SRM slope drift

[bozy]

yes you did. your reply was "As far as the MSSE paper by Gardner you cite, I feel it’s interesting but irrelevant as regards the question I posed in the forum"

so you either read it, or lied previously.



i know it had four - i corrected him in the subsequent post. my point was about his comments that others have contacted SRM about poorly calibrated SRMs direct from the factory.



smoother?

as do new units.

ric

Beerco's post is, as I mentioned, interesting, but inaccurate. He's wrong as to the number of gauges and to the SRM Factory position on the the diffences between the Amateur and Pro units.
The SRM Factory reps know full well the difference between their products and do not dismiss client questions with trite answers. I suspect Beerco is confabulating.
In any event one of the most significant features of the Pro model is the smoother output of wattage readings achieved by having four gauges.
Why won't you provide the reference to Gardiner?
I suspect it won't justify calibrating new, unused SRM units.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Beerco's post is, as I mentioned, interesting, but inaccurate. He's wrong as to the number of gauges and to the SRM Factory position on the the diffences between the Amateur and Pro units.

i answered this bit.

The SRM Factory reps know full well the difference between their products and do not dismiss client questions with trite answers. I suspect Beerco is confabulating.
In any event one of the most significant features of the Pro model is the smoother output of wattage readings achieved by having four gauges.
Why won't you provide the reference to Gardiner?
I suspect it won't justify calibrating new, unused SRM units.

see my previous post.

ric

 

[bozy]

The short answer to this thread is that no calibration of a new, unused , properly functioning SRM unit is needed. If there are problems SRM will take care of them quick and free of charge.
No literature or any compelling evidence can ever be presented to justify such a procedure.
Since our "Super-Moderator*" is a vendor of a competing product he's got a conflict of interest here and his comments regarding the shortcomings (real or imagined) of any competing product or service have to be viewed in proper context.
Only believe what he can prove-not what he may say.

*Read "Super-Entrepreneur"
Ric-We're still waiting for an answer on your financial relationship to this website-make a clean breast of it, once and for all.

 

[Woofer]

The short answer to this thread is that no calibration of a new, unused , properly functioning SRM unit is needed. If there are problems SRM will take care of them quick and free of charge.
No literature or any compelling evidence can ever be presented to justify such a procedure.
Since our "Super-Moderator*" is a vendor of a competing product he's got a conflict of interest here and his comments regarding the shortcomings (real or imagined) of any competing product or service have to be viewed in proper context.
Only believe what he can prove-not what he may say.

*Read "Super-Entrepreneur"
Ric-We're still waiting for an answer on your financial relationship to this website-make a clean breast of it, once and for all.

He is not hiding behind an anonymous nickname as you and I are.

By the same standards we should not believe anything you have said, either.

Plenty of threads about SRM slope issues.

http://lists.topica.com/search/?query=SRM+slope&x=0&y=0&search_what=900009803&search_type=msg


edit: I should also mention that I use and own SRM and PowerTap (and have tried a Polar for a season) and have found Ric to be a source of highly useful and *free* information to the other folks on the board that have asked questions, and none of the information he has given contradicts what has been said by any of experts I have seen published.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

The short answer to this thread is that no calibration of a new, unused , properly functioning SRM unit is needed. If there are problems SRM will take care of them quick and free of charge.
No literature or any compelling evidence can ever be presented to justify such a procedure.

For someone that is supposedly into evidence based medicine, you seem unable to do a Pub-Med search, which seems strange. There, you will find the Gardner paper and the evidence. You will also find plenty of other people saying the same or very similar things.

Since our "Super-Moderator*" is a vendor of a competing product he's got a conflict of interest here and his comments regarding the shortcomings (real or imagined) of any competing product or service have to be viewed in proper context.
Only believe what he can prove-not what he may say.

and i also recommend the SRM. However, and especially with the Amateur version i will point out it's shortcomings, as SRM have done.

I don't see what my relationship to this website has to do with you.

If you don't like me, the website or the other people on here then i suggest you don't visit here again. As others have said, you're not a particularly nice person, and i'm very inclined to agree with them.

In the mean time i suggest you actually get off your backside and look for the paper youself, as i see no reason why i should go out of my way to help *you*.

Ric

 

[bozy]

Calm down Ric. Seems you've become very combative.

I've never said I don't like you or the website.

What I find problematic is your lack of candor in admitting that you've got a few conflicts of interest here. You and I have discussed this before-recall that I wanted to keep it private but you insisted in making it public.

Why not simply make your conflicts of interest known, as any honest scientist would do, and be done with it? Just a simple disclaimer stating the products and services you sell would do. It wouldn't hurt to explain your relationship to the website. I don't think there's anything wrong with what you're doing-just the way you're going about it.

It would certainly elevate your stature. Now one doesn't know whether you're answering questions to promote or malign a competing product or service. If you think many others haven't noticed this issue you're sadly mistaken.

