iBike Sport Review
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,586
Bikes: A couple
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
My iBike Sport Review
I did a quick review of the iBike Sport Gen3 and posted it on my blog; I figured some on here might find it interesting:
https://ft-atalay.blogspot.com/2011/0...rt-review.html
I am not sure exactly how accurate or up-to-date the Allen & Coggan race category table I refer to is, but I found it interesting that the numbers match my perceived abilities fairly well. There were some heated discussions a while back about the iBike's accuracy and/or usefulness, but based on my limited experience with it so far I think it will make for a very useful training tool (at least it seems consistent), especially given its price ($200). Let me know if there are any questions and I will do my best to answer.
P.S. I have never used the PT, SRM or Quarq power-meters before.
https://ft-atalay.blogspot.com/2011/0...rt-review.html
I am not sure exactly how accurate or up-to-date the Allen & Coggan race category table I refer to is, but I found it interesting that the numbers match my perceived abilities fairly well. There were some heated discussions a while back about the iBike's accuracy and/or usefulness, but based on my limited experience with it so far I think it will make for a very useful training tool (at least it seems consistent), especially given its price ($200). Let me know if there are any questions and I will do my best to answer.
P.S. I have never used the PT, SRM or Quarq power-meters before.
Last edited by fa63; 04-05-11 at 05:57 PM. Reason: Title
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't even need to look. A device that measures everything but power is not worth my time and definitely not my money. Good luck with it. If it keeps you riding that's a good thing.
#3
fuggitivo solitario
Sorry to be harsh, but if i'm spending $, the thing better be a measuring, not estimating device. Especially consider that you can get a real PM for a few hundred dollars more... The one that does aero measurements is $650.
This iBike sport model won't even allow you to d/l data, and the one that does is $500. I got my ptap wireless SL+ used for $560.
This iBike sport model won't even allow you to d/l data, and the one that does is $500. I got my ptap wireless SL+ used for $560.
#4
Making a kilometer blurry
This argument is a red herring, but a "measuring power" categorization is up for debate. Also, don't discount the iAero's potential for drag measurement when used with a torque-based power meter.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I actually like that aspect maybe coupled with a power meter. I hope Andy's Chung-On-A-Stick comes into existence. Cheers
#6
Senior Member
It has a very good accelerometer. F=ma you know.
The issue isn't whether the iBike "measures" power or not... it does as much as any other PM. The issue is how far it deviates from reality and how often. The way it determines power relies on an accurate measurement of several variables that are quite difficult to get right... especially if it's windy, you are going downhill (ie fast), or the road is rough. Errors tend to even out though, if it is properly calibrated and you use the post processing.
The issue isn't whether the iBike "measures" power or not... it does as much as any other PM. The issue is how far it deviates from reality and how often. The way it determines power relies on an accurate measurement of several variables that are quite difficult to get right... especially if it's windy, you are going downhill (ie fast), or the road is rough. Errors tend to even out though, if it is properly calibrated and you use the post processing.
#7
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ffld Cnty Connecticut
Posts: 21,846
Bikes: Old Steelies I made, Old Cannondales
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1174 Post(s)
Liked 935 Times
in
618 Posts
Another benefit of a real PM is that you can use it on the trainer.
__________________
Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike.
FYI: https://www.bikeforums.net/forum-sugg...ad-please.html
Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike.
FYI: https://www.bikeforums.net/forum-sugg...ad-please.html
#8
Mr. Dopolina
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 10,217
Bikes: KUUPAS, Simpson VR
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 149 Post(s)
Liked 117 Times
in
41 Posts
It doesn't measure power. There are no strain gauges. It calculates power based on a series of assumptions.
For the price you'd be better served by a downloadable HR monitor.
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,586
Bikes: A couple
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I didn't mean this thread to be one along the lines of "iBike works just as good as PT/SRM/Quarq for a fraction of the price". I just wanted to share my experiences with it so far, and while it is not perfect, it seems to be very consistent under most conditions I have encountered so far. I think consistency is the key when trying to gauge improvement, so I am not too concerned if the readings are off a little bit as long as they are consistently so. I would actually love to put it next to a PT and see how the two compare (Velonews found them to compare very well, for what it is worth).
I bought the base version to give it a try and see if it was worth a damn, and so far I think it is worth the price. I am actually thinking of upgrading to the Pro version soon to have the ability to download and analyze the data. As it was pointed out, it gets somewhat expensive once you want to upgrade to the Pro version ($200 for the upgrade, on top of the $200 I paid for the base unit to begin with). But I think other riders/racers on a budget will find even the base version (which I think is reasonably priced, although other's idea of what is reasonable may be different) a very useful traning tool.
