# Power Meters



## Zofo (21 May 2013)

Any of you lot using Power Meters yet? Even tho my main goals are just to improve fitness, fight off middle age and blast 3 or 4 sportives a year. I'm a gadget head anyway and the price of these is dropping to a very tempting level. I currently train using standard HR Zones as per Joe Friel et al. and I note that he strongly recommends power meters for serious training, he explains that in practise HR only measures the work that the heart is doing, and not the muscles being trained.

Comments ?


----------



## Rob3rt (21 May 2013)

That is a rather limited interpretation of what Joe Friel is getting at really, however, to the point, I train with a power meter (as does Vamp, Gam001, GrasB, Mr Haematocrit). What do you want to know about them? Which PM's are you looking at when you say the price is dropping to a tempting level?


----------



## Garz (21 May 2013)

Zofo said:


> Any of you lot using Power Meters yet?


 
No. Too expensive for me at the moment. If you race/compete then it would be high on the wish list - your call as it depends on your needs or wants.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (21 May 2013)

A power meter is only of real use when accompanied by structured training with someone who understands what the data means imho.
Like any tools they have their value, how much value depends upon you


----------



## Rob3rt (21 May 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> A power meter is only of real use when accompanied by structured training with someone who understands what the data means imho


 
Absolutelly agree, it is not a fit and forget bit of kit like a speed sensor either. You need to understand how to ensure the data it is collecting is robust, then how to interpret said data.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (21 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> interpret.


 
 That's the word I was looking for, could not find it for the life of me which is why I used 'understand' ....... damn you for being clever and literate.


----------



## Ningishzidda (22 May 2013)

Another Power Meter user here.

Well, if truth be told, they are 'Torque meters' and with RPM and a constant, Power is calculated.


----------



## Zofo (22 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Which PM's are you looking at when you say the price is dropping to a tempting level?


I'm looking at this Cycle Ops Power tap SL + Wheel combo:-
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=39915
Seems quite a deal now at just over a grand

How's your performance improved since you started training with power?


----------



## Ningishzidda (22 May 2013)

If the difference in your performance is less than the repeatability and accuracy specification of the machine, you may as well not bother.
If you are not competing for monetary prizes, you may as well go to a gymnasium that has a bike machine.
When your improvement is greater than the repeatability and accuracy specification of the bike machine at the gym, you can start sliming.


----------



## Rob3rt (22 May 2013)

Power tap is not something I know about, GrasB uses them, as does Vamp, however, as a general comment you could save money by using an existing Garmin head unit instead of the Cyclops one, same re. HR strap. I have heard the lifespan on the torque tube on Powertap wheels is fairly limited and costs a lot to have replaced, also heard about issues with them going out of true a lot. But this is just hearsay.

I use a Quarq. For me, a wheel based PM is no good, because I want to train and race with power and can not afford 2-3 different wheel setups (training wheel, disc wheel and lightweight wheel), I can swap my Quarq from one bike to another in less than 5 minutes. If you wanted to consider crank based power measurement, at powertap prices, you may want to consider power2max. There is also the Quarq Riken at £1250-1300 depending on bottom bracket type.

Whatever you decide, I would recommend speaking to Cyclepowermeters and could recommend them as a retailer. They are brilliant! The kind of guys you can ring up and hash out a problem over the phone and get advice on the spot. If something fails, they offer a very fast turnaround. Their staff team really know their stuff, some of them being active coaches (good ones!) and also very good racers and furthermore, they are active on various forums, i.e. they are actively involved in the use of the equipment in various capacities, rather than just sales people.

Re. training with power I benefited massively, there is no way I would be riding 21 minute 10's at this point (based on my starting point) without having trained with a power meter this season! Not because I didn't train hard and consistently, but because I clearly didn't train hard enough on hard days and easy enough on easy days. I found it hard to quantify my training load and correlate it to how well I was going etc. Power changed all that. In races, power is a mixed bag for me, I have found on occasion, it helped my pace well, letting me ride to a pre-determined schedule, on others it messed with my head. My PB's have come when I relied on power for the 1st mile or so (to avoid over cooking it) then racing on feel (90% anyway, I still sneaked a peak at the numbers now and then, mostly to avoid blowing up). My data analysis, especially when reviewing road and race data is relativelly poor (for my indoor training, it is good as it needs to be), a club mate reviewed some race data for me and pointed out a few things I had completely missed. This shows that to get the most from it, you need to know what you are looking at/for.

The main issue I see in recommending power as a training metric is that how much one person benefits compared with another will vary quite wildly, you need to at least have a rudimentary understanding of the concepts and what it is you are looking at else it will just be a load of numbers that mean nothing. As Mr Haematocrit said, you do need to be structured with your training if using power, this just doesn't suit some people personality wise. Same goes for analysing data, some people can't be bothered or don't like doing it (could always hire a coach to do it for you though). It is also quite easy to get obsessed with the numbers and forget the bigger picture.

In short, the short term improvement vs say, some bling wheels or whatever is not favourable. But the long term gains from training with power usurp the benefit of a new bike or wheels, IME.


----------



## Zofo (22 May 2013)

Thanks for the advice Rob3rt. I may well go with the power2max unit--here is a very detailed review of it for anyone else thats interested;
http://jibbering.com/sports/power2max-review.html


----------



## Rob3rt (22 May 2013)

I think DC Rainmaker has also reviewed the P2M.


----------



## zizou (22 May 2013)

Power meters can be useful training aids for those that race (for some essential, for others not) but if your goal is improving fitness a bit to ride some sportives a bit faster then it is a bit overkill - there are much cheaper ways of going about this.

However i think it is important to enjoy training as much as you can and if you like the idea of having quantifiable numbers to work off and think it will incentivise you to train better then go for it. For me the cost would not give the same benefit and improvements that i get from other methods that i enjoy* doing (and thus more likely to do).

*of course that is not to say i always enjoy the 'enjoyable' bits while doing them!


----------



## Ningishzidda (22 May 2013)

Golden rules for riding time trials.
Congratulate the riders who are faster than you.
Encourage the riders who are slower.
Don't eat more than your fair share of biscuits.
Don't be a 'Power meter bore'.


----------



## VamP (22 May 2013)

Zofo said:


> I'm looking at this Cycle Ops Power tap SL + Wheel combo:-
> http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=39915
> Seems quite a deal now at just over a grand
> 
> How's your performance improved since you started training with power?


 
You can get the G3 wheel (A23 rim build) for that kind of money, and I don't think you need the strap or the Joule. Unless you don't have a head unit already, in which case I think a GPS head unit such as the Edge500 is still more versatile.

Or the P2M.

Or the Quarq.

They will all do the job.

I went with the Powertap because there is no one solution that covers all my diverse interests, and I wanted a simple and reliable training solution first and foremost. Having said that, the A23 is just as competent in road racing as my Ksyrium rear wheel, so I get race data more often than not as well. Obviously MTB and CX races are dataless, but then power data from those is arguably less useful anyway.

Once you have a sufficient database of power files, and learned to recognize how different power zones 'feel' - using the power meter during races becomes less important.

I can't speak for the other methods, but the G3 has been fit and forget (just zero for temperature) and reliable to date.

I agree with others that if you are committed to training and willing to learn the 'power way', it will take you to another level in terms of economy and efficiency of training. Particularly so if you are training time poor.


----------



## Rob3rt (22 May 2013)

VamP said:


> You can get the G3 wheel (A23 rim build) for that kind of money, and I don't think you need the strap or the Joule. Unless you don't have a head unit already, in which case I think a GPS head unit such as the Edge500 is still more versatile.
> 
> Or the P2M.
> 
> ...


 
This was my main reason for the investment!


----------



## Zofo (22 May 2013)

VamP said:


> I agree with others that if you are committed to training and willing to learn the 'power way', it will take you to another level in terms of economy and efficiency of training. Particularly so if you are training time poor.


 

Sounds like me then, I'm willing to put the effort in but am limited on time. My Current training schedule is typically:-

Saturday 3 hrs at Endurance pace 85-95 rpm
Mon 45 mins Cruise intervals 85-95 rpm
Weds 90 min hills 70-75 rpm
Thurs 45 mins Cruise intervals 85-95 rpm

with this programme my goal is to push up my average pace over sportive distances of 75-100 miles to around 16mph--over a hilly terrain.


----------



## Andrew_P (22 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Not because I didn't train hard and consistently, but because I clearly didn't train hard enough on hard days and easy enough on easy days. I found it hard to quantify my training load and correlate it to how well I was going etc


This is the best explanation I have seen and has helped me see if there is a benefit.

I had a fairly tough ride on Sunday which made me realise my 80% perception on my commute was wayyyy off. Although I am shifting faster than this time last year I am doing it with less effort. a PM would have told me this much earlier.

Now whether it is worth the investment (for me) is another matter.


----------



## Ningishzidda (23 May 2013)

Don't get me wrong, I do use a power meter in training.

The history of power meters.
Developed for use by professional cycling teams to increase their chance of winning money.
Advertised to amateur cyclists as a way to increase their chances of winning races, and recoup development costs.

What is surprising is,,,
The only member of my club to use a power meter in training is the member who stood up to receive the scratch TT championship trophy last season, and is leading the table this season.

The power meter I use is incorporated into a simple bicycle ergometer sold by an above average department store. Its accuracy is about +/- 2%, so I only assume I am improving until I have a 5% increase compared with past results.
£280.

During a race, I use 'feel'. After all, I've been doing this game for 38 years.


