Dev,

So let me get this straight, you have been riding your SRM for for a good bit of time and have never
validated the slope? They are pretty notorious for being off right from the factory and I would certainly
do a recalibration after any change in cranks or chain rings. Just changing the torque on the chain ring bolts
has been know to affect the slope.

Learn to calibrate the unit! It is very quick and easy. Someday you will want to compare your now current data
to the then current data. Most folks eventually run through several different units over the years and its very nice
to have them be accurate as well as precise in their measurements.

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

...and with any other PM you may happen to use in the future.

Sigh. This thought process never ceases to amaze me...especially when referring to a PM where it's actually possible to make sure it's reading correctly. Why wouldn't you do so? Not checking the calibration is just being lazy.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

If the slope is correct, then it matters not what the crank length is.

But if you change cranks (whether or not the change is same length or not), you may affect the power meter's slope calibration.

When doing a slope calibration check, then of course you need to know crank length and mass being applied to check a known offset value versus the zero torque offset value.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

Actually you are correct. If I look at the math, the crank length cancels itself out. To answer the other questions, no I have never recalibrated the slope because I just assumed the factory got it right, and I've never changed the chainrings and did not realize that normal usage would change the slope on an ongoing basis. Looking at the process, while it is not difficult, it entails having a known weight that is reasonably large measured to the "gram". Where do I get one?

Anyway, I can't say that my performances are any different having a powermeter or not. I think if you've been racing triathlon enough years, you get to know your body reasonably well. In long course triathlon (half IM and above), there are so many other things that impact final race results, that having or not having a powermeter is something that is "in the noise" if you already have a good appreciation for your levels of exertion.

I realize that this is a big if, but it actually is possible to be reasonably well dialed in.

At Ironman France it just confirmed to me that the "perceived pace" for the long climbs was in line with the required pace to succeed on the run.

Swim fitness ,swim pacing, run fitness, run pacing, nutrition, transitions and a host of other execution items put the powermeter "somewhat in the noise". It is nice to have, and perhaps for someone new to racing it will have a huge impact. For the eVent that I really train for (half Ironman), I can't say that having power data in real time has changed my final results in any quantifiable way. I've done 5 half IM's since getting the SRM and my results really are not that different than when I did not have one. It just confirmed for me, what I already new....at times when I start to go a bit too hard I better dial back and sometimes when it starts feeling easy with a tailwind, I need to hurt as much as when there is headwind....there is no diff in effort either way....just don't look at your speed....feel your effort.

As such I am not too worried about perfect calibration as long as my readings are consistent ride to ride. Then it can be used effectively as a stupidmeter and perhaps save the run split from going into the tank.....and even then the scare tactics from the PM centric community about "do a few too many surges on the bike and your bike split is toast" is somewhat overrated.

I will readily admit that after getting a PM in pure bike TT's I have had PB's across the board. It probably is much more critical in a bike TT (just like good pacing early in a 10k), when you are measuring performances in seconds or 10's of seconds...but that's the not the sport I compete in.

Anyway, I will try to get the correct weight and do a proper calibration and see if after swapping my cranks arms out if my PM converges back to a slope of 19.2 Hz/N-m as they are now with 165's on there (calibrated at factory).

Not certain about Canada but in the States we can take something into the postal service and have it massed to the gram.
I picked up a cheap 20 kg dumb bell plate from Craig's List. You could make a mass with a bucket and concrete mix as well.
Once you've done the calibration process once you'll find it so easy you'll wonder why you waited. If at any time in the future
you doubt the accuracy of your unit you can quickly put those fears to rest. I can't imagine spending the $$$$ on one and not
bothering to verify it periodically.

YMMV

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Thanks, that is a great idea. I suppose I can take three 10 lb plates, put them in a cloth bag and have the entire thing weighed.

OK, next task is to go and get a weight of 15-20 kg measured to the gram and actually go through the recalibration. I swapped out the 165s for 170s and zero'd it out and rode with the old slope of 19.2Hz/Nm. Numbers are off for sure, and tended to read lower across the board for a given level of perceived exertion.

Since my computainer and my previous SRM calibration were within a watt or two of each other, before I actually recalibrate, the SRM, I'll ride it on my computrainer to get an appreciation for how far things are off. It 'seemed' to me that around 200W I was reading around 15W low based on perceived exertion....but who knows, which is why I want to ride on the CT before I go through the recalibration.

