If they can offer dual side for under $500, less than 2% error, and if they can get it narrower to less affect q-factor, it’s a huge winner. wow.
If they can offer dual side for under $500, less than 2% error, and if they can get it narrower to less affect q-factor, it’s a huge winner. wow.
Kickstarter/Indiegogo/etc. are notorious for vaporware; that alone is enough to be wary. The fact that they quote accuracy in terms of strain gauges (4) and offer global shipping by adding $10 is indicative of both technical and business deficiencies.
Devices that measure power of one leg are not power meters and are about as useful as a HRM.
Devices that measure power of one leg are not power meters and are about as useful as a HRM.
Sure they’re power meters. They measure the power of one leg! I find my Stages to be quite useful for its cost. I have Quarqs on my road and TT bikes, and a Stages on my track bike. The mean-maximal power curves from each were surprisingly consistent to me given all the histrionics and drama about Stages I’ve read here. It does occasionally have erroneous power spikes. So I wouldn’t FTP test with it, even though they’re transient. But I find it perfectly adequate to generate TSS data, and also to pace 4K pursuit efforts. My Quarq says mean max 4K power is 405W, and the Stages, so far, says it’s 400W. Good enough for me. I might upgrade to the Powertap pedals on my track bike eventually to get better accuracy, though. But not everyone needs laboratory-quality power. The bulk of power meter training techniques can be done perfectly well with a PM that’s “92%” accurate vs. “98%” accurate (or whatever numbers you want to use).
HRMs can be very useful. I find power @ HR to be an extremely good indicator of my fitness. When I get 200W @ < 105BPM, I know I’m very near my A-game. I could figure that out with an FTP test, but the beauty of the submaximal metric is you can measure it every day without putting yourself through hell. I also find that if 200W is >>120BPM I’m either about to get sick or am overreaching in my training. Great tool when combined with power.
Taking one side and multiplying by 2 isn’t a power meter. It’s a power estimator. Depending on the day, my balance is around 55-45 to 50-50.
Oh cool! No wait? Indiegogo? Vaporware. They will make a few hundred units, ship to early backers, the units will not quite work correctly, they will ask for more money to fix the problems, they won’t get the money, then they will disappear. This is assuming anything gets released at all.
$249 for a powermeter? I’m skeptical. At that price they could put one on each pedal to get both sided power and it would still be a competitive product.
This feels like a too-good-to-be-true project
the two-sided comment was my first thought…
I’m still waiting for Brim Brothers…
Or Shimano’s powermeter located inside their hollow crank arms to be OEM hardware…
Taking one side and multiplying by 2 isn’t a power meter. It’s a power estimator. Depending on the day, my balance is around 55-45 to 50-50.
No power meter measures power directly, so they’re all power estimators. They convert deflection in metal to an electrical current (with some error) . Then they sample the electrical current (with some error). They they estimate the effect of the temperature on the metal (with some error). Then they integrate all those samples over some estimate of a pedal stroke (with some error), either assuming constant velocity over that time frame or sampling velocity (with some error). There are probably another half dozen sources of error…not all of which can be “calibrated away.”
Stages might not be right for some people whose balance fluctuates wildly . I’m always right around 50/50. At least as measured by my Quarq pseudo L/R estimation.
This reads like they are stating that the increase in Q factor is a benefit everyone can gain from? Feels like an odd claim.
How does LIMITS affect the Q-Factor?
LIMITS has been used by a number of the Spokes Racing Team and Club Members generating positive feedback with many of the cyclists reporting an improvement in foot position leading to an improvement in comfort, especially over longer rides. Analysis of this feedback highlighted that many cyclists knees track outward at the top of the pedal stroke adding unwanted stress on the knee and splaying the power outwards on an inefficient vector relative to the pedal travel. This outward tracking is typically addressed by adjusting cleat position or/and adding spacers between the cleat and shoe to intentionally narrow the knees all the way through the pedal stroke but this over recruits the stabilizers to track the knee on a unnatural plane, good pedal action involves as straight a vertical tracking of the knees as the riders physiology permits. LIMITS allows the cyclist to ride with a stance width that is comfortable and so allows the knee to track on the most vertically linear path as possible, it stands to reason that this action will put power directly down through the pedal.