----------



## Zofo (25 May 2013)

Any thoughts on going for Power pedals instead ? :-
http://shop.cadenceperformance.com/...lspolarcs600xpedalspedaltransmitterscs600xkit


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (25 May 2013)

Zofo said:


> Any thoughts on going for Power pedals instead ? :-
> http://shop.cadenceperformance.com/...lspolarcs600xpedalspedaltransmitterscs600xkit


 
both the look power and the garmin vectors and the are certainly interesting. I have seen the Looks freak out on occasion and produce some really inconsistent and wild data.
Issues with the technology caused Garmin to put back the launch of the vectors and we are finally expecting them towards the end of the year (I have been told) however they are starting to look a little like vapor wear.
The look power can only be used with polar devices and IMHO it would have been wise to delay the launch, they are IMHO a little flakey.

DC rainmaker has a good review.
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2012/07/polar-look-keo-power-systempedal-based.html


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (25 May 2013)

Here is another review of the power pedals.

http://www.bikeradar.com/blog/article/testing-the-power2max-and-look-keo-power-pedals-32678/


----------



## Rob3rt (26 May 2013)

Zofo said:


> Any thoughts on going for Power pedals instead ? :-
> http://shop.cadenceperformance.com/...lspolarcs600xpedalspedaltransmitterscs600xkit


 

The Look system is a joke, only works with Polar Devices and who wants to be tied in with using a certain brands head unit?
The Garmin Vector system has been coming soon.................. since forever!


----------



## Zofo (28 May 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> Here is another review of the power pedals.
> 
> http://www.bikeradar.com/blog/article/testing-the-power2max-and-look-keo-power-pedals-32678/


 
thanks for the links H. Seems the pedal system is one for the future but probably way too flakey at the moment? Also the Polar head unit leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Rob3rt (28 May 2013)

Never buy the 1st gen version of anything, particularly power meters! Garmin already treat paying customers like beta testers, releasing half cocked products, taking peoples money, and delivering sub-par products. I wouldn't trust them with regards a power meter.

Now if money is no object, the new SRM power meters look fantastic! SRM reliability, almost Quarq like convenience (they are rechargeable via a USB port, still would prefer switching a batter tbh though).


----------



## Ningishzidda (28 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Never buy the 1st gen version of anything, particularly power meters! Garmin already treat paying customers like beta testers, releasing half cocked products, taking peoples money, and delivering sub-par products. I wouldn't trust them with regards a power meter.
> 
> Now if money is no object, the new SRM power meters look fantastic! SRM reliability, almost Quarq like convenience (they are rechargeable via a USB port, still would prefer switching a batter tbh though).


If money was no object, I'd be straight to AVL of Graz, Austria to build me a Bicycle Chassis Dynamometer on a strain table in a climatic wind tunnel.


----------



## Zofo (28 May 2013)

Thanks for the input chaps, all very useful. I've spent some time now looking at all the options available regarding training-as opposed to racing-with power . And it seems to me that in general the times when power is most useful is when conducting interval or hill training intervals, all of which I'm most likely to be doing inside, on a turbo- as I currently do. Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to invest in a high spec turbo trainer with power such as the Tacx Bushido ?
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=82998


----------



## Rob3rt (28 May 2013)

Zofo said:


> Thanks for the input chaps, all very useful. I've spent some time now looking at all the options available regarding training-as opposed to racing-with power . And it seems to me that in general the times when power is most useful is when conducting interval or hill training intervals, all of which I'm most likely to be doing inside, on a turbo- as I currently do. Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense to invest in a high spec turbo trainer with power such as the Tacx Bushido ?
> http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=82998


 
That depends on a number of things.

Some of these turbos that provide power measurement (not really measurement, it is inference based on speed) have poor accuracy, so if you need accurate numbers, they are of little to no use. More importantly though, training with power requires repeatability, if the turbo trainer does not have a good, repeatable power curve (spd vs power plot) then the power data is as good as junk, you will also need to be attentive in how you set up each time to ensure repeatability. I would say, based on reading around a bit, in this case you may be better off with a Kurt Kinetic (it has a repeatable power curve and reasonable accuracy according to many comparisons I have seen), with a Garmin and GSC-10 sensor plus an ANT+ usb stick.

TBH, I would either go with power, or not go with power. Not with a power sometimes option. This is not to say you would train to power all the time, you can of course ignore the reading during a ride, but you ought to be collecting data all the time, in order to quantify workload etc IMO.


----------



## VamP (28 May 2013)

I am not sure that even the more expensive KK trainer's power curve is that well calibrated, but let's say that it's repeatably accurate. Good enough, but you're spending nearly £400 on an option that gives you a fraction of the capability of a power meter. 

If you're unconviced, maybe hire a powertap for a month or two, try it out and see how you get on?

As Rob3rt says, it's the collection of all the data that really adds to the value.


----------



## Rob3rt (28 May 2013)

An alternative question/suggestion. Have you thought about hiring a coach? For that money, you should be able to get a pretty comprehensive coaching service for ~1 year.


----------



## VamP (28 May 2013)

Lot of some coaches even include a PT wheel loan as part of the package


----------



## Ningishzidda (28 May 2013)

Look at any turbo with power output, making sure it has REPEATABILITY, not necessarily accuracy.

You could, like some others, measure yourself, bike and road to the n th degree, to get a prediction tool.

As long as the apparatus has repeatability and you get a reasonable measure of your W for kmh by doing a simple hill test, you can use the apparatus as a comparator to compare this week's result with last.

With any laboratory experiment, there will be factors which cause it to be different from reality. Try to make these factors constants.

For example if rolling down a hill results in a figure of 200 W for 22 mph, tune the Bushido using its gradient adjustment so it is absorbing 200 W when its doing 22 mph.
Then you can do CP20s every week on the same set point to see any improvement.


----------



## jdtate101 (28 May 2013)

I own both a P2M (Mk2 varient) and a powertap, and of the two I'd recommend the P2M any day. My powertap has given me nothing but trouble and I wish I'd never bought it. Some things that have gone wrong:

1) Wheel going out of true constantly (despite being built twice by the best wheel builder in the Midlands)
2) Bearings shot after a nasty rain shower (within warranty so repair FOC)

It seems reasonably stable right now and I'm going to use it in my TT bike. The truing issue only happened under very high torque loads (ie sprinting and attacking on climbs), so it should be ok in a TT bike where the torque load is more even and less "jumpy".

Never had a single issue with the P2M...it's faultless so far.


----------



## Zofo (30 May 2013)

jdtate101 said:


> I own both a P2M (Mk2 varient) and a powertap, and of the two I'd recommend the P2M any day. My powertap has given me nothing but trouble and I wish I'd never bought it. Some things that have gone wrong:
> 
> 1) Wheel going out of true constantly (despite being built twice by the best wheel builder in the Midlands)
> 2) Bearings shot after a nasty rain shower (within warranty so repair FOC)
> ...


 Did you fit P2M yourself? It's not very clear on their website if its compatible with Ultegra system


----------



## Rob3rt (30 May 2013)

Zofo said:


> Did you fit P2M yourself? It's not very clear on their website if its compatible with Ultegra system


 

There are many different versions of the P2M much like with the other crank based PM's, which one are you looking at? At least one is bound to work, if not half a dozen of the various versions. You will need to buy the right bottom bracket of course.


----------



## Zofo (30 May 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> There are many different versions of the P2M much like with the other crank based PM's, which one are you looking at? At least one is bound to work, if not half a dozen of the various versions. You will need to buy the right bottom bracket of course.


 
Rob3rt---I'm totally confused by their website I'm afraid! Don't think I'd have much confidence to mail order and that the right unit would turn up, so think I'll pass on that one.


----------



## Zofo (30 May 2013)

It looks like Power is the right way for me to go as I need to get as much training benefit out of as little time as possible. I reckon that, eventuall,y the pedal based system is the way to go in terms of flexibility--can swop from bike to bike- and functionality--ability to split L/R foot power profile + abilty to monitor correct pedalling technique etc. So reckon I'll hang on for Garmin to bring their Vector system to market , hopefully sometime later this year


----------



## Rob3rt (30 May 2013)

It takes 5 minutes or less to swap a crank based PM.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibycOXD-Mw0


Brave man buying the 1st gen of a power meter! Doubly brave buying such a product from Garmin, you will be a beta tester, but paying >£1000 for the privilege.


----------



## jdtate101 (30 May 2013)

Zofo said:


> Did you fit P2M yourself? It's not very clear on their website if its compatible with Ultegra system


 

The P2M is a crank and I chose the Rotor 3D system as it uses the same 24mm axel as all shimano cranks, therefore you can directly swap the Rotor based P2M into existing shimano BB's.

I'd second what rob3rt said about the vector, by all accounts it has suffered badly from quality control issues and will probably only see the light of day in 2014, even then it's going to be expensive.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (30 May 2013)

Zofo said:


> It looks like Power is the right way for me to go as I need to get as much training benefit out of as little time as possible. I reckon that, eventuall,y the pedal based system is the way to go in terms of flexibility--can swop from bike to bike- and functionality--ability to split L/R foot power profile + abilty to monitor correct pedalling technique etc. So reckon I'll hang on for Garmin to bring their Vector system to market , hopefully sometime later this year


FSA Gossamer is Hollowtech 2 compatible (hollowtech 2 being 24mm Axle with outboard bearings.)


----------



## VamP (30 May 2013)

I agree with everyone else. Crank based is the way forward at the moment. Pedal based systems may never really take off, and their advantages are dubious anyway.

My next PM will be a P2M or SRM depending on fund situation. And that's despite being very happy with the Powertap so far. It also somehow seems that one power meter just isn't enough


----------



## Ningishzidda (31 May 2013)

VamP said:


> I agree with everyone else. Crank based is the way forward at the moment. Pedal based systems may never really take off, and their advantages are dubious anyway.
> 
> My next PM will be a P2M or SRM depending on fund situation. And that's despite being very happy with the Powertap so far. It also somehow seems that *one power meter just isn't enough*


 
This is true. A half decent engine tester will have a torque meter on the flywheel between engine and driveshaft, and an 'S' strainguage on the dynamometer between brake and frame.


