topflightpro

I stand corrected, but this is a fairly new development then, because in his 2015 review, he wrote: "Would I buy it: I don’t own one, and right now I simply have a hard time seeing the justification of the price over other units on the market today."

ancker

I know it used to be the case, but does DCR still buy all of this test equipment?

If so, he may not be the most thorough tester for all disciplines, but at least he isn't just cleverly packaged marketing like a lot of the other 'reviews' out there.

Doge

I am now invested into the PM scene. I have purchased pedal and many hub meters this year. I have hired a nationally renown coach (not naming) who uses power. I bought and skimmed the book. I ride with one 100% - not that I ride much, but 100%, my son rides with one all but racing and MTB. I have spoken to a lot more pros and seen what ex-pros use/don't use. So here is my new more educated opinion.
-Buy what rides the best first - don't do 7800 over 9000 because one has a PM option.
-Buy what is compatible with the other things that matter to you.
-It is primarily a recording device.
-It is a good tool for testing equipment / position (that is kinda training)
-It is easier to pick up speed on position and equipment than power increases (for a 55+ guy).
-It seems (from me/my testing) that pedal stoke might be better one way than the other. I was told this, but cool to see it. It is the opposite of how a generation of riders were told to pedal.
-It takes skill (I don't have) to read and adjust training to what it says. This was my biggest frustration. I just live with it now and don't have the time or interest to learn what a number means to training.
-Accurate to 2% meters on the same bike can read 10% differently.
-I believe SRM has the smallest time slices and is most accurate.
-It is somehow uncool for top cyclists to post power on Strava as someone may look and use it to beat them. This is kinda like my on-line movie theater ticket buying site want's a strong password for fear of someone else buying me a movie ticket.
-If you like a better number use the pedal PMs, then cranks.
-It is not a racing device other than for some - TTs - and then not for a good TTer. They don't need it. And when it comes to track - they may not use it. So I would not think developing a dependency on reading a meter a good move for anyone considering track racing events.
-It is mostly depressing as a 55+ guy to look at those numbers.

Wylde06

Fixed that one.

beeef

Sometimes companies send him products to review but he always returns the stuff after he's done.

Voodoo76

+1, but you can still work on em.

Hey on the plus side we don't have cold hard power files from 30 years ago to compare to. No Strava PR's from our 20's taunting us. Just a vague memory of what it felt like to be kind of fast. Feel sorry for the youngsters, there will be no escaping exactly how much they have lost.

spectastic

no losses for me. I will supplement my aging with testosterone to keep me young.

Doge

Spoiled

oespinoza83

Pros use what their sponsors give them. Sure, their opinions are based on their experience with said devices, but they aren't testing all the devices just what is given to them.


Power increases aren't a goal from position or equipment though. I thought position optimization and upgraded equipment were to "save" watts, not gain them. Maybe I am just confused with your statement.


Honestly, if you don't have the time or interest to learn what the numbers tell you, then you shouldn't have a PM. But then again, I could care less what others spend their $ on.


Actually WT Pros do post their data on Strava. There is a method to post your data without posting your power. We might not be talking AC, AV, CF elites, but there are still plenty of others on there.

Doge

See responses:

oespinoza83

So racers on the non-WT level don't ever have PMs given to them, even if just for a season to use then return? I am not doubting that pros do not buy their own, I am saying that Pros opinions, and probably the items they choose to buy, are based on experience from items most likely given to them. I doubt pros are saying "Hey, did you see that new untested unproven PM that came out yesterday? I should buy one!".


The ultimate goal of racing is being the first across the line. The fasted speed and highest power do not always equate to this. You should know this by now.


How about not going off what you "read about" and how much you actually see in person. You seem to be around the cycling community a lot. Is it truly common for you to be around a peloton of riders all with PMs and none of them know why they have them or what they do? Yes, these riders exist. But considering you are in the 33, I find it hard to believe you are around that environment on a common basis. True, training won't change much. PMs are just a tool to assist training further.

