Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Power meter compatibility [AlexS] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
God know knows what a polysyllogism is or a syllogism. But i know what i mean but I cannot be bothered replying to everyone because i know that you would find something to get upset about.

I gave this guy my advice, it wasnt bad advice. But its probably going to be the last time i offer anything to anyone.

Any way, I have far better things to do then do a 3 day long round circle argument with people i dont know
Quote Reply
Re: Power meter compatibility [MJI16] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MJI16 wrote:
Alright ya got me. Vector 1s were pretty crappy. But the P1, V2, V3 and F.A. have had no more issues then the other power meters

I have both the Vector1 and Vector2 and they work exactly the same. The V2 is just a little easier to set up, but really not that different. I don't even bother with a torque wrench anymore as I know how much force I need to get more than the spec.

Also with sales, the Vector2 is the lowest cost of the pedal based PM's. That is why I bought the V2 so I didn't have to keep switching between my bikes.

Obviously I do agree with you that pedal based PM's are the way to go, but I'm biased ;).

With so many bikes in my garage, I might even get the V3, but I'd wait for a 20% sale first since I'm in no rush to get a 3rd pedal based PM.
Quote Reply
Re: Power meter compatibility [mpd309] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
What info I've received from Vision was the pedals would be my best option considering compatibility. So, it's either search for pedals or change out the whole crankset. Thanks for all the information.
Quote Reply
Re: Power meter compatibility [mpd309] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Pretty much. That crank is optimized for aero and totally sweet. I have PowerTap P1 pedals and I love them. If I were buying pedals right now, I would probably get the new Garmin Vector 3 pedals.
Quote Reply
Re: Power meter compatibility [MJI16] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MJI16 wrote:
Yeah but if i had a 45/55 power split where the right is putting out 10% more, i would eant to know about it
That has nothing to do with the difference between measuring total power, measuring unilateral power and measuring each side independently. That you fail to understand the difference with each is one issue I'm pointing out. The conclusions you draw from your misunderstanding are also fallacious, with several compounding non-sequiturs.

As for knowing one's power balance, I await an explanation for how this data translates into actionable intelligence (let alone know the data is actually reliable/valid). I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but let's hear something that stands up to rigorous scrutiny as opposed to some belief based notion.

Look, I don't want/intend to be confrontational and I am happy to help with some learning and understanding, so please perhaps just take a breath and think a bit more about what you write and if not sure, ask. Keep in mind when statements are made that are plainly incorrect, then they will be challenged.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Quote Reply
Re: Power meter compatibility [MJI16] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MJI16 wrote:
God know knows what a polysyllogism is or a syllogism. But i know what i mean but I cannot be bothered replying to everyone because i know that you would find something to get upset about.

I gave this guy my advice, it wasnt bad advice. But its probably going to be the last time i offer anything to anyone.

Any way, I have far better things to do then do a 3 day long round circle argument with people i dont know
For reference:

Syllogism

Polysyllogism

I'm not upset, nor should you be. Just hoping that people think critically about what they write.

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au
Quote Reply

Prev Next