----------



## Zofo (15 Jun 2013)

jdtate101 said:


> The P2M is a crank and I chose the Rotor 3D system as it uses the same 24mm axel as all shimano cranks, therefore you can directly swap the Rotor based P2M into existing shimano BB's.


 
I've got a Dura-Ace press fit BB, do you think this would be easy enough to fit myself?


----------



## jdtate101 (15 Jun 2013)

Zofo said:


> I've got a Dura-Ace press fit BB, do you think this would be easy enough to fit myself?


 

As long as the BB takes a 24mm axel then it should be straight forward.


----------



## S1mon (15 Jun 2013)

I use my quarq and after a lot of trying to work out what all these numbers mean !! I'm pleased to say training with one really seems to work in 3 months I have increased my FTP by approximate 10%


----------



## Zofo (21 Sep 2013)

looks like the Garmin Vector system is the way to go now, especially if you have the 500/510 already:-
http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/08/hands-on-garmin-vector.html


----------



## amaferanga (21 Sep 2013)

Zofo said:


> looks like the Garmin Vector system is the way to go now, especially if you have the 500/510 already:-
> http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/08/hands-on-garmin-vector.html



I don't understand. Why is it THE way to go and why only if you have an Edge 500 or 510 and not an 800 or 810? Crank-based options from Power2max and Quarq are cheaper and proven, while the SRM is still the gold standard. 

Why are the Garmin pro team still using SRM's instead of the Vector?


----------



## Andrew_P (21 Sep 2013)

One of the reasons I am interested in the Vector is the left right split, I badly fractured my leg when I was sixteen and in plaster for 9 months and lost 10 years of cycling & football muscle from my dominant leg, Zero physio for me back then I then just got myself a driving licence and never really exercised at a level to get my muscle back. 

Fast forward 30 odd years and back on the bike in the last 4 years and I reckon my split is 60-70% right leg, only just starting to really notice it now. Now it seems like a really hard habit to break have to really concentrate on keeping the left leg working.as hard.

The price they all seem pretty similar and the side by side testing I have read gives the Vector\Quarq +/- 2%, must admit Garmin treating first adopters as paying beta testers puts me off a bit, plus not really sure if I would benefit from using one, no intention of racing.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (22 Sep 2013)

amaferanga said:


> I don't understand. Why is it THE way to go and why only if you have an Edge 500 or 510 and not an 800 or 810? Crank-based options from Power2max and Quarq are cheaper and proven, while the SRM is still the gold standard.
> 
> Why are the Garmin pro team still using SRM's instead of the Vector?



The Garmin team are using SRM because Garmin have not produced them in sufficient volumes to supply the teams, some of the riders are using next generation development vectors but not all of them.
Going by the same statement you could ask the same question of SRAM red 22 as opqs and other SRAM teams are not using it yet, but we know this not to be the situation, its supply and spares which are the issue.

I have a SRM and Vectors and the vectors excite me a hell of a lot more, they are lighter, easier swap between bikes and more interesting from a technical standpoint.. The data sources these pedals are proving is only the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more to come. Where as the SRM does not have more functionality to come and can not match what is possible with the Vectors


----------



## Rob3rt (22 Sep 2013)

I can probably swap a crank based PM between bikes faster than most can swap the pedals between bikes. It is hardly a selling factor IMO. I did think they might be good for those who ride road and track, but some of the comments from users and reviewers relating to this were not that great.

All the extra features the Vector offers are IMO, fluff on the most part. A power meter needs to be accurate and precise, without being a boat anchor, that's about it. All I want to know is, how hard am I stomping and could I stomp any harder. All this L/R balance stuff etc is pretty much worthless.

Just my opinion of course!


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (22 Sep 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> The Garmin team are using SRM because Garmin have not produced them in sufficient volumes to supply the teams, some of the riders are using next generation development vectors but not all of them.
> Going by the same statement you could ask the same question of SRAM red 22 as opqs and other SRAM teams are not using it yet, but we know this not to be the situation, its supply and spares which are the issue.
> 
> I have a SRM and Vectors and the vectors excite me a hell of a lot more, they are lighter, easier swap between bikes and more interesting from a technical standpoint.. The data sources these pedals are proving is only the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more to come. Where as the SRM does not have more functionality to come and can not match what is possible with the Vectors


We discussed the Vectors a while back if you recall. I think you had tried them before their initial release and they were kind of buggy. 

What's your view now? They do seem to review quite well but i can't help thinking Garmin could have taken the market in the palm of their hand had they kept the price lower. As it stands they are not the cheapest option by some distance. 

Have you tried, or do you own, Stages crank based PM? Seems not bad for the £££ but obviously rather than having the left and right readings of the Vectors, Stages merely takes on leg and doubles the value. Still, price wise, it is a tempting option. 

Looking to introduce power into my life and i have too many bikes to even consider separate units for each. The best solution would be for a interchangeable unit that could be swapped over when needed. The sizeable hitch in there is that between two of my mostly used bikes the drivetrains couldn't be more different. Campag and Shimano, putting the Stages PM into immediate disadvantage. 

Appreciate any thoughts.

FWIW i too have been leaning towards the Vectors but wasn't too keen on picking up the first gen units.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (22 Sep 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> We discussed the Vectors a while back if you recall. I think you had tried them before their initial release and they were kind of buggy.
> 
> What's your view now? They do seem to review quite well but i can't help thinking Garmin could have taken the market in the palm of their hand had they kept the price lower. As it stands they are not the cheapest option by some distance.
> 
> ...



I own a set of production Vectors now and they are very solid bits of kit IMHO.. the data obtained seems to be reliable and consistent from what I am seeing. It was right for Garmin to hold them back until they were ready, you only have to see the look power pedals which were rushed to market to see this .
I have not used stages power meters but I understand that they do not work on Carbon cranks, I think they offer reasonable vfm but have a limited feature set.


----------



## VamP (22 Sep 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> We discussed the Vectors a while back if you recall. I think you had tried them before their initial release and they were kind of buggy.
> 
> What's your view now? They do seem to review quite well but i can't help thinking Garmin could have taken the market in the palm of their hand had they kept the price lower. As it stands they are not the cheapest option by some distance.
> 
> ...


 
Both road bikes? Maybe Powertap is a good solution for you. Depends on whether you have race specific wheelsets though. My 10 speed Powertap (Campag cassette) happily rubs along with both Campag and Shimano drivetrains. But if your bottom brackets are both for 24 mm axle, you might get P2M to work with both too.

I don't think Stages is on sale in the UK yet. In any case I'd rather get either P2M or Powertap.


----------



## Rob3rt (22 Sep 2013)

VamP said:


> Both road bikes? Maybe Powertap is a good solution for you. Depends on whether you have race specific wheelsets though. My 10 speed Powertap (Campag cassette) happily rubs along with both Campag and Shimano drivetrains. But if your bottom brackets are both for 24 mm axle, you might get P2M to work with both too.
> 
> *I don't think Stages is on sale in the UK yet.* In any case I'd rather get either P2M or Powertap.



Cyclepowermeters have them in hand.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (22 Sep 2013)

VamP said:


> I don't think Stages is on sale in the UK yet.



Stages have been officially available in the UK since early September
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/stages-cycling-power-meters-come-to-the-uk-38203/


----------



## ziggys101 (22 Sep 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Have you tried, or do you own, Stages crank based PM? Seems not bad for the £££ but obviously rather than having the left and right readings of the Vectors, Stages merely takes on leg and doubles the value. Still, price wise, it is a tempting option..



I've had a stages for a couple of months, its my first experience of using power so cant comment on how it compares with other powermeters but its been bomb proof so far I've had absolutely no problems. I bought it directly from the US so cost me £500. With respect to the L/R thing I must be lucky as I recently had a threshold test done on a watt bike when starting with a coach and my split was 50/50 over the entire test.


----------



## VamP (22 Sep 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Cyclepowermeters have them in hand.


 


Mr Haematocrit said:


> Stages have been officially available in the UK since early September
> http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/stages-cycling-power-meters-come-to-the-uk-38203/


 
Happily corrected.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (23 Sep 2013)

ziggys101 said:


> I've had a stages for a couple of months, its my first experience of using power so cant comment on how it compares with other powermeters but its been bomb proof so far I've had absolutely no problems. I bought it directly from the US so cost me £500. With respect to the L/R thing I must be lucky as I recently had a threshold test done on a watt bike when starting with a coach and my split was 50/50 over the entire test.


What crank option did you go for? I do find it odd that the states get the units much cheaper than over here.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (23 Sep 2013)

For someone looking for simple power, with Ultegra (or similar) on 2 bikes, Stages would be ideal. £600 for one shared unit or £1200 for two bikes kitted out. Cheaper than Vector for 2 Stages units. I have Dura ace, FSA and Campag Chorus carbon so not really an option for me. 

Ideally i would have an SRM on every bike and on the new TT bike that should be mine for next season. That would result in some bad credit and divorce so realistically something like vector as one unit for a few choice bikes seems the best way to go. 

@VamP - yeh race wheels could have powertap fitted but then i am very keen on power for training too.


----------



## ziggys101 (23 Sep 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> What crank option did you go for? I do find it odd that the states get the units much cheaper than over here.


Ultegra, $799


----------



## amaferanga (23 Sep 2013)

ziggys101 said:


> I've had a stages for a couple of months, its my first experience of using power so cant comment on how it compares with other powermeters but its been bomb proof so far I've had absolutely no problems. I bought it directly from the US so cost me £500. With respect to the L/R thing I must be lucky as I recently had a threshold test done on a watt bike when starting with a coach and my split was 50/50 over the entire test.



