a nice pair of 4hole shoes before you reach the price of an SRM or one of the lighter powertaps. More pedals couldn't hurt, but if those prove to work well, they are definetly a weenie option, and if I see this right there are no magnets, cables or sensors on the bike, which I appreciate.

_________________
"Nothing compares to the simple pleasures of a bike ride," said John F. Kennedy, a man who had the pleasure of Marilyn Monroe.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 287 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 520 Next

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. 2016 Scott foil Crank Based Power meter Options

in Road

BayAreaCycling

9

515

Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:44 pm

Delorre View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Powertap pedal power meter questions

in Road

dgasmd

3

348

Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:29 pm

jekyll man View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Which is more accurate, generally, smart trainers or crank based power meters?

[ Go to page: 1 2 ]

in Road

Shrike

15

1052

Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:38 am

HakeemT View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. power2max power meter

[ Go to page: 1 2 3 ]

in Road

bikeracer99

35

2841

Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:12 am

PinaF8 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Power Meter For Campagnolo

[ Go to page: 1 2 3 4 ]

in Road

lw11

46

4814

Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:34 pm

Mockenrue View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DeRibble, gmarsden, MagicShite, maverick_1, smartyiak, wingguy, Yahoo [Bot] and 25 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited