Power meters · Public discussion

PT300 Pro Cadence -- Real or Virtual

Started by john979 · · Last activity · 6 posts · 1,267 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Power meters
Published
1 May 2007
Last activity
2 May 2007
Original author
john979
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,267
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Is the PT300 Pro's cadence a direct measurement or something virtual? If I change the gear ratio, will its power measurement be affected?

  2. john979 said:

    Is the PT300 Pro's cadence a direct measurement or something virtual? If I change the gear ratio, will its power measurement be affected?

    That's a question for Cycleops.

    But I haven't seen a magnet. So it's A. measured in the hub B. virtual.
    I have read that the cadance measurement in the hub of the powertaps is off when you spin fast or in nice circles. My cadance with the Pro 300PT was never off. It was always related to my speed (40km/hour = 100rpm).

  3. PaulMD said:

    That's a question for Cycleops.

    But I haven't seen a magnet. So it's A. measured in the hub B. virtual.
    I have read that the cadance measurement in the hub of the powertaps is off when you spin fast or in nice circles. My cadance with the Pro 300PT was never off. It was always related to my speed (40km/hour = 100rpm).


    Paul;

    Thanks, I do agree with your observations. I bought a new crankset to A) match the 175 mm crank arms on my road bike; B) reduce the gear-inches a bit (52 down to 48) so as to "lighten" the feel a bit. The new chainring is also much quieter.

    I did a quick couple tests yesterday and it seems about right. Today I will measure over a longer interval. Beware if you change the crank to use stainless steel crank bolts -- I broke an alloy one.

    John

  4. Don't change gear ratio:

    With 48t chainring @ approx 60 rpm displayed: 3 minute count 186; average was 58 and count should have been 174.

    With 52t chainring @ approx 60 rpm displayed: 3 minute count 178; average cadence was 59 and count should have been 179, which is within experiment error.

    John

  5. john979 said:

    Don't change gear ratio:

    With 48t chainring @ approx 60 rpm displayed: 3 minute count 186; average was 58 and count should have been 174.

    With 52t chainring @ approx 60 rpm displayed: 3 minute count 178; average cadence was 59 and count should have been 179, which is within experiment error.

    John

    It's virtual cadence, and your speed should not change while keeping cadence constant and changing resistance.

    Not sure about the effect of changing the number of teeth on the chainring. I'll be curious to hear how this works, as CycleOps has clearly said that changing the crank is not recommended, for whatever reason.

  6. warnerjh said:

    It's virtual cadence, and your speed should not change while keeping cadence constant and changing resistance.

    Not sure about the effect of changing the number of teeth on the chainring. I'll be curious to hear how this works, as CycleOps has clearly said that changing the crank is not recommended, for whatever reason.


    Its definately virtual. CycleOps does not want the cranks changed as a safety reason. If you do, use a track or better yet BMX crank with Cro-Moly chainring bolts.

    John

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.