That your L/R balance was 50/50 on a Watt bike for that particular test doesn't mean you'll always have 50/50 though. And the bad news is that with the Stages you'll never know how much error there is due to an imbalance. Could be insignificant (to you) or it could be very significant. Remember that even a fairly small 3% imbalance results in a 6% error in power which is huge compared to proper power meters like PowerTap, Power2max, Quarq and SRM.

If you can afford a Stages then you can afford a proper power meter such as powertap or power2max.


----------



## VamP (23 Sep 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> For someone looking for simple power, with Ultegra (or similar) on 2 bikes, Stages would be ideal. £600 for one shared unit or £1200 for two bikes kitted out. Cheaper than Vector for 2 Stages units. I have Dura ace, FSA and Campag Chorus carbon so not really an option for me.
> 
> Ideally i would have an SRM on every bike and on the new TT bike that should be mine for next season. That would result in some bad credit and divorce so realistically something like vector as one unit for a few choice bikes seems the best way to go.
> 
> @VamP - yeh race wheels could have powertap fitted but then i am very keen on power for training too.


 
If anything, you want PM for training more than racing. My PM is the G3 on a A23 32H rim, which is a really solid training set up. I can race road with it, with a small performance trade off to my race wheels. I am going to get wheel covers to convert it to a disc wheel for TTs for next season. I can also ride CX with it (in the less extreme weather races), as it will happily accept CX tyres.

It can be useful to have power while racing but TBH, mostly for post race analysis. For TTs there is clear pacing advantage to having PMs. 

From the money POV, a G3 wheel with carbon wheel covers will cost you about the same as a good tubular carbon disc wheel, so if you're serious about TTs that is a totally viable alternative.


----------



## ziggys101 (23 Sep 2013)

amaferanga said:


> That your L/R balance was 50/50 on a Watt bike for that particular test doesn't mean you'll always have 50/50 though. And the bad news is that with the Stages you'll never know how much error there is due to an imbalance. Could be insignificant (to you) or it could be very significant. Remember that even a fairly small 3% imbalance results in a 6% error in power which is huge compared to proper power meters like PowerTap, Power2max, Quarq and SRM.
> 
> If you can afford a Stages then you can afford a proper power meter such as powertap or power2max.



But why does it matter if its 6% or even 12% out if its the only powermeter I use, its about consistency if I make a 10% improvement its still a 10% improvement and it have proved to be very consistent (see DCRainmaker)


----------



## VamP (23 Sep 2013)

ziggys101 said:


> But why does it matter if its 6% or even 12% out if its the only powermeter I use, its about consistency if I make a 10% improvement its still a 10% improvement and it have proved to be very consistent (see DCRainmaker)


 
There's much debate on the accuracy versus precision aspect of PM's. This thread is a good example. Dr Chung makes some very good points.


----------



## amaferanga (24 Sep 2013)

ziggys101 said:


> But why does it matter if its 6% or even 12% out if its the only powermeter I use, its about consistency if I make a 10% improvement its still a 10% improvement and it have proved to be very consistent (see DCRainmaker)



The problem with Stages is that since it only measures left leg power and L/R balance varies for most people then you can't get that consistency. And why waste money on something that won't give reliable data when you can have a power meter that gives reliable (precise AND accurate) data for around the same money?

If Stages was a few hundred quid I'd agree that it's worth a punt as a toy, but it's serious money at over £600. Anyone who buys the more expensive crank options is just crazy.


----------



## Zofo (28 Sep 2013)

Here's another excellent review for Vector:-
http://road.cc/content/review/94115-garmin-vector-power-meter-pedals

There is so much more functionality with this when paired with a Garmin head unit. Future firmware updates will give data on Pedal Smoothness, which is a measure of how even your pedalling stoke is over one revolution and Torque Effectiveness which is a measure of positive and negative power-ie how much your are pushing down /pulling up.
Bit of a no-Brainer really, I'm off to buy them!


----------



## amaferanga (28 Sep 2013)

That sounds impressive I guess, but is there any evidence that this information is of any use? No point in wasting time getting a smooth pedal stroke if that doesn't improve your performance. Remember that Garmin want the Vector to stand out so of course they're going to talk up these metrics, but I'd want to see some independent experts say something about their usefulness. So I certainly wouldn't agree that it's a no brainer.


----------



## Zofo (1 Oct 2013)

Looks like there's a sizeable back order for these already-hardly surprising considering the reviews. Latest estimates are for deliveries back end of the month, I've ordered mine from here:-
http://www.cyclepowermeters.com/gar...m-1023-p.asp?gclid=CKyG3byd7rkCFSTJtAodBw8A8Q


----------



## amaferanga (1 Oct 2013)

Great, now what about these new metrics that you were talking about? Are they just gimmicks or will they make me a better cyclist?

I think I'll stick with my Power2max that cost half as much as the Vector.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (1 Oct 2013)

amaferanga said:


> That sounds impressive I guess, but is there any evidence that this information is of any use? No point in wasting time getting a smooth pedal stroke if that doesn't improve your performance.



Well the watt bike which is endorsed by British Cycling and used by them and Team Sky measures the smoothness of the pedal stroke.
http://wattbike.com/uk/blog/post/whats_in_a_pedal_revolution_wattbike_has_the_answer

Team sky also work extensively on pedaling smoothness and believe this is related to efficienct technique and state that climbing out of the saddle is not desirable because ..You have to put a lot of power down the front end of the pedal stroke which has a negative effect on the smoothness and balance of your pedal technique. Having a good pedal technique means you can produce more power for the same physiological effort (HR).
http://wattbike.com/au/news/post/tr...ciple_of_specificity_and_climbing_efficiently

The Garmin vectors produce a lot of the same data sources as the British cycling endorsed watt bike


----------



## Zofo (1 Oct 2013)

amaferanga said:


> Great, now what about these new metrics that you were talking about? Are they just gimmicks or will they make me a better cyclist?


 
Its obvious just watching how the pros pedal that they are applying power in a very smooth and even distribution throughout the pedal stroke. If the Vectors are going to be able to show a real time read out whilst I'm on the turbo then I would start to "feel" the correct action.


----------



## VamP (1 Oct 2013)

Zofo said:


> Its obvious just watching how the pros pedal that they are applying power in a very smooth and even distribution throughout the pedal stroke. If the Vectors are going to be able to show a real time read out whilst I'm on the turbo then I would start to "feel" the correct action.



It might be obvious to you, but virtually all authorities on cycling performance agree it matters not one iota how you deliver your power, so long as you deliver it.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (1 Oct 2013)

After back to back testing with my SRM and Vectors, I find that I am getting repeatable and comparable results.
As such I have sold my SRM and now have an additional set of Vectors...





The reasoning for this is simple, they produce consistent results which are comparable to my SRM figures, they are lighter, they do not need to be returned to the manufacturer when the battery needs replacing, they are easier to swap between bikes and will continue to evolve through software updates.
I will likely replace all my power meters in time with the Vectors, Im very happy and impressed with them.
I am even going try to modify a pair for the MTB


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (1 Oct 2013)

amaferanga said:


> Great, now what about these new metrics that you were talking about? Are they just gimmicks or will they make me a better cyclist?
> 
> I think I'll stick with my Power2max that cost half as much as the Vector.





Mr Haematocrit said:


> Well the watt bike which is endorsed by British Cycling and used by them and Team Sky measures the smoothness of the pedal stroke.
> http://wattbike.com/uk/blog/post/whats_in_a_pedal_revolution_wattbike_has_the_answer
> 
> Team sky also work extensively on pedaling smoothness and believe this is related to efficienct technique and state that climbing out of the saddle is not desirable because ..You have to put a lot of power down the front end of the pedal stroke which has a negative effect on the smoothness and balance of your pedal technique. Having a good pedal technique means you can produce more power for the same physiological effort (HR).
> ...



I done a fair bit of work over the winter in this area - pedalling efficiency. Single leg efforts to working on the stages of the pedal stroke. Even in its most simple form, the push and pull can improve technique, performance and delay fatigue by utilising different muscle groups. A lot of this was done from feel and at times was hugely frustrating. Having individual pedal/power data during and post ride, would have been so helpful. 

If the Vectors perform as claimed, then they will open up new levels of training for any willing cyclist. No one has to use them and others may prefer crank based or hub based power, some no power at all. Those who see the Vectors as a step up from the conventional PM may find that they wonder how they did without.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (1 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> It might be obvious to you, but virtually all authorities on cycling performance agree it matters not one iota how you deliver your power, so long as you deliver it.


Are you sure VamP? Delivering power is one thing but delivering it consistently for a duration is another. Pedalling efficiency is not a myth, it is in the interest of every competitive cyclist to find out how to pedal most efficiently. Just as with something like pre ride nutrition - you don't have to eat wisely before a ride or race but you could improve performance by doing so.


----------



## Zofo (1 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> virtually all authorities on cycling performance agree it matters not one iota how you deliver your power, so long as you deliver it.


 
Do they?...some examples please


----------



## VamP (1 Oct 2013)

Just because it might seem like it's obvious doesn't mean it is. I'll dig some literature up when I'm not on the iPhone but TBH this comes up a lot on the various power forums so if you really wanted to explore it you could have done. 

Smoothness of pedal stroke and left right balance are just ideologies with no evidence backing them up. Regardless of what watt bike and now Garmin might peddle in their sales literature.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (1 Oct 2013)

good article on power over at slowtwitch

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Power_Meter_101_3643.html
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Power_Meter_201_3672.html
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Power_Meter_301_3696.html

thought it was interesting that wheel based power meters produce the most accurate data of all the systems when used with a ovalised chain ring


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Zofo said:


> Do they?...some examples please



Surely the onus is on you to provide evidence that pedalling efficiency _does_ affect power delivery?


