I’m strongly considering purchasing the CinQo by Quarq. I want to have power on my Time Trial bike but don’t want to purchase $3000 powertap disc wheel. The crank set seems more logical in the long run, plus I can keep the disc I have now and train with other wheels. So if you own one please share your reviews and comments. If you do own one which crank set are you using with it? Thanks.
I just road my first 150 miles with a FSA Team Issue one. Works perfectly with a Garmin 705. Coming from an Ergomo I just regret the NP but except this everything is better or the same.
Thanks for the post. Feel free to update after more miles.
Cheers
I’m strongly considering purchasing the CinQo by Quarq. I want to have power on my Time Trial bike but don’t want to purchase $3000 powertap disc wheel. The crank set seems more logical in the long run, plus I can keep the disc I have now and train with other wheels. So if you own one please share your reviews and comments. If you do own one which crank set are you using with it? Thanks.
First, are you bound by UCI rules for any of your TT events? If not, then a PT disc isn’t your only choice for a PT wheel. You can get a regular PT wheel and run a cover. It’s just as fast.
Second, I’ve been using a Quarq CinQo Saturn in a SRAM 900 crank since last October (it’s actually one of the Saturn model prototypes). For the first few weeks I ran it alongside my PT Pro wheel (along with a couple other PMs at the same time) and found it to match very well. This was confirmation of the static torque test I did on it when I first recieved it. Since then, the unit has been a rock solid performer and the offset doesn’t change by more than 10-20 “units” at any time, which I’ve calculated to be an error of less than 0.5W at 90 rpm cadence.
The cool thing about the SRAM crank version of the CinQo (as with most of the CinQo models) is that if you want to swap it between bikes, just set both bikes up with the appropriate BBs, and from there it’s literally a 1 bolt, 5 minute operation to move it from bike to bike 
I have two Cinqo Saturns. One on my road bike, one on the TT bike since January. I had some initial problems with moisture from the initial batch of Saturns which they have since corrected. Quarq swapped mine out no questions asked and they have been perfect since. Numbers tracked very well with my PowerTap (since sold) usually approximately 1-1.5% higher due to drivetrain losses. Setup is a breeze with a Garmin. The Garmin does have a few quirks but overall I like it better than the PT computer for its configurable screens. I get the occasional momentary drop on my TT bike which never happens on my road bike presumably because of mounting position (about halfway out the aerobars). I can live with that though since it is rare and its much easier to see there than it would be on the stem.
I run the SRAM cranks on both and they have been excellent. I chose them mostly because Im running a SRAM drivetrain. I had FSA cranks previously and had no problems.
Tom, what sort of agreement where you getting over shorter time segments? I was looking at a PT/Quarq download from a guy doing some one minute intervals and I was a little startled at the difference–a variance of about 8%, and about 12% over 30 seconds. For longer segments it seemed fine. Having compared a lot of SRM/PT files I’d never seen this much variance on intervals as long as 1 minte.
Awesome I appreciate you all and your feedback, so far it has all been pretty positive. I was wondering if there are any negative things anyone has to say. So far I would say I’m sold on it. Thanks again.
The cool thing about the SRAM crank version of the CinQo (as with most of the CinQo models) is that if you want to swap it between bikes, just set both bikes up with the appropriate BBs, and from there it’s literally a 1 bolt, 5 minute operation to move it from bike to bike
The same is true of the FSA Team crank. I’ve run it since early June last year and I love my CinQo. I see a difference of about 2% between my CompuTrainer and the Cinqo.
Ken
Tom, what sort of agreement where you getting over shorter time segments? I was looking at a PT/Quarq download from a guy doing some one minute intervals and I was a little startled at the difference–a variance of about 8%, and about 12% over 30 seconds. For longer segments it seemed fine. Having compared a lot of SRM/PT files I’d never seen this much variance on intervals as long as 1 minte.
I found it to be very close over all durations/power levels. I’m not sure if you remember this thread:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2122869;search_string=cinqo%20pt;#2122869
…but, here’s the plot of MMPs (CinQo/Garmin vs. PT wired) over the course of ~10 rides (the higher power values are from the lower time period lengths - 5s on up):
…and also the Tukey mean-difference plot of the same data, as Robert suggested in that thread above:
How was the PT data being recorded in your example above? Was it “native” PT, or could it have been ANT+ to a Garmin that didn’t have the latest firmware (and thus has a filtered recording that has since been removed)?
If you need more, I can see about digging the files up and finding examples closer to what you are asking about…
OK, thanks for posting. In looking at the Tukey plot @ 500W, it looks like you’re getting some fairly significant variance as well.
The PT data were recorded w/the PT head, downloaded into WKO directly.
OK, thanks for posting. In looking at the Tukey plot @ 500W, it looks like you’re getting some fairly significant variance as well.
The PT data were recorded w/the PT head, downloaded into WKO directly.
Right…but as I mentioned in the thread I linked, that might be telling us more about the PT (due to aliasing effects, especially with high powers and over shorter duration time periods) than about the CinQo.
Also, that data was taken with the firmware in the 705 that still had a filter applied…I don’t think the filter affects the CinQo data as much as it affected PT data (when recorded on the 705), but there could still have been some effect.
Most likely I just don’t quite get what you guys are comparing exactly but should there not be a slight difference in power reading between the two due to the fact that one is crank based and won is hub based? The drivetrain loss?
