Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
So here is the latest from Wahoo regarding this issue. Hopefully there are some more users that have this issue and will raise a flag. As it stands they don't know when or even if this will ever be addressed.
I like the Element except for this function issue, and don't really want to change. Although I think for the price of the unit you should not have to compute your FTP manually.
With that being said does anyone have comparisons to the Garmin Edge 530?
This from Wahoo support
As previously mentioned this issue has been raised with our developers. The developer is still open at this time. However it would useful to understand how our developer feature development is weighed. There is a finite limit to developer resources available at any given time within Wahoo. So for user requested features, those features with the highest amount of user demand will get precedence in the developer workflow.
At the moment it looks like there are only a handful of requests for this option to put in smaller crank lengths. I have added your new customer support request to the developer ticket to help increase the visibility, but I do not know if or when the developers will include this feature in their primary workflow.
Enjoy the ride,
I guess, but anyone using the Element with cranks shorter than 165mm are getting inaccurate power readings.
Im not really too upset, I liked the Element ,its a good solid unit and will probably be able to sell it fairly easy.
And if they told me a fix was in the works I would keep it.
Fortunately there are other options out there.
That said, the 165mm minimum is stupid. The Garmin Edges go down to 110 mm, the lower end for crank length in the Ant+ spec. Wahoo should have coded to the Ant+ spec, no some arbitrary constraint they made up.