----------



## Andrew_P (2 Oct 2013)

As a fence sitter and non power metre user the Garmins look quite good. 

Often price is quoted but apart from the Stages all the others seem to come in at a max of £300-400 saving but come with some disadvantages to the Vector, or am I completely wrong? Powertap to get anywhere near my current rear wheel would come in at 700-900 pounds and then I have read issues with spokes and buckles. Power2max looks like it is around 1100 euros and the first generation had a few issues with changes in temp. Quark are around 1200 to 1500, then SRM £1400+ So if the Vectors are as accurate as the others and if they are fit and forget then why the downer on them? Amazingly the Vector forum seems to be well serviced by a Vector Garmin tech support and is just a tad over 2 pages. Seem to me with all the delays, lack of choice on pedals they knew they had to nail it on day one with just one choice of pedal, and not do their normal beta release?


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (2 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Surely the onus is on you to provide evidence that pedalling efficiency _does_ affect power delivery?



Team Sky believe pedalling efficiency _does_ affect power delivery does and as previously mentioned state......... "You have to put a lot of power down the front end of the pedal stroke which has a negative effect on the smoothness and balance of your pedal technique. Having a good pedal technique means you can produce more power for the same physiological effort (HR)."

British Cycling also offer information and training on efficient pedalling and stating ......... "Souplesse is a word often used for silky smooth pedalling, but how do you develop that efficient motion. To make sure you are getting the most from your pedalling strokes, come into the Insight Zone, where British Cycling coaches will tell you how."
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/insightzone/techniques

I would hope and assume that British Cycling and team Sky with their marginal gain ideology has done research into this and although its not evidence, these are statements which come from credible source's

I'm also yet to see a quote from a credible source or successful team stating that pedalling efficiency _does_ not affect power delivery. Can you show any?


----------



## Rob3rt (2 Oct 2013)

I think you need to be careful here, does pedalling efficiency in the intuitive sense correlate to what Garmin claim to be able to measure?

It is like L/R balance..... I am yet to see anyone put this measurement to any real use.

If people like the Garmin Vector and it works for them, great. Sure it has some advantages and some disadvantages vs other systems, like they all do. You weigh up the specs and reviews and buy what you like and what works for you.

My opinion is very simple in that as a performance driven cyclist, the Vector does not offer anything that makes *me* desire it, or see it as an upgrade over my Quarq, that is pretty much where it ends for *me*.


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> Team Sky believe pedalling efficiency _does_ affect power delivery does and as previously mentioned state......... "You have to put a lot of power down the front end of the pedal stroke which has a negative effect on the smoothness and balance of your pedal technique. Having a good pedal technique means you can produce more power for the same physiological effort (HR)."
> 
> British Cycling also offer information and training on efficient pedalling and stating ......... "Souplesse is a word often used for silky smooth pedalling, but how do you develop that efficient motion. To make sure you are getting the most from your pedalling strokes, come into the Insight Zone, where British Cycling coaches will tell you how."
> http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/insightzone/techniques
> ...



Quoting people who happen to hold the same opinion as you is not proof that pedalling efficiency has any material impact on power output though, is it? Furthermore, the absense of evidence that it _does not _improve power delivery is not proof that it _does_ improve it.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (2 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Quoting people who happen to hold the same opinion as you is not proof that pedalling efficiency has any material impact on power output though, is it? Furthermore, the absense of evidence that it _does not _improve power delivery is not proof that it _does_ improve it.



I did state,* 'although its not evidence*' in my response. 
I was pointing out/suggesting that when experts in a field with far greater resources and knowledge than myself believe that cycling efficiency has enough virtue to work on improving it I take interest.
There as been considerable resources, placed into cycling efficiency and if improving it offered no value, I would assume that the data would be available to say this.... I'm yet to see such data.

I have presented information which explains why I feel improving pedalling technique may have value, and although not scientific evidence. I feel it presents a more reasoned view than simply standing in the corner shouting 'no it does not' which seems to be what is being presented by the pedalling efficiency myth camp at this time.
Attempting to discredit one persons view without presenting any information does not increase the weight of the alternative view, so nothing is gained or learned.


----------



## VamP (2 Oct 2013)

@Zofo and @Pedrosanchezo 

Sorry, work got in the way 

Here is a superficial article in case it's just a passing interest.

And here is a long winded internet fight between Dr A Coggan and the inventor of Power Cranks, pertinently paused at the point where Dr Coggan highlights the state of science on pedalling efficiency. Spend as long as you like on this one, but it does go on.


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> I did state,* 'although its not evidence*' in my response.
> I was pointing out/suggesting that when experts in a field with far greater resources and knowledge than myself believe that cycling efficiency has enough virtue to work on improving it I take interest.
> There as been considerable resources, placed into cycling efficiency and if improving it offered no value, I would assume that the data would be available to say this.... I'm yet to see such data.
> 
> ...



Stating (quite correctly) that there is an absense of evidence to support pedalling efficiency and power gains is not the same as discrediting it, because such anecdotal statements have no scientific credibility in the first place. However, there are studies which show that pedalling on flats does not produce any more power than pedalling clipped-in - which kind of destroys the 'upstroke' argument. Like I say, I don't think there's anything out there which concludes that pedalling technique actually helps you produce more power or go faster.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (2 Oct 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> I think you need to be careful here, does pedalling efficiency in the intuitive sense correlate to what Garmin claim to be able to measure?
> 
> It is like L/R balance..... I am yet to see anyone put this measurement to any real use..



Good question.. I have emailed British Cycling to see if they have a view on the L/R balance they are willing to share.


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> Good question.. I have emailed British Cycling to see if they have a view on the L/R balance they are willing to share.



They will probably tell you that most people have a L/R imbalance - but that it doesn't matter anyway, because what actually matters is the power produced, and for how long.


----------



## VamP (2 Oct 2013)

*This is anecdotal but interesting. Post borrowed from another forum*.

Originally Posted by *Alex Simmons/RST* 


Here's some N=1 longitudinal data. It represents my personal best 5-minute mean maximal power to weight ratio for each year from 2006 to 2011.







In early 2007 I had two legs. In May 2007 I had a trans tibial amputation.

Since then I've pedaled with a prosthetic and can do nothing other than push down. My pedaling technique with a prosthetic means pull up, pull over, scrape mud etc is simply impossible. 

So how come my W/kg is better with 1.5 legs? 
Maybe pushing down is more efficient?

Note that in terms of race performance comparisons (masters racing):

In 2007, I (and my team) set a State record in wining the team pursuit championships and I was on podium at national points race and 4th place at States.

In 2011, I (and my team) set a State record in winning the team pursuit championships and I bombed the points race at nationals (going for a lap mind you with two world champs in the field) and was 4th at States (with two world champs in the field).

Seems to me that something as drastic to one's pedaling "technique" as removing an entire lower leg hasn't actually had much impact on ability to generate useful power.


----------



## amaferanga (2 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Are you sure VamP? Delivering power is one thing but delivering it consistently for a duration is another. Pedalling efficiency is not a myth, it is in the interest of every competitive cyclist to find out how to pedal most efficiently. Just as with something like pre ride nutrition - you don't have to eat wisely before a ride or race but you could improve performance by doing so.



That pedalling efficiency (whatever that is and whether the Garmin Vector claims to provide some measure of it or not) will make you a better cyclist (i.e. be able to produce more Watts for longer) is the myth.

So I don't agree at all that it's in the interests of every competitive cyclist to find out how to pedal more efficiently. Just like we all have a preferred cadence, we also have a preferred cycling style and provided there's nothing exceptional about it (e.g. knees out like a mountain biker or seat too high/low/forward/back) then I don't think there's any actual evidence to show that there's much to gain from trying to be really smooth. Lot's of anecdotes and assumptions that smooth must equal better, but no real evidence.


----------



## amaferanga (2 Oct 2013)

Andrew_P said:


> Power2max looks like it is around 1100 euros and the first generation had a few issues with changes in temp.



You can't buy a first generation one now (and even if you bought a used one you could send it off to get the update). I bought mine in September 2012 and it had the temperature compensation stuff so this is simply not an issue with P2M any more. Also, you could get a SRAM S900 version for about £750 and then source a crank for about £50 so that's more like £550 saving on Vector.

I'm beginning to bore myself here banging on about the Vector, but I'm just not getting why folk are so excited about it. If it was £600 then I'd agree, but it's up there with the more expensive power meters. I'm sure it is or will be after the bugs get ironed out a good power meter, but it's neither better value, more convenient (6mins to swap over accordning to dcrainmaker and requiring a torque wrench and a special tool - my P2M takes <2min and I only need an 8mm hex bit) nor better featured than other power meters that are available. If you like it then buy it, but its just another power meter.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (2 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> @Zofo and @Pedrosanchezo
> 
> Sorry, work got in the way
> 
> ...


I can't see this being resolved as it appears to be opinion based. A simple google will bring up many articles on pedalling efficiency. There are many opinions but most point toward pedalling efficiency improving performance over a long enough time.

This from your first link:

_"If research shows that smooth pedaling is overrated, why do most pro cyclists have a silky stroke? Remember that the studies usually deal with short-duration power output where pushing down as hard as possible, with the resulting ragged pedaling action, is more effective. However, this masher style is fatiguing over several hours. As a result, good riders automatically smooth their pedaling to increase comfort and efficiency over the long haul. Elite riders can do both -- produce maximum power for short periods as well as pedal elegantly for hours".

Possibly a combination of both would be most effective. 

It might not be for everyone and there may be some who are actually faster and more efficient mashing, i though am not one of them. I have tried both and have seen significant improvements over longer rides. That's all the evidence i need but that doesn't mean it will suit everyone. Trial and error is far better than the opinion of others. 