You guys are right! You want your unit reading reasonably accurately, so you can compare current rides with past and future rides. One ride with suspect data was enough to convince me!!! Now the quest to go measure a weight! Here are shipping at work, the scale only goes down to half pound increments (which frankly I am surprised by).

One doesn't need to measure to the gram. 25g in 20kg is 0.125% error.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

Alex, why is 15-20 kg a magic number? What happens if the weight is only 5 kg (for example). Is the strain gauge not sensitive enough to pick up 5kg*0.17mx9.8m/s**2 = 8.33 N-m (which I'd be surprised by) , or is the issue that when you divide by this lower Torque number you get a measurement error that is ~ 5x the measurement error on a 25 kg weight.

I'm just trying to figure out if I can take a 10 lb weight, put it in a small bag and be done with it (after measuring the 10 lbs weight).

Dev

1. the greater the difference between the loaded and unloaded offset values, the less error in the calculated slope value
2. the higher mass more closely replicates the typical forces exerted at around threshold power levels*

of course you can use different masses and validate linearity of slope.

* e.g. the average effective pedal force for both legs on 170mm cranks at 300W / 90rpm is 19.1kg. The peak force per leg is ~ double that.

I use ~ 35kg when checking power meter calibration for myself and/or clients and have some special "pedals" that enable me to easily place weight plates on them.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

I'm tearing my hair out here...where can I find the SRM calibration instructions?

The westwoodvelo link in the OP won't open for me (office, home, wherever), and google just points me to chatter about calibration, not the instructions themselves.

Anyone? TIA...

---

---

blood, sweat...and big gears

I hated every minute of training, but I said, ''Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.''
- Muhammad Ali

Show poney, cut and pasted from the westwood velo link:

How to recalibrate SRM?

1. Look for a weight of about 30 to 40 kg. Hang it on a cable of about 25 cm, so that the weight does not touch the floor when it is hanging on the horizo ntal crank pedal, or take a longer cable and put the bike on a table.

2. Calculate the weight in Newton. E.g. 30 kg = 30 * 9.81 = 294.3 N 3.

3. Calculate the torque you get when the weight hangs on the horizontal pedal crank.
E.g. at 172.5 mm cranks : 0.1725m * 294.3 N = 50.77 Nm (Newton meter).

4. Switch the Powermeter on by pedalling backwards. Do this with a middle gea r so that the chain is in a line, e.g. 53/15.

5. Notice zero of Powermeter (MODE + SET, right number)
e.g. F0=500 Hz.

6. Bring crank in horizontal position and hang the weight on the left pedal.

7. Notice frequency output-left of Powermeter (MODE + SET, right number)
e.g. Fleft=1450 Hz.

8. Bring crank in horizontal position and hang the weight on the right pedal.

9. Notice frequency output-right of Powermeter (MODE + SET, right number)
e.g. Fright=1550 Hz.

10. Calculate frequency change of Powermeter with this weight as (Fleft+Fright)/2 -Fo
e.g. (1450+1550)/2 Hz - 500 Hz = 1000 Hz at a torque of 50.77 Nm.

11. Calculate average slope of Powermeter.
Slope = 1000 Hz/50.77 Nm = 19.90 H z/Nm.

12. This slope is the calibration of Powermeter and must be set in Powercontrol.
We recommend to check the slope monthly.

--------------------

Alex, as an experiment on my ride home from work, I simply scaled my original slope number (19.2Hz/Nm) by 165/170 and the perceived exertion seemed to be in line with the wattage readings. Looking at the math again, the crank length should make a diff in the slope number, because we are using

{(Fleft+Fright)/2 - Fo}/Torque where Torque is Mass*9.8*(crank length in meters)

So the crank length in meters is in the denominator, which means that the slope in inversly proportional to the percentage by which your crank length grows or shrinks during a crank arm swap out.....or are Fleft and Fright also effected by the crank length itself (in which case crank length effect cancels itself out.

Alex,

I just went through the process as an experiment. Used two 10 lbs plates with a velco strap running through the holes in such a way that I could hang the entire weight contraption off my pedals with crank arm at 90 degree

F0 = 440 Hz
Fleft = 730 Hz
Fright = 734 Hz
crank length = 0.17m
gravity = 9.8 m/s**2
mass = 20 lbs (mass) = 9.091 kg

Using these values, I got a slope of 19.27 Hz/Nm

My original factory calibration was 19.2 Hz/Nm when they returned the unit to me with 165 mm cranks.