As far as buying things you don't know how they work, well I am an engineer by trade, so I buy things all the time that I don't know how they initially work. But then I spend the time and effort learning. You seem to be the type that buys something because it is shiny or popular just to have or what the brochure says and does not take the time to learn the item. And my comment was that if you aren't willing to learn to use something, you shouldn't buy it; not what you are saying above.


My fault on this. Misread your initial comment. I figure most pros do not post power simply because their DS/Coach tells them not to.

topflightpro

Speed is nothing more than distance/time. If you are the first across the line, you have by definition covered the race distance in the shortest amount of time, ergo, you had the fastest speed.

oespinoza83

But what if you were in a crit and got a free lap and eventually won?

tetonrider

It's funny because no one else comes to these conclusions when they apply any rigor to testing.

Unfortunately, most folks start with one meter and have only that device as a frame of reference, so they call it good and speak publicly about it. This kind of stuff makes it confusing for other new folks in terms of figuring out who to trust.

Usually you hear "seems pretty solid to me!"

Often, it takes years to learn what is important.

Can't recall who was talking earlier about their Vector as "seems solid"; this might be interesting:
Validity, Sensitivity, Reproducibility and Robustness of the Powertap, Stages and Garmin Vector Power Meters in Comparison With the SRM Device


When power varies by zone, cadence, and form (seated, standing), I think DCR's broad-brush statements about 'all these devices have the same accuracy' does a disservice.

It's one thing for a user to understand and NOT TO CARE; it's another to mislead them and tell them "Don't worry, you got the same thing."

Heathpack 

@Doge, welcome to the WWoP.

You don't understand the power data now, but if your new coach does understand it and you're riding with it, you'll likely come to understand it to a greater extent over time. There's a lot more to it than you think there will be when you start.

As far as your comments about really good TTists not using power to race, I'm not sure if you're talking about Amber Neben, Tony Martin and the like or State/National champion type people. I can't speak about the former. But everyone I know in the latter category certainly has power in a race and considers it important. I think really good TTists just use power differently than you imagine. People are not slavishly chasing a power number around the course. I think the really good people monitor power numbers, HR numbers and their own biofeedback to assess their effort for any given moment out on the course, while simultaneously factoring in knowledge of the course, current conditions, and self-knowledge as to how they perform at the distance. So the power number might be important, and you might come to see it as having less "wiggle" than some of the other feedback, but it's certainly not defining the entirety of the race effort.

At least that how I use it. One data point that certainly can be over-ridden by others.

And absolutely power does not mean speed. This is probably the first thing you learn when get a TT bike, because you're 2mph faster on the same power. Sweet.

Now that you have a coach, what's next? Are you going to start racing locally? Maybe we can actually meet- we just can't talk about women's compensation in sport, nor doping. Those subjects will have to be our "politics" and "religion".

topflightpro

Between my wife and I, we've had PowerTap, Quarq (x6), SRM (x2) and Stages.

I've only ever tested the PowerTap against my wife's first Quarq. At the time, I was concerned the Quarq was not providing good numbers. In my non-scientific test, which consisted of looking at numbers on two computers simultaneously, The numbers appeared to line up.

I could test the Stages against my SRM, but really, we bought it because it was cheap and it was going on my wife's second bike, which she doesn't ride as much. So, I haven't gotten around to it.

revchuck 

If I had another head unit, I could test my PTs against my SRM. They seem to be pretty close based on the numbers and RPE I've had.

tetonrider

"seem to be pretty close" kind of highlights the problem. it's pretty tedious to test various combinations of power output and cadence -- and to do it right really compares not just one unit of each type but many.

casually, we tend to eyeball things or look at an average number and call it "pretty good."

whether or not the differences matter to someone is one thing, but they're there.

