Pedal based ?

Rear hub based?

Would prefer to stay with crank based. I have quarq on all my bikes (road, tri, gravel).

---

"Suddenly the thought struck me. My floor is someone elses ceiling"-Nils Ferlin

Having both Quarq and Favero Assioma, the Assioma are my favorite power meters so yes, pedal based is good.

But Absolute Black has marketing pictures of their Oval rings on Dura Ace Power meters, and it looks like their 1x direct mount rings would fit on a SRAM 1x Red power meter crank (which is quarq)

https://www.garbaruk.com/...-road-cx-gravel.html

Oval chain rings don’t work correctly with many crank-based power meters because they assume a constant angular velocity. Whether any of the pedal-based PMs work correctly would require some more digging. The Rotor PM does account for the changing foot speed with an oval chainring.

The error in estimated power might not be a big deal. As long as you do all your serious training and testing on the TT/Tri bike, it doesn’t really matter that your power is 10 watts too high or low. It is all relative.

Going to try a Garbaruk oval ring. If it works, perfect, if it doesn't, I didn't spend a fortune on it. :-)

---

"Suddenly the thought struck me. My floor is someone elses ceiling"-Nils Ferlin

I get that, but since all my bikes has the same type of power meter (quarq, just different models changed over the years) and all of them has oval chain rings, the errors will be consistent. I honestly don't care if it shows 200W and is actually 220W (or 180W) as long as the errors are consistent.

---

"Suddenly the thought struck me. My floor is someone elses ceiling"-Nils Ferlin

Which Quarq do you want to use? Wolf tooth and Rotor both make 1x chainrings compatible with shimano 12s.

how do you know the errors are consistent?

I got the impression that the OP is running oval rings on a crank based PM now and is just looking to run 1x. If he goes 1x, his setup shouldn't be any less accurate than it is at the moment.