I stand by pedal efficiency being key to EVERY rider. I don't presume though that efficiency for every rider will be achieved with smooth circular pedalling. I do think it possible though that, with post ride analysis, one could get closer to finding out their most efficient pedalling style. The Vectors would be one such way as to look closer at this - if that's your thing. _


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> I can't see this being resolved as it appears to be opinion based.



Evidence is all that matters - and there isn't any.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (2 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Evidence is all that matters - and there isn't any.



Try applying that theory to everything you do in life and see how you get on.

Opinion is all that matters as it's all you have.


----------



## VamP (2 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> I can't see this being resolved as it appears to be opinion based. A simple google will bring up many articles on pedalling efficiency. There are many opinions but most point toward pedalling efficiency improving performance over a long enough time.
> 
> This from your first link:
> 
> ...




I can read you know... you might have missed the bit later on where he makes references to specific studies showing that there is no magic trick to learning to pedal. 

Look I don't care either way, get Vectors if that is going to make you happy. I have provided you with a list of published scientific papers on the matter, go to the first principles, educate yourself, and if you still think spending hours perfecting your pedalling style will make any difference, then knock yourself out 

I will be investing my time differently.


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Try applying that theory to everything you do in life and see how you get on.
> 
> Opinion is all that matters as it's all you have.



You mean it's all _*you*_ have. What _*I*_ have is a complete absence of proof, or evidence..


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (2 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> I can read you know... you might have missed the bit later on where he makes references to specific studies showing that there is no magic trick to learning to pedal.
> 
> Look I don't care either way, get Vectors if that is going to make you happy. I have provided you with a list of published scientific papers on the matter, go to the first principles, educate yourself, and if you still think spending hours perfecting your pedalling style will make any difference, then knock yourself out
> 
> I will be investing my time differently.


I've never said any different. I am fairly sure you have your best interests looked after. Those on here who think Vectors are in their best interests, for whatever reasons, should be able to do so too. Those who have praised them have had others dispute their worth. It is all down to opinion. I have no doubt you have some kit that others would think of little or no use to them. Might be of extreme importance to you though. 

Vectors would make me happy. SRM on every bike would make me happy too.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (2 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> You mean it's all _*you*_ have. What _*I*_ have is a complete absence of proof, or evidence..


Nop i mean it's all anybody has. Perception is the key.


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Nop i mean it's all anybody has. Perception is the key.



No, sorry. I don't mean to labour this, but evidence is key. Perception is changed through a convincing argument. And that usually requires evidence and/or proof.


----------



## VamP (2 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> I've never said any different. I am fairly sure you have your best interests looked after. Those on here who think Vectors are in their best interests, for whatever reasons, should be able to do so too. Those who have praised them have had others dispute their worth. It is all down to opinion. I have no doubt you have some kit that others would think of little or no use to them. Might be of extreme importance to you though.
> 
> Vectors would make me happy. SRM on every bike would make me happy too.




You appear to be just trolling, as you have put forth nothing but hyperbole, so I shall withdraw from this.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (2 Oct 2013)

Jeez, to have an opinion is trolling if not backed by evidence. What evidence would one suggest anyway? Google? Other peoples experience and/or research? Okay............

http://d3multisport.com/cycling/pedaling-efficiency-vectors-and-motion/

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/cyc...chnique-make-you-a-more-efficient-rider-42241

http://www.topbike.com.au/pdfs/colson-bicyc-austjuly_aug2002.pdf



Or here is one which is on a forum and based mostly of opinion and experience. Lots of for and against.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=21152


@Dusty Bin, we still have to perceive evidence before we make our argument with this evidence. How it is then perceived depends on the next individual and so on and so forth. ALL evidence can be disputed. 

I agree though. This is going nowhere, i merely thought i'd show there is plenty of reading out there on pedalling technique and efficiency. Note that i didn't just link to those that are "pro efficiency".


----------



## amaferanga (2 Oct 2013)

Any real evidence as in peer reviewed journal articles?


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> @Dusty Bin, we still have to perceive evidence before we make our argument with this evidence. How it is then perceived depends on the next individual and so on and so forth. ALL evidence can be disputed.



Sure, we can 'perceive' the evidence (and dispute it) if or when we see it. But all you have there is opinion. Until then, we can safely say there is no evidence to suggest that pedalling style makes one iota of difference to power output, or how fast/how long we can ride.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (2 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Sure, we can 'perceive' the evidence (and dispute it) if or when we see it. But all you have there is opinion. Until then, we can safely say there is no evidence to suggest that pedalling style makes one iota of difference to power output, or how fast/how long we can ride.


Sure there is no evidence in the form you require. It might just be luck that the majority of the pro peloton have such great pedalling technique. It couldn't have been trained into them by those who know better than you or i. I actually concede it could be a simple matter of the miles put in by each rider. 

For the record, i agree there is no evidence that states 100% that pedalling one way is more efficient than another.


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Sure there is no evidence in the form you require. It might just be luck that the majority of the pro peloton have such great pedalling technique. It couldn't have been trained into them by those who know better than you or i. I actually concede it could be a simple matter of the miles put in by each rider.



What is this 'great pedalling technique in the pro peloton' of which you speak? Can you describe it, or provide any links?


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (2 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> What is this 'great pedalling technique in the pro peloton' of which you speak? Can you describe it, or provide any links?


"Or provide any links"? 

We could do this all day. There has been 100's of articles from coaches, pro's and sport scientists regarding pedalling technique and/or efficiency in cycling. Probably just as many disputing the claims. Thing is we don't need concrete evidence to have an opinion. I made mine based on my experience and i've no doubt that others can too. 

May we agree to disagree?


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

As far as I can tell, 'the pros' pedal in exactly the same way as everyone else does.


----------



## Zofo (2 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Surely the onus is on you to provide evidence that pedalling efficiency _does_ affect power delivery?


Try reading previous posts on this thread before you butt in-- any way you need to get out more , try on your bike


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (2 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> As far as I can tell, 'the pros' pedal in exactly the same way as everyone else does.



Just because it is as far as you can tell does not mean that this is the case.
commentators keep describing Contadors pedaling technique during climbs as "dancing on pedals". 
I have never heard the same words used to describe the pedaling technique of Froome, Wiggo, Cav, Sagan which suggests differences in the way they pedal has been observed.


----------



## Zofo (2 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> As far as I can tell, 'the pros' pedal in exactly the same way as everyone else does.


 Yeah , I but you're just like Wiggo


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> Just because it is as far as you can tell does not mean that this is the case.
> commentators keep describing Contadors pedaling technique during climbs as "dancing on pedals".
> I have never heard the same words used to describe the pedaling technique of Froome, Wiggo, Cav, Sagan which suggests differences in the way they pedal has been observed.



So now you're using Phil Liggett as evidence..?? Come on man, you can do better than that....


----------



## Zofo (2 Oct 2013)

amaferanga said:


> Any real evidence as in peer reviewed journal articles?


 
WTF ? Try using your eyes--ever heard of "souplesse" ?....nah didn't think so


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Zofo said:


> WTF ? Try using your eyes--ever heard of "souplesse" ?....nah didn't think so



or in your case.....'cluelesse'...


----------



## Zofo (2 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> or in your case.....'cluelesse'...


that's your reasoned argument is it? Seems you have a habit of talking crap on here-guess its the microwaves what did it , eh ?


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Look - your only argument for 'pedal technique' seems to be that 'the pros do it' - and yet despite that, you seem completely incapable of actually describing this mythical technique in any meaningful sense. Who's talking crap now? I'll give you a clue - it's not me.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (2 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> So now you're using Phil Liggett as evidence..?? Come on man, you can do better than that....



You stated your opinion, I stated the opinion of other people.
I never presented the opinion as being evidence or attributed it to anyone at all, it was you who interpreted it in that manner...... I just expressed that other people have observed differently to yourself.


----------



## amaferanga (2 Oct 2013)

Zofo said:


> WTF ? Try using your eyes--ever heard of "souplesse" ?....nah didn't think so



Next you'll be saying everyone needs to ride fixed....

Still waiting for someone to post a link to a peer reviewed article that clearly demonstrates that we need to do anything specific to improve endurance cycling performance through improved pedalling technique.


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (2 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> Who's talking crap now? I'll give you a clue - it's not me.



You sure?
You interpreted a comment I made about your opinion in a manner you desired and attributed it to someone I did I not.
You then proceeded to ridicule the person you attributed to expressing this opinion by suggesting I can do better than that person, as if to suggest his opinion or view has little value
This is without noting that at no point did you provide any evidence to support your opinion. By your own standards this makes your statement carry no more weight than what Phil Leggett, myself, or anyone else on his forum think.. its your opinion, its not fact

You responded to my post by talking crap


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> You sure?
> You interpreted a comment I made about your opinion in a manner you desired and attributed it to someone I did I not.
> You then proceeded to ridicule the person you attributed to expressing this opinion by suggesting I can do better than that person, as if to suggest his opinion or view has little value
> This is without noting that at no point did you provide any evidence to support your opinion. By your own standards this makes your statement carry no more weight than what Phil Leggett, myself, or anyone else on his forum think.. its your opinion, its not fact
> ...



Seriously, come on. You offer a throwaway line by a TV commentator (Liggett, Duffield, Sherwen, whoever) as evidence of some 'pro' pedalling technique and you are then suprised when you get ridiculed for it? Yes, I did assume you could do better than that - although I'm now beginning to wonder...