I have no clue how close to 10 lbs those actual plates are, but I was surprised that my slope number came so close to the original. I am guessing that they are a bit lower or my perceived exertion is way out of whack after having done an Ironman 2.5 weeks ago and not quite feeling recovered (today was my first ride with a powermeter).

Now I have to find a place to get those weights weighed. I can add a third plate for the actual measurement. You guys are going to turn me into a calibration Nazi, and now I'm going to be questioning the validity of everyone's data :-) :-) :-)

Dev

Well to give you some idea of how bad they can sometimes be (depends on quality of weights bought), a 20kg weight plate I have actually weighs 19.525kg or 2.4% less than stamped.

lol

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

thanks dude

---

---

blood, sweat...and big gears

I hated every minute of training, but I said, ''Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.''
- Muhammad Ali

What scale that can handle weights that heavy but still be relatively accurate did you use?

Also, forgive me if I'm being an idiot, but how do you hang a weight from a horizontal crank arm and keep it horizontal? hold the rear brake the whole time? Put a stick between the spokes and the seat stays? Otherwise it seems as if the crank arm & pedal would just rotate down to the 6 o'clock position, no?

The crank is in the 3 O'Clock position. I used a velcro strap through the hole of the weights and wrapped it around my pedal. You just hold the seat of the bike to keep it from moving forward. The crank stays at 90 degrees and basically there is a static load on the crank (mass of plate*9.8m/s**2)*crank length in meters.

Now that Alex has turned me into a calibration Nazi, I actually have to go find a proper scale. The one here at work only displays in half kilo increments, which is totally useless for the task at hand. It seems like the harder part in this entire task is not recalibrating the SRM, but actually finding a means to calibrate the weight that is being used as a basis for coming up with accurate power numbers!

Gotcha, that makes a bit more sense. In my mind, I was thinking of the bike being on a trainer as the original post stated, and was thinking the crank would just continue to rotate through to 6 o'clock.

I hang my bike from a stand and lock the rear brake by backing the brake barrel adjuster way out. If your barrel adjuster is gummed or corroded up then you should deal with that first. That seems to be one of the little maintenance issues that many of us let slide too long anyway. My bike can't sit on the floor because the 20kg plate I use is too large in diameter to clear the floor.

YMMV

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Hey there....the math is the fun part of the entire process.

I still want to know how the Fright, Fleft and Fzero are generated by the strain gauge. I take it that the F "number" is a conversion from the instantaneous torque being measured by the strain gauge into a unitless real number that represents that torque, assuming a known "slope". Why would the SRM not just transmit the actual instantaneous torque number to the powercontrol rather than the "F" number and then take the first derivative of this number to get the instantaneous power = dW/dt = (Nm/s)....or am I missing something glaringly obvious?

Is the F number there to hide SRM's strain gauge measuring algorithm so that its not easy to reverse engineer their design? Just seems counter intuitive to be pumping out meaningless "F" numbers, when there are perfectly good and understandable units of measure in Newton Physics!!!!

Dev

It's to the nearest 25g. I used two different postal scales, which agreed within 25g of each other.

Bike in trainer and rear wheel locked by brake (having a mate there to help is good) or something in the wheel. For wireless SRM it helps to be able to spin cranks forward every so often as that wakes up the power meter if it's gone to sleep.

---

_________________________________________________________________________________
Training Plans -- Power Meter Hire -- SRM Sales Australia -- cyclecoach.com -- My Blog -- Sydney Turbo Studio

"F" is the output frequency of the strain gage circuit, which is proportional to the torque applied. To convert that to torque, the head unit uses the frequency slope value. So, the "F" value IS the output of the measurement device in it's "rawest" form.

Also, the first derivative of this frequency will NOT give you the power...that would just tell you the rate of change of the frequency (or torque value). To calculate the power it needs to multiply the torque (as derived from the circuit frequency measurement multiplied by entered torque slope) by the rotational speed of the crank (i.e. the cadence). THAT gives you the power. Torque x rotational speed = Nm x radians/s = Nm/s = W.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I just use one of these across the brake blocks of the rear caliper to squeeze the caliper closed...(the clamp, NOT the model truck ;-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

If you are a member of the Google Wattage group, check the files section as several people have uploaded Excel spreadsheets that perform all the math for you.

Oh man, that was too easy (and I'm an idiot for not looking there)...thanks mate.

---

---

blood, sweat...and big gears

I hated every minute of training, but I said, ''Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.''
- Muhammad Ali

Why didn't I think of that....

