Did a search but couldn't find anything - has anyone looked at the "iBike Pro" power meter?
It seems to good to be true.
http://ibikesports.com/
It seems to good to be true.
http://ibikesports.com/
New power meter or just a gimmick?
- Thread starter DanP
- Start date
DanP said:
It is.
Let's see, it's 'power' reading can be affected by by changing your position from the drops to the hoods, if the pavement surface changes, if you run a different set of tires, if you gain or lose weight, if you're riding in a pack and there's turbulence...
Sure its accuracy is, as claimed, 'comparable' to high-end PM's: It isn't terribly accurate and PowerTap/ SRM/ Ergomo are fairly accurate.
Not hatin', jus sayin'.
you have it 'sussed outpeterpen said:It is.
Let's see, it's 'power' reading can be affected by by changing your position from the drops to the hoods, if the pavement surface changes, if you run a different set of tires, if you gain or lose weight, if you're riding in a pack and there's turbulence...
Sure its accuracy is, as claimed, 'comparable' to high-end PM's: It isn't terribly accurate and PowerTap/ SRM/ Ergomo are fairly accurate.
Not hatin', jus sayin'.
Thanks folks, good replies.
Of course a PT or SRM would be far more desirable. But for someone with simpler needs:
Even if the numbers were bogus, if they were consistent that would do the trick. It would be fairly easy to set a baseline. It would be good to be able to train on the road with a better sense of effort than an HRM.
Kind of like a Tanita scale, the numbers may have no real relation to anything but it is useful to track change.
As far as reducing the variables:
This would be for my Tri bike, so no hoods or drops to consider. And because of this I don't ride in packs either.
I don't change tires that often.
My weight hasn't changed in 3 years, it's not likely to be a big factor.
Road surface would be a factor, although probably not a huge one on average rides.
Now the fact that I haven't found a single person yet that has first hand experience with it does bug me... wonder what the return policy is like.
Of course a PT or SRM would be far more desirable. But for someone with simpler needs:
Even if the numbers were bogus, if they were consistent that would do the trick. It would be fairly easy to set a baseline. It would be good to be able to train on the road with a better sense of effort than an HRM.
Kind of like a Tanita scale, the numbers may have no real relation to anything but it is useful to track change.
As far as reducing the variables:
This would be for my Tri bike, so no hoods or drops to consider. And because of this I don't ride in packs either.
I don't change tires that often.
My weight hasn't changed in 3 years, it's not likely to be a big factor.
Road surface would be a factor, although probably not a huge one on average rides.
Now the fact that I haven't found a single person yet that has first hand experience with it does bug me... wonder what the return policy is like.
Probably a little early to tell, since the product won't be released until sometime in '06.DanP said:
Here's more discussion on that product: http://www.cyclingforums.com/t290593-ibike-pro---new-pm.html
The CEO of this company said in early October that a set of performance tests was being conducted by the Cooper Institute of Dallas and that the test results would be published. He estimated the publication date would be by the end of October and that the study results would be posted on the iBike Pro website. I checked today and there do not appear to be any posted studies. I don't attach huge significance to the delay in posting the results of the study, because I know how hectic it can be to launch a new product. Nonetheless, I plan to await the publication of this study before drawing any major conclusions about this product. We can muse about the merits and demerits of the technical approach to imputing power, but it will be interesting to see some data.
Gaining or losing weight, switching out tires, and anything else that's likely not changing in the middle of a ride are actually something this unit should do fine with. You calibrate via a roll-down from 20mph, so gross changes in rolling resistance will be caught. And aerodynamic resistance is one of the things the unit explicitly senses, so I'm not sure what the "turbulence" comment means.peterpen said:
You're right about changing position, though. That's probably the achilles heel of this thing. It would work great in a plane or car, or anything else with a reasonably constant aerodynamic "envelope." A human cyclist is, alas, not such a thing.
However, as a tool to do intervals with, or a poor man's windtunnel, or for better gross estimates of caloric expenditure than are available cheaply, this could be a useful tool, and at 30% of the end-to-end price of a PowerTap-based solution, "good enough" becomes compelling. For what it's worth, I pre-ordered one of the units. I was recently told that ibike would be delaying shipping until February. Since I've spent enough time wanting to ride with power, I finally decided enough was enough and ordered the powertap SL. The ibike folks were completely cool about refunding my purchase price.
Can I say - I did three time trials up a local mountain in the last 2 months. The first had normalised power of 294 watts, the second 299 watts, and the third (yesterday) of 309 watts.
For me, small changes are important - and these only mean something if the measuring tool is accurate.
So I look forward to seeing what "comparable" accuracy means, when the new device is actually tested side-by-side with SRM and PT.
For me, small changes are important - and these only mean something if the measuring tool is accurate.
So I look forward to seeing what "comparable" accuracy means, when the new device is actually tested side-by-side with SRM and PT.
I ordered one yesterday, and the improved one is supposed to ship in February. I work for a manufacturer, so I realize "February" means "after your entire fnorkin' season is over, in late October." Still, after investigating the technology, it should work as advertised, and I will not **** with the other three systems that are available, for a variety of reasons...complexity, cost, weight.DanP said:
After I get the system, mount it, calibrate it, and use it, I'll review it here. I'm the financially-sound, early adopter in my cycling circle, so I've been entrusted to make all the costly mistakes.
good for you - let us know how it works out.
off-topic, but I see you're in Southern Utah - what's a good 50-70 mile ride around St. George? I'll be there next month and have done out and back to Zion and a loop through Snow Canyon up to Veyo and back around Gunlock Res. but would love to know if there's something I'm missing.
off-topic, but I see you're in Southern Utah - what's a good 50-70 mile ride around St. George? I'll be there next month and have done out and back to Zion and a loop through Snow Canyon up to Veyo and back around Gunlock Res. but would love to know if there's something I'm missing.
The Veyo Loop ride is still the best, with lots of stiff climbs. The roads were damaged by massive flooding earlier this year and they're not all repaired, but they should be by the time you arrive. Other rides include an out and back over Utah Hill to Mesquite, a long loop including Kanab, and a ride to Pine Valley and back. I run the ride e-mail list here, so contact me before you get here at [email protected].peterpen said:
Similar threads
