Doge

Because he gets a new PM about every year or two can comment on their accuracy, repeat-ability, ease of use etc. He also rides and races a lot, so they get a lot of use in a short time.

I've tried to not keep repeating myself, but you value comment has little to do with how good they are.
They are used as recording tools. So while I don't see the value for for developing strength/speed/training, they are "valued" for other reasons.

I have also qualified my statement about accuracy vs HR / value.
That for a high mileage rider who is consistent in training and rest (like a pro or coach) vs someone who has many different training peaks, is sick, changes venues (like a college kid) the value/usefulness depends.

rubiksoval

Looks like it'd have a wide q-factor.

hack

Negative. Never tried pedal based power meters. Always seemed like a risky place to put that kind of equipment. Pedal strikes or crashes happen and I assume they engineered the equipment for that, but I prefer crank based.

ancker

Just bought a P2M NGeco. It will be delivered tomorrow. Rings will show up a day later.
Got sick of being stuck to either 1) riding my powertap hub wheels or 2) not being able to buy new wheels without adding a hub.

Looking forward to some new wheel options.

mattm

Awesome! Yeah I'm looking forward to having wheel options and also not rolling on that ****ty PT hub anymore.

My NG came, but I'm having trouble installing the crankset. It's like they didn't include some spacers or something. Friend of mine who got the NGeco said he had the same problem, but a few 1mm spacers fixed it.

Looking forward to using it tho!

ancker

I plan to install my NGeco in a little bit. I will be using a Wheels Manufacturing GXP->BB30 adapter. So hopefully I don't have any spacer issues. (The bag has a ton of spacers in it.)

SRAM Red Quarq crank arms (GXP), P2M NGeco (110mm), Extralite Octaramp MC (52/36) = 687 grams.
A rather large weight penalty over my Red 22 BB30 Compact, which was 514 grams.

## Edit/Update:
Installed just fine. Had to use about 1mm of spacer and slightly adjust the eTap FD to remove chain rub in the small ring/big cog. Other than that, on like a champ.
Shifting appears to work just as well going from Red 22 rings to the Extralite Octaramp MC. Maybe the temp will get above 15 in the next few weeks and I can get out and ride it....

robbyville

Any of you using the new Shimano 9100-P meter? Building a new bike, current sold with my single armed stages 9000 on it so back in the market. Bikebling has a pretty good price on it. Was waffling between this and the new Vector 3 since my current pedals are from 2005 (but still going strong).

Edit- never mind, seems like they now won’t be available until March. Although I know that my old Trek rep has a few in stock. I’ll be going with gen 3 vectors.

tetonrider

They've been delayed and delayed and delayed again. Also, it's not a cheap product. We hope that when they finally are released they get it right, but why wait when there are other viable products available now? As with any 1st gen release to the public, you could also be a beta tester. Long-term reliability of Pioneer, as one example, is a bit wanting, and many paying customers have been left on the hook there.

I'd caution against the vectors. They are not cheap and have issues with both accuracy and long-term reliability.

Unless you have a specific need (tandem, need to put them on a stationary bike), the pedal-based solutions aren't a great buy.

robbyville

Thanks for the input! I’ll definitely be giving the Shimano unit a miss for the time being. I could get a pretty decent price on it, slightly over cost. I had thought the pedal based units had come pretty far though?

furiousferret

The people that own them like them, but Garmin does sell bad units. The negative rep is more from people that have never used the product. To be fair, I'm not sure they'll meet the accuracy of crank or hub based. They can get very close though.


How can something have issues with long term reliability when its been out less than a month?

jsk

The new Vector 3's are a big improvement over the previous versions. They finally got rid of the pod and exact torque requirements. The V3's are pretty much the same size as a normal pedal, no clearance issues like with the PowerTap P1's, no Q-factor increase. I wish they didn't require a pedal wrench to install since a hex bit would be more convenient, but switching them between bikes is pretty easy, and was a pretty big selling point for me since I can move them from trainer bike to TT bike to track bike.

tetonrider

That’s a very low bar. Ownership bias (not having paid a large amount of money and not having don’t critical comparison) is real.

Some people have used, services, and analyzed data from those units and compared the results. It hasn’t been favorable for pedal-based measures of power.

Some people do have a low standard though. And there are scenarios where I recommend pedal-based units, though they are rare.



I can see I need to clarify that. My statement about accuracy and long-term reliability pertained to Garmin’s product history/prior versions of the Vector. Sure, maybe they solved every problem with the latest version; it does a disservice to people to not at least attempt to inform them of this when they decide to buy in.

Vector 1,Vector 2 both had issues.

Doesn’t man this guy shouldn’t buy. In my book there are more proven solutions at the same price point (even used) or there are some better bets to make than the Vector.

As always, the decision comes down to weighing the pros and cons that are relevant to the specific user. I’d bet a decent chunk of money that accuracy and long-term reliability will not be strengths of the Vector 3 though.

tetonrider

Ease of swapping is a real issue. Personally I can swap cranks in as much time as it takes to move pedals (most of my cranks are single bolt and I am experienced with it)...though I prefer not to swap at all.