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (2 Oct 2013)

I see your not reading the posts correctly again 
I stated that you attempted to ridicule the person (Phill) you decided to attribute the comment to for holding a view which is different to your own. I made no reference at all about feeling ridiculed myself..... so its only your inability to read my posts without interpreting them to suit your needs which surprises me.
Please continue to wonder, it might help


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Mr Haematocrit said:


> I see your not reading the posts correctly again
> I stated that you attempted to ridicule the person (Phill) you decided to attribute the comment to for holding a view which is different to your own. I made no reference at all about feeling ridiculed myself..... so its only your inability to read my posts without interpreting them to suit your needs which surprises me.
> Please continue to wonder, it might help



Phil gets enough stick - don't worry, I'll buy him a beer next time I see him. To be fair to Phil though, the ridicule was more directed at you, for using a TV commentator's comments as evidence in support of your 'pedal technique' claims. Or, have I misunderstood, and you weren't actually doing that? I'm happy to be corrected if that wasn't the case.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (2 Oct 2013)

FWIW.....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21507064/?i=4&from=pedalling efficiency


----------



## Mr Haematocrit (2 Oct 2013)

I was not presenting evidence of any kind. I was simply stating that other people do not share your view that the pros' pedal in exactly the same way as everyone else does. If someone believes their opinion to be correct then surely the onus is on them to provide evidence supporting this view.

Is there any available power meter data suggesting they all produce power at the same point in the pedal stroke, or pedal in the same way? I'm not aware of any?


----------



## Dusty Bin (2 Oct 2013)

Most people produce peak power in the same points on the pedal stroke - which is a natural and inevitable outcome of having two legs turning a rotating crank situated underneath you. if you look at wattbike graphs, they all show the typical 'peanut' shape lines - but the size of the outline is the only real difference and only indicates that some people pedal harder than others.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> *Most people produce peak power in the same points on the pedal stroke* - *which is a natural and inevitable outcome of having two legs turning a rotating crank situated underneath you*. if you look at wattbike graphs, they all show the typical 'peanut' shape lines - but the size of the outline is the only real difference and *only indicates that some people pedal harder than others*.




Do you have any evidence to back up these statements.


----------



## Dusty Bin (3 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Do you have any evidence to back up these statements.



er, yes - the reference was implicit in my previous post. Here it is again with the relevant bit in bold...



Dusty Bin said:


> Most people produce peak power in the same points on the pedal stroke - which is a natural and inevitable outcome of having two legs turning a rotating crank situated underneath you. *if you look at wattbike graphs*, they all show the typical 'peanut' shape lines - but the size of the outline is the only real difference and only indicates that some people pedal harder than others.


----------



## VamP (3 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Jeez, to have an opinion is trolling if not backed by evidence. What evidence would one suggest anyway? Google? Other peoples experience and/or research? Okay............
> 
> http://d3multisport.com/cycling/pedaling-efficiency-vectors-and-motion/
> 
> ...


 
So not only do you not have any EVIDENCE*, now you concede that you don't actually have an OPINION either.
In the light of that, you might want to reassess this statement



Pedrosanchezo said:


> Pedalling efficiency is not a myth, it is in the interest of every competitive cyclist to find out how to pedal most efficiently.


 
Wading in on a discussion with authoritative statements like this, when you have no evidence or even an opinion, does come pretty close to a text book definition of trolling.

* The stuff you linked to is second-hand rehashing of Coyle's work, who did several studies based around Lance Armstrong's inexplicable performance improvements, and attempted to link them to his pedalling *cadence. Not souplesse, cadence. *I think with hindsight we might re-evaluate how much of Armstrong's improvement came from cadence changes and how much from, ehm, other sources.


----------



## VamP (3 Oct 2013)

Zofo said:


> WTF ? Try using your eyes--ever heard of "souplesse" ?....nah didn't think so


 

Another troll?

You asked for evidence, but prefer to cast aspersions rather than speak to it?

_Souplesse_ is hundred years old notion, it's not a cutting edge concept. Pretty much considered irrelevant these days.


----------



## VamP (3 Oct 2013)

Fasta Asloth said:


> FWIW.....
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21507064/?i=4&from=pedalling efficiency


 

Have you read the whole paper? Because from the abstract it's impossible to understand what they actually tested. And I'm not spending $30 to find out that recreational cyclists with pedalling problems improved their comfort by having their saddle height adjusted. Which is just as likely an interpretation of the abstract as anything else.


----------



## Dusty Bin (3 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> Have you read the whole paper? Because from the abstract it's impossible to understand what they actually tested. And I'm not spending $30 bucks to find out that recreational cyclists with pedalling problems improved their comfort by having their saddle height adjusted. Which is just as likely an interpretation of the abstract as anything else.



As above - although the results look potentially interesting, there's no indication from the abstract (which there usually is, incidentally) as to who was taking part in the study, or what the feedback modifications to pedal technique actually were. As Vamp says, it could be something as simple as raising/lowering a saddle.

A similar study on trained cyclists would be interesting...


----------



## michaelcycle (3 Oct 2013)

Having had a look on Google Scholar this study appears to be pertinent:

http://www.setantacollege.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal_db/Effect of Pedaling Technique on Mechanical.pdf

It seems it doesn't matter all that much and the advice of most relevance is to actively pull on the pedal...

I think that's great. One less thing to obsess over 

ETA: edited for clarity as it seems I cannot read this morning!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Oct 2013)

And there I was losing sleep over it all.


----------



## VamP (3 Oct 2013)

michaelcycle said:


> Having had a look on Google Scholar this study appears to be pertinent:
> 
> http://www.setantacollege.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal_db/Effect of Pedaling Technique on Mechanical.pdf
> 
> ...


 
Pretty much.


----------



## Dusty Bin (3 Oct 2013)

...apart from the 'pulling up' bit - that's highly debatable.


----------



## michaelcycle (3 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> ...apart from the 'pulling up' bit - that's highly debatable.



No doubt. 

I guess that's why most studies add the caveat "further research is needed" and the language is specifically couched to allow room for changing your mind completely...


----------



## VamP (3 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> ...apart from the 'pulling up' bit - that's highly debatable.


 
True, but it's a fluff point, as even those who think they *pull up a bit*, have been shown in studies not to actually do it once they start to approach threshold power and above. Making it an irrelevancy.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (3 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> Have you read the whole paper? Because from the abstract it's impossible to understand what they actually tested. And I'm not spending $30 to find out that recreational cyclists with pedalling problems improved their comfort by having their saddle height adjusted. Which is just as likely an interpretation of the abstract as anything else.



Excellent, so now we have at least moved the topic on from, "stop just giving opinions and give us some peer-reviewed scientific studies" to, ok there may be some peer reviewed studies out there, but hey I aint gonna pay to find out what they conclude, just incase it confirms everything I already suspect, or perhaps contradicts everything I know.... You can of course just email and ask for them to send a copy of the full paper, they may oblige....


----------



## Rob3rt (3 Oct 2013)

Fasta Asloth said:


> Excellent, so now we have at least moved the topic on from, "stop just giving opinions and give us some peer-reviewed scientific studies" to, ok there may be some peer reviewed studies out there, but hey I aint gonna pay to find out what they conclude, just incase it confirms everything I already suspect, or perhaps contradicts everything I know.... *You can of course just email and ask for them to send a copy of the full paper, they may oblige....*



Or you find someone with access to a vast array of academic journals and ask them to email you the pdf...


----------



## Fasta Asloth (3 Oct 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> Or you find someone with access to a vast array of academic journals and ask them to email you the pdf...



that too! Used to have such access, unfortunately not anymore.....


----------



## Rob3rt (3 Oct 2013)

Fasta Asloth said:


> that too! Used to have such access, unfortunately not anymore.....



On that link there are a lot of papers on the subject if you keep clicking next, I don't have time to read them, nor am I that interested, hah.


----------



## VamP (3 Oct 2013)

Fasta Asloth said:


> Excellent, so now we have at least moved the topic on from, "stop just giving opinions and give us some peer-reviewed scientific studies" to, ok there may be some peer reviewed studies out there, but hey I aint gonna pay to find out what they conclude, just incase it confirms everything I already suspect, or perhaps contradicts everything I know.... You can of course just email and ask for them to send a copy of the full paper, they may oblige....


 
I referenced about 20 papers earlier, that by and large conclude that it matters not how you mash, most of which I have actually read. You came up with one that says who knows what, that you have not read.

Let's put a little perspective into this. 

Edited to say: Look there are people in this debate who have done the reading and who have a solid grasp on the consensus (and it is a consensus despite a few dissenting voices) that power delivery is not dependant on pedalling technique, beyond simple biomechanical constraints. This subject is not new to us. The fact that they keep asking for evidence is not because they want you to find it for them, it's because they know that there is not very much evidence out there.

Coming to this subject from nothing, having been blinded by the Garmin sales spin, and then reflexively grabbing whatever Google can find, is not going to convince those of us who have been doing the reading for years.


----------



## Rob3rt (3 Oct 2013)

The reality is, most people probably can't put out a competitive amount of power regardless of how they pedal. Regardless of technique, most of your power will be generated on the down stroke, this is dictated by simple mechanics, so if you can't push down hard enough to be competitive, some marginal gain (assuming there is one, which may not be the case, dodging the debate) from "optimising" some metric using a pair of Garmin Vector pedals will not make you competitive.

As for pulling up, well... it happens. But it is probably only going to happen to any marked degree under certain circumstances and if you consciously do it so unless a study replicates such circumstances the results will be skewed. Eg. put me on a watt bike and do some sort of ramp test, I would hazard a guess that it doesn't happen, however send me up a short steep hill (especially where speed and momentum are low) and your findings would be very different.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (3 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> Pretty much.



Pretty sure one of the points in their discussion, from the experimental conditions as tested, was that pulling up was actually detrimental to overall efficiency (when compared to the other techniques), not the other way around?? 
"By encouraging riders to maximize the evenness of the crank torque distribution, one encourages an active pull during the upstroke, which decreased grossefficiency in our subjects"


----------



## Fasta Asloth (3 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> I referenced about 20 papers earlier, that by and large conclude that it matters not how you mash, most of which I have actually read. You came up with one that says who knows what, that you have not read.
> 
> Let's put a little perspective into this.
> 
> ...



