Not sure how it works with the virtualcycling app or program, but if you have the Joule GPS(+) and a PM, you can calibrate the PowerBeam readings to match what your PM is saying. Effectively calibrating the smart trainer to your PM so indoor and outdoor readings match perfectly. I don't know if this can be done yet with other PM's or trainers, but if the FE-C protocol has it built in, it should be pretty easy to carry over.

Anyone know if they are rolling out the FE-C to the PowerBeam via firmware update?

I do have a Joule GPS head unit and my PBP reads about 10w higher than my PowerTap C1 Chainring. But, I've read that your FTP riding outdoors might be higher than the one from your indoor test. So maybe leaving the higher power numbers from the PBP will coincide more closely with my outdoor FTP?

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

I set the PBP to match my pm so I have both accurate and precise readings indoors and out. If you use the joule gps with a pm, it will record power from the pm, but still set resistance based on what the PBP is measuring. So if you're riding an interval at 250, the PBP will sit at what it thinks is 250, but your actual power will vary at the pedals (crank/chainrings/whatever). The joule records the actual power, so all the analysis is done from the PM. Definitely the way to go.

I have found the PBP to be quite precise, consistently about 7W lower than my P2M. Just wish it didn't take 10 sec to fully change resistance. Makes short intervals quite difficult in erg.

Thanks for that info. Any idea what your indoor vs. outdoor FTP is? I'm still trying to gauge where I'm at this season (outdoors).

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

I don't get smart trainers at all. I use an old dumb trainer. When Trainnerroad tells me to go harder, I pedal harder. If the cadence gets too fast I shift. Existing PM, etc.

I'm used Computrainers and a few others, and I just don't understand the "feel" argument. The "feel" is so far removed from actual cycling anyway, the differences are pretty meaningless to me.

I'm somewhat of an anomaly in that I can push equal or more indoors. I do better at low rpm, so if I have a climb or can set high resistance/slope on the trainer I tend to do better than on flat roads.

Most people can do a little better outdoors, but you're measuring total work either way, and what you're capable of doing at one place, you should be capable at another. It all comes down to the mental side of things.

I just don't understand the "feel" argument.

I have a KK which has a lot of inertia for a trainer, and I can really feel the difference. Can't produce as much power either.

Well, I guess what you're not getting is that the smart trainer forces you to push a specific wattage, so you don't have to worry about paying attention, trying to keep the proper power output yourself, etc. Some people are fine doing it on their own with a PM, I prefer to have the smart trainer take me through the workout while I watch a video, etc. To each their own.

I get that the strict/literal definition of direct drive specifically precludes a belt but I think industry momentum has generally co-opted this term to now mean the cassette drive interface instead of tire and roller.

For the sticklers I'm sure this will be infuriating, but I think the "it's not really direct drive!" will be a long and fruitless battle.

I agree. I'm actually not 100% sure where the definition is that says a direct drive trainer can't have belts. Quite honestly, I've always looked at any wheel-off trainer as direct drive. Literally speaking, it's directly driving the bike form the cassette, as opposed to/vi/through a wheel.

Just my two cents...

---

-
My tiny little slice of the internets: dcrainmaker.com

honestly I have no specific knowledge of the origins of the term, I just googled it and got "denoting or relating to mechanical parts driven directly by a motor, without a belt or other device to transmit power." as the first result.

I should have replied direct to mcmetal rather than you originally because I was more just responding to his frequent assertions that KICKR is not true direct drive since it uses a belt. Won't dispute that, technically it isn't I suppose. The belt is somewhat significant because there's a group on the board who are of the mind that the belt is to blame for many things, specifically thermal expansion of the belt being the chief culprit behind the accuracy issues.

Honestly, I have no idea so they might be right for all I know. I suspect that his comments are hinting at that belt = bad, hammer = belt, thus hammer = bad.

For me, 'direct drive' means that I do nothing more than launch the training app then ride the trainer with little to no distraction. To that end, a 'direct-drive' trainer should not require me to first perform pre-ride steps such as a warm-up, spin-down, nor should the trainer require user intervention to make adjustments during the workout to compensate for things like resistance drift/drop off as a result of thermal stresses during training!

---

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

My definition of direct drive is where the load generator directly drives the load without any intervening rubber parts. To that end it can't have a belt and it can't have a wheel. Anything rubber is subject to stretching and cause drift and will require at the very least spin downs to periodically recalibrate. I'm not quite sure why they felt compelled to add a rubber belt to the equation. It can be done without it and it's a vastly superior solution.

Why make people take their wheel off if your just substituting a different rubber part inside. Otherwise, might as well just leave the wheel on....