Start your education here:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/...ng/testprotocol.html

Robert wrote that MANY years ago, and I think he's learned a few extra things since then that aren't reflected in that writeup.

I'm sure you can search up plenty of power meter comparisons as well...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Where did I say you made any money from it?

After saying you weren't involved with it you then mentioned that you worked on it received thanks and gifts for that work. Not to mention a dig at Stages, which you claim you aren't biased against, and yet another immature round of insults to deflect from the fact that of you being involved with the product or service I mentioned.

---

Styrrell

Exactly...as I pointed out to Ray, just because the offset number spit back appears not to change, it doesn't mean that it's not drifting. So stating that it appears "more stable" is a bit premature. After all, Stages hasn't even revealed what that number represents. For example, it could be equivalent to either a Quarq offset value (which we know is 1/32 N-m). or a PT offset value (1 in-lb)...or, it could be 10X that value...or 100X? We just don't know. Let's assume the number spit back is equivalent to 10X the Quarq value. If that's the case, the Quarq could drift by as much as 9 "points" without the Stages showing a single "point" change.

Despite Stages' claim that their temp sensor has "solved" the temperature drift issue, we really don't know that until we have some way of interpreting the observed number. There's no scaling.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Actually, it's NOT just a theory. As Ray noted (and I'm fairly certain he shared this), he observed an anomolous offset value from the Quarq before the one section where it was the most out.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

FYI, it's "Quarq", not "Quark".

Ah, struck a nerve, eh?

I'm not involved with the virtual wind tunnel, which is what you claimed. You are wrong. The virtual wind tunnel is not a product in competition with the Stages PM, which is what you claimed. You are wrong. I thought up virtual elevation, and I've gotten thank-you gifts for that, and I'm involved with that, but virtual elevation is neither the virtual wind tunnel nor is it a product in competition with the Stages Power Meter. You are wrong on that, too. Pattern developing? Virtual elevation is a method that is free for anyone to use or to improve upon, even projects I'm not involved with. I can understand that you're a little unclear on these concepts -- you seem unclear on so many things that it's really not much of a surprise that you're unclear on these things, too.

Plus, you're a poor speller.

Whichever product you've been guerrilla marketing on the previous threds is what I'm referring to. I really don't know what its supposed to named because the 2 or 3 threads previewing it have been short of substantial info. But you've been very helpful in telling us its

"Cool, ain't it?"
and
"Its science."

So virtual WT or RealWorld Windtunnel or KoolKidsCircljerkingthemselvesoffonSTtunnel, I don't really care what you wnat to call it but no matter how its spelled you seemed pretty involved.

---

Styrrell

BTW, you seem to think that I'm somehow biased against Stages. Well, here's what I wrote over 5 years ago about another PM which used the same "2X left leg power" algorithm:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...omo%20pt%20;#1598406

Sound familiar? I had the same concerns then about the L/R imbalances, but at least the Ergomo appeared to be fairly precise and it was also adjustable so it could be made accurate too in the power it was measuring (left side power, that is). The difficult thing with the Ergomo was that due to the nature of the device, one couldn't statically check the torque slope. That check could only be made dynamically, which can be tough to do without another PM.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

I'm not, so once again you're wrong. But even if I were, you'd still be wrong since you claimed it was a product that competed with the Stages Power Meter and it's not. It's sort of impressive that when I peel away one thing you're wrong about there's another thing you're wrong about underneath. It's almost like performance art. Hmmm. Frank, is that you?

I think that experience made you biased about similar meters. Much like people who bought early early carbon frames and had them break, or anything else that you spend a lot of money on and get burned by.

But my posts haven't been so much about a defense of Stages as much as a lack of the criticism of other products. Like I've said a few of the Rosetta stone tests look pretty much like what stages originally posted. A outdoor rider with the smoothed files superimposed all the lines tracking each other pretty well.

The analysis RC did showed quite a bit of difference beyond what you see at first glance from those first looks, and that exists between all the pM compared, yet your bias leads you to believe that the other PMs are fine the user just needs to learn how to use them.

Like I've asked for, on quite a few treads, show outdoor ride between 2 PMs with the same type of analysis and the the data was gathered. Aside from shutting me up, lots of threads pop up on ST with people who seemingly have consistency issues with PMs of all types, methods of eliminating that should pretty much be a sticky on ST, so why keep it a secret? I have no issue with acknowledging that you've got lots of experience working with a lot of different PMs so why not help the general populace.

---

Styrrell

What you are calling "bias" is actually a healthy skepticism based on knowledge of the fundamentals of the problem and experience with a prior product that used the same assumptions. I'm biased about the left-only power measurement algorithm in the same way I'm biased against using a fat-tired cruiser in a crit. Yeah, it'll "work" to some fashion, but there are some fundamental issues with how well it will work.


What makes you assume that I spent money on the Ergomo?



What "lack of criticism"? Did you NOT read that post I linked to above about the Ergomo?



Boy, for someone who claims to have such a great memory, you seem to be forgetting being told that just throwing squiggly lines up and eyeballing them isn't exactly the best way to compare power meters.



Again, you seem to be conflating bias with "experience and knowledge". Ray hasn't been the first guy to throw a PT wheel and a CinQo on a bike together, you know...



I've done so MANY times...on this forum and others, on the wattage google group, etc. I don't have the time to dig them up, but I'm sure you can find them. As far as detailing how it's done, it's no different than I did here when comparing a LeMond Power Pilot to a CinQo.

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/...es-it-give-good.html

It doesn't matter if it's indoors or out, the methods and tools used are the same.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Damn! You 3. Here I thought I'd finally be able to afford a PM. And, it sounded so good. It could be changed between my road and Tri bike in minutes. Here I thought my concerns about the Ergomo (before they folded) were wrong and one-sided metering was ok. DRAT! Foiled again! Sounds like it's back to trying to explain to the wife why I need an expensive new gizmo that is a misspelling of elementary particles, just measuring power, of all things.

I keep telling my JPL, EE riding buddy that, now that space missions are less frequent, they should come up with an inexpensive, reliable PM. Our other regular riding buddy of ours is an ME. Just what I'd think one would need--EE+ME.
(I think that equals the speed of light squared, or something like that.)

---

_________________
Dick

Take everything I say with a grain of salt. I know nothing.