It is not possible to swap a crank from road to track use, though, and get good data. Jsk’s need is a great case for pedals.

For me (riding and coaching) accuracy is paramount, and even if it took a few extra minutes to swap if it meant getting good numbers or subpar data. Sadly, I have not seen great data coming through from the Vectors I’ve interaced with. Swapping with the 1 and 2 has also been error prone.

Based on that I’d be concerned with data from them on the track. However, road power meters will definitely not throw good data on the track.

Trade-offs...

topflightpro

I still think a used SRM is the best value option out there. The prices for used ones has come down so much, it's almost ridiculous. Excellent condition wireless ones can easily be found in the $500-$700 range.

robbyville

Some great thoughts to consider. I haven't been racing these last couple of years but still train using power as my guidance. When I bought my last meter it came down to dollars as well as my desire to keep my componentry of the same ilk and stick with spec chainrings. I ended up with a Stages for Dura Ace 9000 which so long as it measured consistently helped greatly in my training. My plan is to sell that unit since my new bike have different components. I'm still limited in dollars to a large extent and want to maintain great front shifting.

I already have my crankset, but I could sell it if I ended up with a different power based set up. The Vector 3's appeal to me since my current pedals, although seemingly fine are pretty hacked up. They did well from a consistency stand point on DC Rainmaker's testing but I understand that long term reliability is still up in the air. Swapping from one bike to another is a nicety if I travel and rent elsewhere but I'm a one bike guy for the most part.

Since the Dura Ace unit is delayed I'll keep looking. New frame doesn't get here until Mid Feb so I have time. I could also mismatch my crank arms if I wanted.

Ttoc6

Andrew Coggan posted this in the wattage group..

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29334005

Real interesting read. I'll quote the conclusion.
"Therefore, trained cyclists should develop maximal aerobic power irrespective of the duration of time trial, as well as enhancements in metabolic thresholds for long-duration time trials"

If anyone has access to the full text, I'd like to give a read. Now that I'm not in uni anymore, I can't just get any research paper I want lol.

Ygduf

matches my experience in maintaining ftp

tetonrider

the Stages devices can be consistent under consistent pedaling/power, but that is one of the easiest use cases to cover. there are others (particularly rapidly changing torque) where reliable numbers cannot be expected from it.



if swapping is not a criteria (and even if it is), i'd suggest looking elsewhere for a power meter.

also, dc rainmaker's testing is not particularly great for purposes of a bike racer. it's OK for a low-power, consistently-pedaling triathlete or other rider (he is that triathlete, surprise, surprise), but he just doesn't test units in a way that is representative of most bike racers' usage. that may or may not be important to you; you should know it going in.

it can be confusing because his volumes of words and photos makes a reader think it's an exhaustive review; it's exhaustive with respect to everything other than comparative numbers.

good luck!

tetonrider

unless i'm reading it wrong, how does the conclusion square with the results presented in the abstract?

vo2max, peak power output, LT1 and LT2 had high correlation with long TTs and less so with short and medium TTs, therefore develop max aerobic capacity for all of them?

"train everything"?

mike868y

for each of the TT durations the correlation is actually higher for PPO than for the other measures. although trying to take that and draw conclusions about what durations you should train is...dubious. also, sample size of 20, so...

robbyville

Thank you!

Ttoc6

I'm not 100% sure I understand the published article enough to break it down. here is the full thing to read and I'd suggest referring to Coggan's post over on the wattage forum. Just ignore him being a bit uptight about "always being right".

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...al_Performance

tetonrider

andy has a tremendous amount of knowledge and has personally helped me with some challenges (including some things i noticed with performance at elevation vs at sea-level, which i believe he then used to inform some other work). i know he has had some run-ins with other personalities, and there is a long history on there; people have baited him for years.

mostly i find him to be right, even if not always expressed in a way that others might prefer.

that said, i'm not really seeing the connection here, beyond "improving threshold helps everything, especially longer events" (most people know this). peak power seems to help everything, including the shorter stuff. i can tell you that at least one world champ ITTer is not focused on peak power in order to win 40k's.

Ttoc6

Don't get me wrong. Coggan is a very smart guy and pretty much the reason why the sport is the analytical thing it is. (For example, go read the posts that were just linked the other day from 15 years ago when he first proposed TSS/NP.. wow..) But can come across as... pompous at times, that's all.

What's interesting about this article, is that the preview that was available seems to not include what is actually being discussed.

Conclusion:
In summary, the main finding from our study was that the strength of and the achievement of statistical signifcance of correlations between the PPO, VO2max, metabolic thresholds, and EC with cycling performances were dependent on TT duration. In general, the correlations between PPO, VO2max, metabolic thresholds, and EC
and performance were higher for the long TT


I rescind this being interesting after reading the full text.. Nothing new here..

akdmx

Got to the bottom of my creaking p2m crankset. As suspected, it is the FSA crankset that p2m specs for this kit


We'll see how this plays out. Warranty claim situation was what I was most worried about before handing over nearly a grand to a direct-to-consumer company.