Campagnolo Power Meters

[g00se]

Says its compatible here - https://avio.co.uk/pages/compatibility - but not on the factory fit page.

[Cycomanic]

In my opinion single sided powermeters are more of a gimmick, for most of us the balance varies quite a bit, in particular with load. So if you e.g. have a 50/50 balance at threshold but your balance is more like 55/45 or even 60/40 at VO2max, that makes the difference between manageable and not being able to complete. So unless you know your balance is constant over a wide range of efforts I would recommend against a single-sided PM.

[barbaar]

In my opinion single sided powermeters are more of a gimmick, for most of us the balance varies quite a bit, in particular with load. So if you e.g. have a 50/50 balance at threshold but your balance is more like 55/45 or even 60/40 at VO2max, that makes the difference between manageable and not being able to complete. So unless you know your balance is constant over a wide range of efforts I would recommend against a single-sided PM.

Is that from personal experience?

I have the exact opposite experience. I am always within 0.5%.

[Radiokopf]

Says its compatible here - https://avio.co.uk/pages/compatibility - but not on the factory fit page.

I contacted Avio support:

Yes so long as the Campagnolo groupset is 5 arm we can factory fit the PowerSense unit.


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[Cycomanic]

In my opinion single sided powermeters are more of a gimmick, for most of us the balance varies quite a bit, in particular with load. So if you e.g. have a 50/50 balance at threshold but your balance is more like 55/45 or even 60/40 at VO2max, that makes the difference between manageable and not being able to complete. So unless you know your balance is constant over a wide range of efforts I would recommend against a single-sided PM.

Is that from personal experience?

I have the exact opposite experience. I am always within 0.5%.

Measured with which power meter? I've used Rotor and stages dual-sided and I've been between 48/52 and 50/50 and 52/48, I don't really see consistent trends for myself. What I wrote above is from other riders I know, but also particularly what I heard hanging out in the wattage mailing list.

[TribesMan]

My L/R power distribution varies from 40/60 to 48/52, depending on power output and cadence.
Measured on Assioma Duos.

[c60rider]

Single sided or not it's all relative to you. So whatever a single sided power meter tells you at endurance, threshold, vo2 or whatever it's going to be comparable for you the next time you do that same intensity session. And that's all that matters is you have some consistent data to use. Being able to measure exact l to r balance I think is a bit of a red herring. I'm not sure if anyone has actually produced anything meaningful from knowing exact l and r power that alters how power meters are currently used.

[barbaar]

In my opinion single sided powermeters are more of a gimmick, for most of us the balance varies quite a bit, in particular with load. So if you e.g. have a 50/50 balance at threshold but your balance is more like 55/45 or even 60/40 at VO2max, that makes the difference between manageable and not being able to complete. So unless you know your balance is constant over a wide range of efforts I would recommend against a single-sided PM.

Is that from personal experience?

I have the exact opposite experience. I am always within 0.5%.

Measured with which power meter? I've used Rotor and stages dual-sided and I've been between 48/52 and 50/50 and 52/48, I don't really see consistent trends for myself. What I wrote above is from other riders I know, but also particularly what I heard hanging out in the wattage mailing list.

I have a power2max NG..

[c60rider]

In my opinion single sided powermeters are more of a gimmick, for most of us the balance varies quite a bit, in particular with load. So if you e.g. have a 50/50 balance at threshold but your balance is more like 55/45 or even 60/40 at VO2max, that makes the difference between manageable and not being able to complete. So unless you know your balance is constant over a wide range of efforts I would recommend against a single-sided PM.

Is that from personal experience?

I have the exact opposite experience. I am always within 0.5%.

Measured with which power meter? I've used Rotor and stages dual-sided and I've been between 48/52 and 50/50 and 52/48, I don't really see consistent trends for myself. What I wrote above is from other riders I know, but also particularly what I heard hanging out in the wattage mailing list.

I have a power2max NG..

P2M NG isn't a true left and right balance. It measures power produced from the 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock crank positions. It doesn't separate it into true power produced by left or right legs. Only a dual sided power meter will give you that

[Yoln]

The Campagnolo bearings that are pressed onto the crank arms.

