Sparhawk <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 08:41:42 +0100, "Robert Chung" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dan Gregory" <
[email protected]> wrote
> >>
> >> "Tom Arsenault" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > Power output is not accurate at all, but can only give you a very vague and hazy image of
> >> > where your power is while riding. For instance, riding a 9% grade hill at 17MPH, it rater my
> >> > power output as being 105 watts. Although not a power machine, I'd have to think I was
> >> > putting out more than that. Also, once while coasting downhill at 40+, my power output was
> >> > above 300. So just kind of ignore the whole power thing. As a HRM and cyclo-computer, it is
> >> > good.
> >>
> >> Have you entered your body weight and bike weight accurately? Mine seems remarkably consistent
> >> on similar parts of the courses I ride. It may not
> be
> >> absolutely accurate compared to SRM cranks but it does show a good record
> of
> >> my progress.
> >
> >I was sort of surprised at Tom's observations, too. I would have expected that the HAC-4 would
> >perform as you experienced (i.e., consistent though with unknown accuracy). BTW, if Tom is able
> >to ride up a 9% hill at 17mph, that's pretty impressive. For a normal-sized guy, that should be
> >in the ballpark of 1 hp.
>
> I've found the Hac4 to be very consistent and it produces repeatable results which is what I am
> interested in getting from it.
>
> Sparhawk
> >
I'll have to go back and check my settings once again. I thought I had entered them pretty
accurately, but they may have been changed.
And the 9% at 17, it was a VERY short hill. Just so that there are no preconceptions that I am a
climber. Nope, short burst and hard up a short hill.
Tom