---

My insomnia destroying blog can be found here http://tfalin.blogspot.com/

I have the wireless SRM and the Garmin 705. I searched SRM's site and Google Wattage but can't find out if it is possible to check the slope without a different head unit. I saw some info on how to enter the slope, but not how to test it.

I guess this is not possible with the Garmin as the head unit?

After reading the posts about calibrating the slope of the SRM (as well as Tom A's comment that not calibrating the slope yourself is lazy), I decided I needed to do this, especially as my readings have been a bit hard to believe. For background:

Sent my SRM unit back to SRM last spring. I have a wired unit, and the sensor broke in July, so I got a new sensor cable and installed that. No issues (at least that I was aware of) for the rest of the season. Put my bike on the Computrainer and started to ride with both the CT and the SRM units on 2 months ago. There was a big discrepancy in Wattage, with the CT reading about 20 Watts higher. This didn't seem right, as I had read that the CT "should" read a little bit lower, due to the measurement at the rear wheel instead of the crank, and, previously, they had read much closer to each other.

I used a 40 pound dumbbell (4 x 10 lb plates + bar) and went to the local UPS store to have it weighed, figuring they weigh heavy objects fairly accurately. I got a weight of 44.25 lbs. Put my bike on a trainer on top of a table, and went through the whole calibration drill with the help of my 9 year-old son. He thought it was fun to grab onto the brake as hard as he could.

First thing I found out: my sensor was in the wrong spot. The two different horizontal readings (9 o'clock and 3 o'clock) were much different. When I changed the sensor location, that solved the first problem.

Second thing I found out: my slope was definitely different than the slope that SRM had, going from 29.9 --> 29.2. When I changed the slope on the SRM and then tested it against the CT, the readings came out nearly identical.

I'm much happier now, especially since it appears that my power readings have gone up.

I wanted to say thanks to everyone, because I trust my power readings a lot more now.

Richard

Congrats...always good to have accurate power readings.

I too recently re-calibrated my SRM (I used 4 x 25 lb weights, increasing and decreasing in 25 lb increments, repeated 3 times for each crank), and this enabled me to check linearity and repeatability, and with a linear regression analysis achieved a coefficient of determination, R^2 of 1.00.

But, if you remove your chainrings (I did so to do an annual clean of the SRM etc) then it is important to torque each bolt to similar settings and then RE-calibrate the SRM. The zero offset will change too after messing with the chain rings. I found it best to ride 10+ miles ride (with a few power efforts) after re-installing chainrings, and before re-calibrating, as the zero offset was more consistent after "settling in".

I've got a new (used) SRM Dura Ace 7900 meter and a Power Control 7. I want to swap the crank arms to a longer size, and have the 7800 wireless unit available to do the swap. I read in the manual that the wireless systems automatically re-calculate / calibrate the slope. Can I rely on this automation to true everything back up? Thanks
John

Hmm, having had six SRMs over the last six years and having checked the slope somewhat religiously whenever I changed chainrings or swapped the cranks out to another bike I have determined that the factory values are more than adequate for my needs. I came to this conclusion after doing a bit of math comparing very similar slope numbers and their affect on the recorded power values. Since I can never be sure my 'known' weight is actually the weight I think it is (very difficult to gain access to an 'accurate' scale in these parts) I can never be sure the values that come out the other end of the calculation are 'better' than the factory calibration since they are typically within a tenth or two and I don't believe I am somehow better than the factory at determining what the slope actually is so I just spend that time happily riding my bike rather than fretting about a couple of nanowatts here and there.

.

---

I know enough to know I don't know enough...

At least you checked it ;-) As others have noted above, your experience is apparently not exactly "universal".

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I never claimed my experience was universal. I merely stated my experience is that not ALL SRMs are inherently suspect when it comes to the slope setting from the factory. I also found that changing chainrings and crank arms didn't affect the slope to any great extent even when taking the entire process to extremes (torquing all bolts to the same value, riding prior to calibrating, etc., etc., etc.). The values I get are typically close enough that I don't have the time or patience to determine who is wrong (me or SRM) so I just accept the values and ride my bikes. I have put my road SRM on my time trial bike and my time trial SRM on my road bike and done efforts on the LeMond Revolution just for yucks and I found the power values to be pretty much identical (+/- 5 watts) for a given speed so I consider the accuracy of both to be acceptable (it was raining out and I needed to find a way to motivate myself to get on the trainer otherwise I wouldn't have bothered even going this far).