Fair enough Vam, thats why it was a "FWIW" (people can add it to the pile and make of it what they wish) I'm only starting to look into this as was intrigued by the topic in the post. Haven't formed an opinion either way yet as only just starting to look through all the data evidence, both for and against, useful to get a heads up on what people have found out paper-wise...


----------



## VamP (3 Oct 2013)

Fasta Asloth said:


> Pretty sure one of the points in their discussion, from the experimental conditions as tested, was that pulling up was actually detrimental to overall efficiency (when compared to the other techniques), not the other way around??
> "By encouraging riders to maximize the evenness of the crank torque distribution, one encourages an active pull during the upstroke, which decreased grossefficiency in our subjects"


 

My ''pretty much'' was aimed at the 'one less thing to worry about' part.

My edit was not aimed so much at you as the Vector fan-boy trio.

And before someone slates me for being anti-Vector - I am sure it will, eventually, be a good power meter in it's own right. Right now it's untested by time, expensive in comparison to alternatives and trying to sell on gimmickry.


----------



## michaelcycle (3 Oct 2013)

Fasta Asloth said:


> Pretty sure one of the points in their discussion, from the experimental conditions as tested, was that pulling up was actually detrimental to overall efficiency (when compared to the other techniques), not the other way around??
> "By encouraging riders to maximize the evenness of the crank torque distribution, one encourages an active pull during the upstroke, which decreased grossefficiency in our subjects"



Sorry, that was my mistake. It seems by getting subjects to emphasis pulling up it led to a decrease not an increase as you say (I suspect because it is contrary to their adapted style meaning they have to force themselves to do it leading to less efficiency overall.)

However, that does seem to add weight to the suggestion that your preferred style of pedalling may be the way to go although whether if you learned a different style over time and became adapted to it you could be more efficient was not answered.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (3 Oct 2013)

However, that does seem to add weight to the suggestion that your preferred style of pedalling may be the way to go although whether if you learned a different style over time and became adapted to it you could be more efficient was not answered.[/quote]

very true and they noted that in their discussion, and that would be quite a challenging experiment to plan and execute I guess.....


----------



## michaelcycle (3 Oct 2013)

Fasta Asloth said:


> very true and they noted that in their discussion, and that would be quite a challenging experiment to plan and execute I guess.....



Well, first you find a set of twins, raise them in laboratory...

I have to say that in the 6 weeks or so that I have been cycling the learning curve has been steep to say the least. It seems what I have been regularly told or the conventional wisdom may be a little over egged in its worth.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> er, yes - the reference was implicit in my previous post. Here it is again with the relevant bit in bold...


Wattbike are very much pro pedalling efficiency through smoothing out the pedal stroke. The power pattern or "peanut" does not only grow, it also smooths out - as i am sure you can see.


----------



## Rob3rt (3 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Wattbike are very much pro pedalling efficiency through smoothing out the pedal stroke. The power pattern or "peanut" does not only grow, it also smooths out - as i am sure you can see.



But who is to say whether changes in the shape of the peanut actually correlate to improved performance on the road and how they correlate? Wattbike are bound to be pro-peanut!


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> So not only do you not have any EVIDENCE*, now you concede that you don't actually have an OPINION either.
> In the light of that, you might want to reassess this statement
> 
> 
> ...


I do have an opinion. As you do you. Pretty sure i've been over this. 

The statement that you assume i might like to rethink?? Thanks for the offer but i shall stick with it. Pedalling efficiency comes from what is best for any given individual. If that means mashing then so be it. 

The stuff i linked was a simple showcase of 3 or 4 links out of a sea of information on the matter. Disputed as it may be, the fact still remains that there are many top athletes and coaches advocating pedalling technique and efficiency. Just because that is not scientific evidence does not mean it is worthless!


----------



## VamP (3 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> I do have an opinion. As you do you. Pretty sure i've been over this.
> 
> The statement that you assume i might like to rethink?? Thanks for the offer but i shall stick with it. Pedalling efficiency comes from what is best for any given individual. If that means mashing then so be it.
> 
> The stuff i linked was a simple showcase of 3 or 4 links out of a sea of information on the matter. Disputed as it may be, the fact still remains that there are many top athletes and coaches advocating pedalling technique and efficiency. Just because that is not scientific evidence does not mean it is worthless!


 



Keep digging


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 Oct 2013)

Rob3rt said:


> But who is to say whether changes in the shape of the peanut actually correlate to improved performance on the road and how they correlate? Wattbike are bound to be pro-peanut!


No one is to say and even if they do, do you have to believe them? You makes your own mind up or you experiment yourself and find out with trial and error. I like the latter personally as it doesn't rely on someone else doing the testing.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> Keep digging


If i keep digging i might get down to your level.


----------



## michaelcycle (3 Oct 2013)

Wattbike are pro sausage not pro peanut! 

http://wattbike.com/uk/blog/post/whats_in_a_pedal_revolution_wattbike_has_the_answer


----------



## Dusty Bin (3 Oct 2013)

To be fair, I am both pro sausage and pro peanut, but not usually on the same plate...


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> My ''pretty much'' was aimed at the 'one less thing to worry about' part.
> 
> My edit was not aimed so much at you as the Vector fan-boy trio.
> 
> And before someone slates me for being anti-Vector - I am sure it will, eventually, be a good power meter in it's own right. Right now it's untested by time, expensive in comparison to alternatives and trying to sell on gimmickry.


I am no fan boy of Garmin or the Vectors. I rate a product after a purchase not before, and i do not own Vectors. 

I have done a considerable amount of work on pedalling technique and efficiency with Trainer road software (turbo) and on the road. My experience is that the work has improved my ability to last longer at a given power and source power from other muscle groups when near my limit. 

My argument has never been about Vectors or Wattbike. I advocate the potential they show in highlighting pedal technique and efficiency.


----------



## Rob3rt (3 Oct 2013)

michaelcycle said:


> Wattbike are pro sausage not pro peanut!
> 
> http://wattbike.com/uk/blog/post/whats_in_a_pedal_revolution_wattbike_has_the_answer



I am pro push like fark!


----------



## amaferanga (3 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> No one is to say and even if they do, do you have to believe them? You makes your own mind up or you experiment yourself and find out with trial and error. I like the latter personally as it doesn't rely on someone else doing the testing.



With n=1 your trial and error won't really allow you to know what it was you did that resulted in an improvement though. You're concentrating on this efficiency thing obviously, so if in a years time you have improved then you'll likely claim it's because you worked on this element of your cycling. You actually need someone to study this in a controlled way - too many variables for you to 'test' yourself!


----------



## michaelcycle (3 Oct 2013)

Dusty Bin said:


> To be fair, I am both pro sausage and pro peanut, but not usually on the same plate...



Perhaps you could have some kind of satay as a starter and then a sausage main course of some kind?


----------



## VamP (3 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Having individual pedal/power data during and post ride, would have been so helpful.


 


Pedrosanchezo said:


> If the Vectors perform as claimed, then they will open up new levels of training for any willing cyclist.


 


Pedrosanchezo said:


> I am no fan boy of Garmin or the Vectors.


 
:troll:

Do you read this stuff after yourself, or do you just say whatever occurs to you at any point in time without processing it at all?


----------



## Dusty Bin (3 Oct 2013)

michaelcycle said:


> Perhaps you could have some kind of satay as a starter and then a sausage main course of some kind?



hmmm, I like your thinking.....


----------



## VamP (3 Oct 2013)




----------



## michaelcycle (3 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> View attachment 30274



Looks like a perfect post ride meal to me. Balanced carbs, fat and protein and that other essential macronutrient: wine.


----------



## Andrew_P (3 Oct 2013)

You lot are putting me off getting a powermeter will I turn in to a bombastic statistic freak?! 

I only really want it for left\right balance reasons as mentioned before and to check HR against watts as my average HR has dropped a fair bit in the last 18 months


----------



## VamP (3 Oct 2013)

Andrew_P said:


> You lot are putting me off getting a powermeter will I turn in to a bombastic statistic freak?!


 

Have they not told you about the induction process?


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 Oct 2013)

amaferanga said:


> With n=1 your trial and error won't really allow you to know what it was you did that resulted in an improvement though. You're concentrating on this efficiency thing obviously, so if in a years time you have improved then you'll likely claim it's because you worked on this element of your cycling. You actually need someone to study this in a controlled way - too many variables for you to 'test' yourself!


With that attitude i would have to actually stop doing things until they had been scientifically proven!


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 Oct 2013)

VamP said:


> :troll:
> 
> Do you read this stuff after yourself, or do you just say whatever occurs to you at any point in time without processing it at all?


Where do i say i am a fan boy or even a fan? I am talking in general. If you are here just to start or continue an argument could you please do so with someone else. I bore easily.


----------



## amaferanga (3 Oct 2013)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> With that attitude i would have to actually stop doing things until they had been scientifically proven!



I didn't mean that. Obviously you can do whatever you want to do, but if you want to start promoting a particular way of training then n=1 is not enough to convince most people.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (3 Oct 2013)

amaferanga said:


> I didn't mean that. Obviously you can do whatever you want to do, but if you want to start promoting a particular way of training then n=1 is not enough to convince most people.


I agree. My argument may not convince others. It's an option i have chosen, just as i would choose a bike. If it fits me then that's all that matters, to me. 
I don't dish out advice on here unless it is asked of me, assuming i can help. I merely make suggestions that can be taken as they are or left as they are. 
In this instance several people will likely leave them. I'm fine with that.


----------