Doge

I mentioned I was raised in the time when smooth was in. I am very smooth - too smooth. I've been very curious about the % of arc it is best to apply max force and also where. Junior tells me at the bottom - not when pedal in horizontal, but where you leg is most extended is best. What does he know, he's a kid. I get that that is not applied at 90 degrees to the crank arm, but that force is not lost - it is just harder math. I'm still doing fairly long power strokes, I can't help it. But I did go to more stomping and got my wife mad at me for going too hard - so it must be working. I'm wondering if that is just a short range thing or works for longer. It is the Lactic Acid levels I need to test.

Anyway - wondering what the good pedal stroke meters are. Pioneer?

TheKillerPenguin

My stroke was at its smoothest when my saddle was too high. I also sucked!

ancker

So I've got time pretty much every day to be on the bike while working. Right now I'm still working on weight loss and just getting base miles in.
I plan to start a more regimented training plan in January.
Is it better to...

1) Ride at high Z2/low Z3 for 60-90 minutes.
2) Ride at low Z2 for 90-120 minutes.
3) Neither, do intervals instead.

I have a smart trainer so I can just set it to X watts and pedal mindlessly. I find when I do that with high Z2/Z3, it's difficult to do much typing (I want to be on the hoods, instead of sitting up). At lower Z2 I can get more work done since I can sit up straight.

revchuck 

FWIW, I'm following the advice in Matt Fitzgerald's Racing Weight. (Well, sort of right now, just had a birthday and my grandkids are living with me with Christmas coming up...) If you're trying to burn fat - not necessarily the same thing as losing weight - he says the sweet spot is ~70% of your max HR. For me that ends up in lower Z2. Another way he recommends is short (10-30") full power intervals either at high cadence or at low cadence.

ancker

I have that book as well. I've only been able to read about 1/3 of it. I keep taking it on work trips with me but never find time to read it... Maybe I should spend some time reading it.

I'm indeed searching to burn fat. I don't have a lot, but I figure there's 10 lbs to drop in my midsection. 10 lbs will help my W/kg substantially.

My max HR (measured) is 209bpm. 70% of that is 143bpm. Last week I rode at 2.6Z (power) for 60 minutes. My average HR was close to 170, which is more like Z3.8 (heartrate).

Doing some extrapolation, I'd need to be at Z2.0 or slightly lower to have an average HR around 140bpm.

As a side note, I thrown in the occasional interval sessions (usually a Sufferfest video) to keep the threshold bits of my brain/heart/legs happy. But until January I'm just trying to lose fat/weight.

TheKillerPenguin

Well, I think the purpose of limiting yourself to z2 is twofold. 1) above your true "endurance" pace you need more glycogen since your muscles aren't trained enough to not need it.* 2) at endurance pace you can handle way, way more hours which = more kj which makes losing weight much easier. I think that if you're limited in time you might be better served with doing tempo and intervals. 90-120min/day isn't really enough to reap the benefits of the z2 I think? Really to leverage the benefits of z2 you need enough time to generate a lot of TSS which requires riding a lot of hours. With limited time I think tempo will allow for more fitness and more kj burned. Warming up for 15min, doing an hour of tempo, and cooling down is much different than doing 3-4hrs of it at a clip, which is where tempo gets unsustainable. Throw some intervals in, recover on days you feel like ass, and baby you got a stew going.

*This is kinda anectodal. I can do 5-6hrs on not much food at endurance pace and that'll wind up being ~4-5k kj. I up the pace to tempo and 3-4hrs requires far more food, sugar specifically, for less kj burned. Also the endurance ride will let me do the same exact thing the following day and the tempo ride will make me feel like crap.

revchuck 

In terms of fat loss (in a power thread, WTF are we doing talking about this here? ), Z2 is apparently more beneficial because the majority of the fuel we use there is fat, while it shifts to majority carbs at tempo. Or so I've read, I ain't no expert 'bout this stuff. That would explain your being able to do 5-6 hours of Z2 on pretty much just water.