---

I know enough to know I don't know enough...

A handy link for doing the recal math:

http://www.cyclingpowermodels.com/...eterCalibration.aspx

Right...but you wouldn't have known that if you hadn't checked it. So, like I said, it's helpful to be able to, and to actually, check it :-)

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

resurrecting a zombie thread, but looking for a related answer. in doing the calibration to adjust for new chainrings, does one do the unloaded zero offset with the old rings or the new? big ring, small ring, or both? i am changing my big ring (normal round road) to a solid tt style q ring. thanks.

---

________________________________________________________________________
"that which does not destroy me will only make me stronger" Frederick Nietzsche
andrew peabody
http://BREAKAWAYMULTISPORT.COM

Here is my idea for checking and calibrating an SRM. I have a digital readout torque wrench. I'll tape the head unit right above the torque wrench readout so I can see both readouts at the same time. Set the wrench to read N/M. Lock the brake/ immobilize the cranks. Put the torque wrench on the center crank nut and apply torque. Pull the wrench to some higher value while recording the readouts with my phone/tablet. Watching the playback, I can reference any point of torque/hz and figure the slope. Advantages I see are: crank length is irrelevant, as is crank position. No fumbling hanging weights. Easy to do one handed. A recording of the torque sweep, easy to catch and replay. Next I'll have to actually try it and see if it works. I can't think of why it wouldn't.

Few things come to mind

What center crank nut? On a few units those are to be just barely tight. This would work for Sram but not for Duracci and Rotor
What's the accuracy on your torque read out?
How can you be sure you are applying consistent torque during the time in which the offset updates?

Crank position is a trivial issue. Human eye can easily tell if something is 5 deg off, and that represent an error of 0.4% max. Both the mass and crank length are also static and don't change during measurement, unlike the torque you apply.

Seems nobody bothered to answer you. You do the whole calibration process (unloaded and loaded) with the new rings. Do the calibration on both the big ring and small ring to see how their slopes compare. They should be close. To account for any difference you have a choice of either inputting the average slope for the two rings or, if most of your riding will be in one of the rings, using just that ring's value. This at least applies to round rings. For Q rings AFAIK SRM have suggested you should calibrate with round rings and then put on the oval rings. However others disagree (check Wattage forum archives). If you did go this way I'd think would be better to choose a round ring with about the same stiffness, IOW solid in your case.

thanks. that's what i thought.

---

________________________________________________________________________
"that which does not destroy me will only make me stronger" Frederick Nietzsche
andrew peabody
http://BREAKAWAYMULTISPORT.COM

I can't think why you'd need to do this. When doing static torque checks, the SRM spider doesn't care/know about the chainring shape. All that matters is measurement of the torque applied to the spider, which is independent of the size and shape of the ring. All the chain and chainring do is prevent the spider from turning when you hang a weight from the crank arm.

Of course some rings might flex a little more/less and this causes a slight variance in measured torque but you'd be better off doing that check with the rings you actually intend to use.

SRM calibrates by hanging mass off of a chain, thus actually mattering. they probably forgot that point when instructing people who calibrate by hanging mass off of a pedal

Here is a photo of the SRM test rig (Colorado Springs facility) from CyclingNews. Has anyone rigged up something similar?

Interesting...I guess that picture means that they don't bother to see if there's a difference in calibration between force applied to the DS and NDS of the crankset in the factory cal?

Oh, and yeah...calibrating by hanging the weight on the chainring instead of the crankarm isn't going to work too well with non-round rings.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

This reminds me of the picture from a few months ago of the pc7 assembly in the "clean room" with no electrostatic discharge protection. Not exactly lab quality........

i'm no expert in this area, but SRM specifically says to calculate slope for those systems with round rings installed, then switch to non-round chainrings.

YMMV, but in my experience the slope of SRM tends to change very little based on ring choice (brand and size). e.g., when i switch between 53/39 and 56/44 rings, the slope difference is <=0.4%. the difference is even less when ring size is the same.

you raise an interesting point about factory calibration perhaps not considering DS v NDS differences. i always test the units that pass through my hands straight from the factory (DS, NDS, both rings, weighted and unweighted) and often notice a small difference.

It should make no difference for calibration, round rings or not, with the weight applied to the crankarm since the chainring size doesn't even come into the calculation, just the crankarm length.

Doing it the way shown in the pic above, that's not the case...and is probably why they recommend what they do...even though it's just wasted effort.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/