Most likely I just don’t quite get what you guys are comparing exactly but should there not be a slight difference in power reading between the two due to the fact that one is crank based and won is hub based? The drivetrain loss?
no, what I’m comparing is the difference between intervals at similar power, i.e. @ 500 PT Watts, the Quarq reads 525 on one interval, 480 on the next interval, all while the PT keeps reading a steady 500W–that’s what I mean by variance. You’re correct though on the drivetrain loss, the Quarq should read a little lower. That said, drivetrain loss at higher powers is a smaller % of power output, so it shouldn’t really affect things as much there.
Most likely I just don’t quite get what you guys are comparing exactly but should there not be a slight difference in power reading between the two due to the fact that one is crank based and won is hub based? The drivetrain loss?
Yes…but the absolute calibration of neither (the CinQo or the PT) is changeable, only checkable…go to the thread I linked above; that’s discussed there as well.
For example, on average, the CinQo in my possession reads ~1.3% lower than my PT hub in a static test (no drivetrain losses since chain isn’t moving), yet only reads ~0.3% lower on average during dynamic comparisons. There’s your drivetrain losses right there 
Most likely I just don’t quite get what you guys are comparing exactly but should there not be a slight difference in power reading between the two due to the fact that one is crank based and won is hub based? The drivetrain loss?
no, what I’m comparing is the difference between intervals at similar power, i.e. @ 500 PT Watts, the Quarq reads 525 on one interval, 480 on the next interval, all while the PT keeps reading a steady 500W–that’s what I mean by variance. You’re correct though on the drivetrain loss, the Quarq should read a little lower. That said, drivetrain loss at higher powers is a smaller % of power output, so it shouldn’t really affect things as much there.
How are you controlling for the load? In other words, how do you know that the PT is “on” while the CinQo is “off”?
Most likely I just don’t quite get what you guys are comparing exactly but should there not be a slight difference in power reading between the two due to the fact that one is crank based and won is hub based? The drivetrain loss?
no, what I’m comparing is the difference between intervals at similar power, i.e. @ 500 PT Watts, the Quarq reads 525 on one interval, 480 on the next interval, all while the PT keeps reading a steady 500W–that’s what I mean by variance. You’re correct though on the drivetrain loss, the Quarq should read a little lower. That said, drivetrain loss at higher powers is a smaller % of power output, so it shouldn’t really affect things as much there.
How are you controlling for the load? In other words, how do you know that the PT is “on” while the CinQo is “off”?
well, in this particular case, I’m not, and I dont. These were files sent to me by someone else, and I have no information on the PT ‘control’ hub. That said, I’ve tested 4 or 5 different PT hubs against my SRM, and the variance among :30-:60 second intervals has been quite low (like 1%), so I’d be inclined suspicious of the Quarq.
Keep in mind I’m not making a blanket indictment against the Quarq, I’m just asking. I’ve only seen 3 Quarq files and that’s certainly not enough to draw any conclusions. I have seen a lot of SRM/PT file comparisons though–enough to think that most PT hubs are very precise.
Most likely I just don’t quite get what you guys are comparing exactly but should there not be a slight difference in power reading between the two due to the fact that one is crank based and won is hub based? The drivetrain loss?
no, what I’m comparing is the difference between intervals at similar power, i.e. @ 500 PT Watts, the Quarq reads 525 on one interval, 480 on the next interval, all while the PT keeps reading a steady 500W–that’s what I mean by variance. You’re correct though on the drivetrain loss, the Quarq should read a little lower. That said, drivetrain loss at higher powers is a smaller % of power output, so it shouldn’t really affect things as much there.
How are you controlling for the load? In other words, how do you know that the PT is “on” while the CinQo is “off”?
well, in this particular case, I’m not, and I dont. These were files sent to me by someone else, and I have no information on the PT ‘control’ hub. That said, I’ve tested 4 or 5 different PT hubs against my SRM, and the variance among :30-:60 second intervals has been quite low (like 1%), so I’d be inclined suspicious of the Quarq.
Keep in mind I’m not making a blanket indictment against the Quarq, I’m just asking. I’ve only seen 3 Quarq files and that’s certainly not enough to draw any conclusions. I have seen a lot of SRM/PT file comparisons though–enough to think that most PT hubs are very precise.
OK…I only ask because although I know my own personal PT is basically “rock solid”, I’ve also used some others that would tend to “drift” over short periods…especially if there was no coasting to trigger auto-zeroing, or the auto-zero was turned off.
I’ll see if I can dig through some of my CinQo vs. PT files to find some additional comparisons for you…any particular time spans/power levels you’d be interested in?
yeah, actually. I’m trying to figure if it’s precise enough to track progress on :30 and 1:00 intervals, so basically in the 450-500W to 600-650W range.
Thanks!
If you look over on Bikeforums.net there have been some threads on this exact issue. I don’t recall what the agreements were when the dust settled (reminded me too much of my physics days in college so I ran)… but you should be able to dig this stuff up without too much trouble for another data point.
yeah, actually. I’m trying to figure if it’s precise enough to track progress on :30 and 1:00 intervals, so basically in the 450-500W to 600-650W range.
Thanks!
I’ll see what I have…but, then again, most of those files were recorded with the older firmware on the 705 which had a filter on it…
Actually, I’m planning on putting the crank on my TT bike (which has my PT on it as well) this weekend for some “halfpipe” runs…I might have to bust out some 30s and 1 min efforts for you as well