Thanks, so just to sum-up, since I currently have a Quarq d-zero with my campy drivetrain, to make sure I am comparing apples to apples:

- Quark d-zero 172.5 (PM and crankset with 52/36 chainrings and bolts) 761 + C-bear BB (pressfit 92g) = 853g
- P2M NG 172.5 (PM and crankset with 52/36 chainrings and bearings) 759 + ultra-torque cups (pressfit 29g) = 788g
- SRM 175(PM and crankset with 53/39 chainrings and bolts) 782 + ultra-torque cups (pressfit 29g) = 811g

Is that correct?

I can potentially save 40 to 60g by moving from Quarq to P2M/SRM while having Campy shifting quality instead of the terrible TA-Spe chainrings? That's a good surprise, I thought I'd gain weight...

[c60rider]

The Campagnolo bearings that are pressed onto the crank arms.

Thanks, so just to sum-up, since I currently have a Quarq d-zero with my campy drivetrain, to make sure I am comparing apples to apples:

- Quark d-zero 172.5 (PM and crankset with 52/36 chainrings and bolts) 761 + C-bear BB (pressfit 92g) = 853g
- P2M NG 172.5 (PM and crankset with 52/36 chainrings and bearings) 759 + ultra-torque cups (pressfit 29g) = 788g
- SRM 175(PM and crankset with 53/39 chainrings and bolts) 782 + ultra-torque cups (pressfit 29g) = 811g

Is that correct?

I can potentially save 40 to 60g by moving from Quarq to P2M/SRM while having Campy shifting quality instead of the terrible TA-Spe chainrings? That's a good surprise, I thought I'd gain weight...

Correct with the P2M weights

[Cycomanic]

And if you go with SR cranks + 4iii you end up at 728g (641g cranks + 2x25g for the pods+29g cups) based on the numbers from bike radar.

[Cycomanic]

Single sided or not it's all relative to you. So whatever a single sided power meter tells you at endurance, threshold, vo2 or whatever it's going to be comparable for you the next time you do that same intensity session. And that's all that matters is you have some consistent data to use. Being able to measure exact l to r balance I think is a bit of a red herring. I'm not sure if anyone has actually produced anything meaningful from knowing exact l and r power that alters how power meters are currently used.

I agree if you have always good data at all intensity levels you just go by that. The reality however is that most riders (and training plans) use a single measurement value (FTP) to deduce intensity zones. That is essentially not possible with single sided PMs if you don't have consistent 50/50 split. In particular it becomes more difficult to track progress by doing FTP tests.

I agree with you that the actual balance is largely meaningless for most people except when recovering from injuries or similar.

[Yoln]

Correct with the P2M weights

And if you go with SR cranks + 4iii you end up at 728g (641g cranks + 2x25g for the pods+29g cups) based on the numbers from bike radar.

Thank you!

[c60rider]

Single sided or not it's all relative to you. So whatever a single sided power meter tells you at endurance, threshold, vo2 or whatever it's going to be comparable for you the next time you do that same intensity session. And that's all that matters is you have some consistent data to use. Being able to measure exact l to r balance I think is a bit of a red herring. I'm not sure if anyone has actually produced anything meaningful from knowing exact l and r power that alters how power meters are currently used.

I agree if you have always good data at all intensity levels you just go by that. The reality however is that most riders (and training plans) use a single measurement value (FTP) to deduce intensity zones. That is essentially not possible with single sided PMs if you don't have consistent 50/50 split. In particular it becomes more difficult to track progress by doing FTP tests.

I agree with you that the actual balance is largely meaningless for most people except when recovering from injuries or similar.

I understand what you're saying but I read something a long time ago when Sky were using just the single sided stages that was available at the time (and I can't remember where I read it) but they had found that there was so little difference between that and crank based power meters that measured both legs to not actually matter. I think the zones have a wide enough power range that 5 watts here or there because of leg discrepancies at different intensities is probably not going to matter. Using rate of perceived exertion alongside the zone is a good measure for me. I can tell which zone I'm in without even looking and as a result I can get within 5 to 10 watts of guessing power output by matching it with my perceived exertion.