It’s LIMIT…haha… is that it increases your Q factor. Maybe that’s OK. But I can tell you that I dislike spin bikes specifically for that reason.
1 legged power is far, far better than HRM. It’s great for pacing and tracking training load. It’s limited for historical comparison, aerodynamics measurements and comparing against other riders or benchmarks.
Taking one side and multiplying by 2 isn’t a power meter. It’s a power estimator. Depending on the day, my balance is around 55-45 to 50-50.
No power meter measures power directly, so they’re all power estimators. They convert deflection in metal to an electrical current (with some error) . Then they sample the electrical current (with some error). They they estimate the effect of the temperature on the metal (with some error). Then they integrate all those samples over some estimate of a pedal stroke (with some error), either assuming constant velocity over that time frame or sampling velocity (with some error). There are probably another half dozen sources of error…not all of which can be “calibrated away.”
Stages might not be right for some people whose balance fluctuates wildly . I’m always right around 50/50. At least as measured by my Quarq pseudo L/R estimation.
Always right around 50/50 ?
I’ve seen my left right balance on Look Keo, Garmin Vector and Wattbike.
Mine varies from 57/43 to 50 /50 depending on power / cadence.
It’s really weird.
Now as I understand it. Left right balance varies with cadence, power, fatigue etc etc.
If you are always 50/50 I would question your power meter.
There are a few things you might consider.
1, Quarq
2, Pseudo
3, Estimation
4, Power Esimators
5, Error
Perhaps you should test to find out if you really are 50/50?p
Always right around 50/50 ?
Pretty much. Occasionally get 49/51 or 48/52. But not that often, and I assume that’s in the noise.
Now as I understand it. Left right balance varies with cadence, power, fatigue etc etc.
If you are always 50/50 I would question your power meter.
I think the point is the balance can vary with cadence, power, and fatigue. Not that it always does. But the conditions under which is varies are, I imagine, highly dependent on the individual.
It is possible that Quarq has poor L/R balance estimation. I did ride some Vectors for a ride, though, and it also reported pretty much 50/50. But much less data from the Vectors.
Pretty much. Occasionally get 49/51 or 48/52. But not that often, and I assume that’s in the noise.
Why do you assume that? Let us say you averaged 250 watts. If your balance was 50/50 stages will say you average 250 watts. If your balance was 48/52 stages would say that you averaged 260 watts. Is that really the noise?
Of course I have heard that the way the quarq measures you balance, underestimates the split compared to people that have compared to results from the vector.
That FAQ reply surely ticked me the wrong way as it seems to be written from a marketing point of view and does not address the basic question of how much the pedal position get shifted. Nor does it address what happens on the drive side.
Why do you assume that?
Because Quarq states that the accuracy is “+/- 1.5%” and I tend to think that’s pretty optimistic from what I’ve seen - particularly from the variation I can get just doing 10 consecutive zero offsets (the numbers change a bit each time). So I tend to assume that any instantaneous measurement will have 2-3% error. E.g. 50/50 is the same as 49/51.
By the way, if you want a good laugh, turn on the Closed Caption on the Youtube presentation…
This reads like they are stating that the increase in Q factor is a benefit everyone can gain from? Feels like an odd claim.
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
How does LIMITS affect the Q-Factor?
LIMITS has been used by a number of the Spokes Racing Team and Club Members generating positive feedback with many of the cyclists reporting an improvement in foot position leading to an improvement in comfort, especially over longer rides. Analysis of this feedback highlighted that many cyclists knees track outward at the top of the pedal stroke adding unwanted stress on the knee and splaying the power outwards on an inefficient vector relative to the pedal travel. This outward tracking is typically addressed by adjusting cleat position or/and adding spacers between the cleat and shoe to intentionally narrow the knees all the way through the pedal stroke but this over recruits the stabilizers to track the knee on a unnatural plane, good pedal action involves as straight a vertical tracking of the knees as the riders physiology permits. LIMITS allows the cyclist to ride with a stance width that is comfortable and so allows the knee to track on the most vertically linear path as possible, it stands to reason that this action will put power directly down through the pedal.
I don’t understand why it’s left only. Why can’t you use a pair? Or is that an option, like 4iiii?
(Which I hope someday delivers; I think I’m interested)