With that said, I should note that I haven't owned the unit long enough to assess its durability. Everything I just said will be meaningless if it doesn't hold up, and from my experience Velocomp's (iBike's maker) customer service was OK but not great. So I am hoping I won't have to use them again
I bought the base version to give it a try and see if it was worth a damn, and so far I think it is worth the price. I am actually thinking of upgrading to the Pro version soon to have the ability to download and analyze the data. As it was pointed out, it gets somewhat expensive once you want to upgrade to the Pro version ($200 for the upgrade, on top of the $200 I paid for the base unit to begin with). But I think other riders/racers on a budget will find even the base version (which I think is reasonably priced, although other's idea of what is reasonable may be different) a very useful traning tool.
With that said, I should note that I haven't owned the unit long enough to assess its durability. Everything I just said will be meaningless if it doesn't hold up, and from my experience Velocomp's (iBike's maker) customer service was OK but not great. So I am hoping I won't have to use them again
#10
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 83
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#11
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ffld Cnty Connecticut
Posts: 21,846
Bikes: Old Steelies I made, Old Cannondales
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1174 Post(s)
Liked 935 Times
in
618 Posts
I didn't mean this thread to be one along the lines of "iBike works just as good as PT/SRM/Quarq for a fraction of the price". I just wanted to share my experiences with it so far, and while it is not perfect, it seems to be very consistent under most conditions I have encountered so far. I think consistency is the key when trying to gauge improvement, so I am not too concerned if the readings are off a little bit as long as they are consistently so. I would actually love to put it next to a PT and see how the two compare (Velonews found them to compare very well, for what it is worth).
Personally, I would always be wondering if the numbers were right, did I calibrate it properly this time ....
even if the overall numbers from a ride are similar to powermeter numbers, the short interval feedback from a pm can't be matched.
And since their top model is about the same price as a powertap, the choice is pretty clear to me.
__________________
Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike.
FYI: https://www.bikeforums.net/forum-sugg...ad-please.html
Bikes: Old steel race bikes, old Cannondale race bikes, less old Cannondale race bike, crappy old mtn bike.
FYI: https://www.bikeforums.net/forum-sugg...ad-please.html
Last edited by Homebrew01; 04-06-11 at 08:15 AM.
#12
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,475
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 950 Post(s)
Liked 1,213 Times
in
523 Posts
The way it determines power relies on an accurate measurement of several variables that are quite difficult to get right... especially if it's windy, you are going downhill (ie fast), or the road is rough. Errors tend to even out though, if it is properly calibrated and you use the post processing.
#13
sittin' in
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Well said. The old 305 does great at measuring/recording what it supposed to without pretending to be a power meter. When/if the time comes where an athlete wants to train with power, powertap is the clear choice.
#15
awaiting uci approval
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 961
Bikes: Fuji Roubaix RC 06
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I ran one side-by-side with a Quarq and got MOSTLY matching results. The iBike lagged behind on short/sharp efforts and in some other situations. The big problem is that when it was off (due to weather or whatever) it was way off and often stopped working. Also the constant calibration to make it work, and the fact that it doesn't really work on the trainer are a pain. I don't think it's that bad, but I wouldn't buy one.
#16
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,586
Bikes: A couple
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
How can you tell ? If riding the exact same course multiple times, but each with different combinations of wind conditions, barometric pressures and temperatures, how can you know if it's giving you an accurate "power" reading ?
Personally, I would always be wondering if the numbers were right, did I calibrate it properly this time ....
even if the overall numbers from a ride are similar to powermeter numbers, the short interval feedback from a pm can't be matched.
And since their top model is about the same price as a powertap, the choice is pretty clear to me.
Personally, I would always be wondering if the numbers were right, did I calibrate it properly this time ....
even if the overall numbers from a ride are similar to powermeter numbers, the short interval feedback from a pm can't be matched.
And since their top model is about the same price as a powertap, the choice is pretty clear to me.
- The numbers shown on the screen do not jump around significantly when I am doing a steady effort, including when I am riding over not so smooth roads. Obviously, an increase in effort, whether it is from riding into a headwind or some other factor, results in an increase in power.
- The average power from riding my favorite 20-mile course in what I would consider similar conditions has been consistent. I also went all-out once which resulted in a higher average power than usual. I should note that there are no stops so my times when I am riding solo are very consistent on this particular course.
