Interesting power meter article

i can't recall what Kraig's conclusion what on his threeway study of the meters. however, there's a recent study that's just appeared in a scientific peer reviewed journal -- i'll post the abstract when i can get hold of it!

Ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
i can't recall what Kraig's conclusion what on his threeway study of the meters. however, there's a recent study that's just appeared in a scientific peer reviewed journal -- i'll post the abstract when i can get hold of it!

Ric

Ric, is the article already there? I like to read it.
Thanks a lot in advance.

www.webtrainer.nl

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by WebTrainer
Ric, is the article already there? I like to read it.
Thanks a lot in advance.

www.webtrainer.nl

here's the Pub-Med link for the journal article on the S710
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12740731&dopt=Abstract

Ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
here's the Pub-Med link for the journal article on the S710
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12740731&dopt=Abstract

Ric

Ric, I thought you would mean a different one. This is one I know. Anyway thank a lot for your efford, and the best to you.

www.webtrainer.nl

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by WebTrainer
Ric, I thought you would mean a different one. This is one I know. Anyway thank a lot for your efford, and the best to you.

www.webtrainer.nl

Lol! sorry! was there an article you thought i meant?

cheers
ric

Thanks for the great links.

I know that the HAC4 differs from the power meters as it (HAC4) calculates power rather than measure it. That being said, do you know of any objective studies such as those mentioned here, which show side-by-side comparison of the HAC4 with the power meters?

Many thanks.

Bill

Foothills Rider said:

Thanks for the great links.

I know that the HAC4 differs from the power meters as it (HAC4) calculates power rather than measure it. That being said, do you know of any objective studies such as those mentioned here, which show side-by-side comparison of the HAC4 with the power meters?

Many thanks.

Bill

There is this:
mywebpage.netscape.compseudohac4.htmlOpen ↗

Interesting how well the PT holds up against the SRM. As cool looking as the SRM Dura Ace crank is, I can't see spending that kind of money when the PT data quality appears to be just as good.

I was also surprised that the Polar unit works at all (albeit with many anomalies), since the method of measuring seems so quirky.

kennf said:

Interesting how well the PT holds up against the SRM. As cool looking as the SRM Dura Ace crank is, I can't see spending that kind of money when the PT data quality appears to be just as good.

Or better. Data from the AIS indicate that PTs are more consistently accurate between devices than SRMs.

Steve

Smartt/RST said:

There is this:
mywebpage.netscape.compseudohac4.htmlOpen ↗

Thanks, Michael. That's great...and it shows that trying to measure absolute values with 20-s readings mutes both highs and lows, but that even with the caveats, the data are not un-usable.

I appreciate the time and effort it took you to find the link...and accept my wishes for a safe and happy holiday season.

Bill

kennf said:

Interesting how well the PT holds up against the SRM. As cool looking as the SRM Dura Ace crank is, I can't see spending that kind of money when the PT data quality appears to be just as good.

I was also surprised that the Polar unit works at all (albeit with many anomalies), since the method of measuring seems so quirky.

Not only does the PT hold up against the SRM (Pro) it's possibly slightly more accurate than the SRM. A recent paper examining the SRM and the PT in Med Sci Sport and Exercise, showed that SRM came from the factory in a range of accuracies of - 10% to +1% while PTs were -2 to 2.9%. (you would expect a PT to report less power than an SRM due to the fact the PT is measuring further down the system and power is lost in the drive train of ~ 2%).

There are some benefits to the SRM (compared to the PT) e.g., user can alter the calibration of SRM and you can race with any wheels, but by and large i prefer the PT

Ric (owns or has used all the commercially available power meters)

Steve McGregor said:

Or better. Data from the AIS indicate that PTs are more consistently accurate between devices than SRMs.

Steve

Damn you Steve!!! :p -- you posted while i was writing my reply!

Steve McGregor said:

Or better. Data from the AIS indicate that PTs are more consistently accurate between devices than SRMs.

Steve

Here is a link to the article. The statement I make though, is based on data included in the text of the article, that is not in the abstract.

ncbi.nlm.nih.govquery.fcgiOpen ↗

They are both good power meters (SRM and PT), but for the money, and the lack of hassle, you can't beat the PT standard or pro.

Steve

i forgot to post the link! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15235334

ric_stern/RST said:

i forgot to post the link! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15235334

Hahahahaha! Twilight zone stuff today, freaky!

ric_stern/RST said:

Damn you Steve!!! :p -- you posted while i was writing my reply!

I've been training with Lindsay from Wattage. He's a great speed posting training partner😉

Happy Holidays Ric

ric_stern/RST said:

Hahahahaha! Twilight zone stuff today, freaky!

I guess you could say,"Great minds think alike,... sometimes"😉

Steve McGregor said:

I guess you could say,"Great minds think alike,... sometimes"😉

all the best for the holidays