Again, these do not prove the accuracy of the unit, by as I said before I am not worried about absolute accuracy as long as the conistency is there.
By the way, the calibration is done once and the unit goes through an auto-calibration, which takes about 10 seconds to complete, every time it is turned on. So there is no hassle there.
I will agree with you that the iBike is not going to be very good in tracking short-duration (I would say, 5 seconds or less) efforts because there is some delay between putting the power down and seeing the numbers jump.
#17
fuggitivo solitario
Good question; my opinion of the consistency of the unit is based on these:
- The numbers shown on the screen do not jump around significantly when I am doing a steady effort, including when I am riding over not so smooth roads. Obviously, an increase in effort, whether it is from riding into a headwind or some other factor, results in an increase in power.
- The average power from riding my favorite 20-mile course in what I would consider similar conditions has been consistent. I also went all-out once which resulted in a higher average power than usual. I should note that there are no stops so my times when I am riding solo are very consistent on this particular course.
Again, these do not prove the accuracy of the unit, by as I said before I am not worried about absolute accuracy as long as the conistency is there.
By the way, the calibration is done once and the unit goes through an auto-calibration, which takes about 10 seconds to complete, every time it is turned on. So there is no hassle there.
I will agree with you that the iBike is not going to be very good in tracking short-duration (I would say, 5 seconds or less) efforts because there is some delay between putting the power down and seeing the numbers jump.
- The numbers shown on the screen do not jump around significantly when I am doing a steady effort, including when I am riding over not so smooth roads. Obviously, an increase in effort, whether it is from riding into a headwind or some other factor, results in an increase in power.
- The average power from riding my favorite 20-mile course in what I would consider similar conditions has been consistent. I also went all-out once which resulted in a higher average power than usual. I should note that there are no stops so my times when I am riding solo are very consistent on this particular course.
Again, these do not prove the accuracy of the unit, by as I said before I am not worried about absolute accuracy as long as the conistency is there.
By the way, the calibration is done once and the unit goes through an auto-calibration, which takes about 10 seconds to complete, every time it is turned on. So there is no hassle there.
I will agree with you that the iBike is not going to be very good in tracking short-duration (I would say, 5 seconds or less) efforts because there is some delay between putting the power down and seeing the numbers jump.
One of the first things you realize when you get a real powermeter is how much the number jumps, even with a 5" rolling average.
#18
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,586
Bikes: A couple
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Sorry, but that's the one thing that should be jumping by +/- 20W due to the uneven resistance encountered in cycling, even if your speed is even, and the terrain looks "even." That the estimated wattage doesn't change dramatically is probably due to the fact that the unit isn't sampling very fast and that the computer compensates by running a rolling average with a long decay constant.
One of the first things you realize when you get a real powermeter is how much the number jumps, even with a 5" rolling average.
One of the first things you realize when you get a real powermeter is how much the number jumps, even with a 5" rolling average.
Last edited by fa63; 04-06-11 at 11:18 AM.
#19
Senior Member
#20
Senior Member
#21
Senior Member
IME the reality of using the unit is the other way around. With post-processing I can get an AP for a ride that is within a couple % (probably). But in real time, it can vary a lot. Crosswinds, rough roads, and fast descents seem to be the worst case. Also, if there is significant drafting, or the wind shifts then the post-processing doesn't work so well either.
#22
sittin' in
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 518
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
just read the blog. More disturbing than the thought of using the iBike as a power meter is the idea of doing a 20 minute test on a MUP.
#23
fuggitivo solitario
I ran one side-by-side with a Quarq and got MOSTLY matching results. The iBike lagged behind on short/sharp efforts and in some other situations. The big problem is that when it was off (due to weather or whatever) it was way off and often stopped working. Also the constant calibration to make it work, and the fact that it doesn't really work on the trainer are a pain. I don't think it's that bad, but I wouldn't buy one.
#24
Perceptual Dullard
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,475
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 950 Post(s)
Liked 1,213 Times
in
523 Posts
Yeah, not being able to download is a deal killer. My first experience with PMs was a bit more than a decade ago when I had one of the original Power Tap Prologues on a couple month long loan. Like the iBike Sport, that model wasn't downloadable. People who know me can understand the deep irony of me having a PM that I couldn't get the data out of. However, even for less-OCD users than I, the ability to review, summarize, store, and share the data collected on rides is pretty important.