Now the advice you gave me regarding pre-installation calibration of an SRM wasn't very good advice. Perhaps it was well meaning-but imagine my amazement at finding out you were the vendor of a competing product! Had I already known this I would have been able to put your answer in proper context.
Get it?

It is also very important to be able to justify your scientific claims-with proper documentation. The authoritarian approach isn't going over well-at all.

PS: For the benefit of other posters Ric knows exactly who I am-I'm just forced to use a pen name since that's how the site works. Since Ric controls the site, and if he permits it, I'll be happy to use any proper nick-name he wishes.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

He is not hiding behind an anonymous nickname as you and I are.

as it happens, i know who Bozy is. Unfortunately, he's very upset with me and took great umbrage with me when i said that the cranks should be calibrated. He scoffed at the Gardner paper, and has been generally rude and insulting in previous threads. I feel sorry for his patients, and dread to think what his bedside manner is like.

Plenty of threads about SRM slope issues.

http://lists.topica.com/search/?query=SRM+slope&x=0&y=0&search_what=900009803&search_type=msg

thanks for linking to these

edit: I should also mention that I use and own SRM and PowerTap (and have tried a Polar for a season) and have found Ric to be a source of highly useful and *free* information to the other folks on the board that have asked questions, and none of the information he has given contradicts what has been said by any of experts I have seen published.

I've had all four main power meters. They all have good and bad points.

Thanks, glad you've found the information useful.

Ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Calm down Ric. Seems you've become very combative.

I'm perfectly calm. However, as pointed out previously you're an insulting and rude man and not just to me.

What I find problematic is your lack of candor in admitting that you've got a few conflicts of interest here. You and I have discussed this before-recall that I wanted to keep it private but you insisted in making it public.

as you weren't able to click the link to my website, it's no surprise you seem unable to search Pub-Med.

However, as i've stated before, it isn't just me that makes these claims, but other people and institutes who use the SRM and even SRM have previously said the same.

Now the advice you gave me regarding pre-installation calibration of an SRM wasn't very good advice. Perhaps it was well meaning-but imagine my amazement at finding out you were the vendor of a competing product! Had I already known this I would have been able to put your answer in proper context.
Get it?

Obviously you're unable to comprehend what i and others have stated about calibrating the cranks.

It is also very important to be able to justify your scientific claims-with proper documentation. The authoritarian approach isn't going over well-at all.

i did cite the reference previously. i've stated this two or three times above. Normally i'd be quite happy to link to the reference, but i'll let *you* go find it.

Ric

 

[bozy]

Ric-You continue to attempt to evade the key issue here-your own lack of intellectual honesty and deceptive behavior on this website.

Why can't you admit your conflicts of interest? You've admitted to me in private that a scientist should clearly indicate these conflicts of interest-why aren't you doing so here? Our private conversations led me to believe you would do so.

What I first thought might be a slight lack of candor, or even a simple oversight, now that you seem to refuse to recognize the issue, seems like a more deliberate scheme to cover up.

Say it isn't so Ric-and make a clean breast of your conflicts of interest-what products and services are you selling and what's your real relationship to this website?

Easy questions all-we're just waiting for the answers.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Ric-You continue to attempt to evade the key issue here-your own lack of intellectual honesty and deceptive behavior on this website.

Why can't you admit your conflicts of interest? You've admitted to me in private that a scientist should clearly indicate these conflicts of interest-why aren't you doing so here? Our private conversations led me to believe you would do so.

What I first thought might be a slight lack of candor, or even a simple oversight, now that you seem to refuse to recognize the issue, seems like a more deliberate scheme to cover up.

Say it isn't so Ric-and make a clean breast of your conflicts of interest-what products and services are you selling and what's your real relationship to this website?

Easy questions all-we're just waiting for the answers.

how can i possibly be covering up anything up, when anyone can either go direct to my website or click the link to my website under each and everyone of my posts?

On the other hand i expect this is difficult for you to fathom, especially as you can't spell your own name.

 

[bozy]

Ric-just answer the question-what are services and goods are you selling here?

Your private website is one thing, but your behavior here is quite another-don't you get it?

Your situation on this site is unique-are you are a "Super-Moderator" or a "Stealth-Entrepreneur?"

I'm afraid your lack of candor and bellicose manner are starting to speak for themselves. We need honest answers-not more temper tantrums.

There's still time to save your scientific reputation-please make an admission to us. We'll all feel better once the truth is out-even you.

 

[acoggan]

The short answer to this thread is that no calibration of a new, unused , properly functioning SRM unit is needed. .

Right - that's why not only the AIS but also the British Cycling Federation have felt it necessary to institute quality control programs to be confident in the numbers they get from their SRMs.

FWIW, I have two SRM Pro cranks, one road and one track. The factory calibration for both is, in a word, wrong. The good news is that the road crank, which I bought used, has not changed in the last 1.5 y. The same cannot be said for the track crank, which was wrong from day one and has drifted steadily ever since.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Ric-just answer the question-what are services and goods are you selling here?

Your private website is one thing, but your behavior here is quite another-don't you get it?

Your situation on this site is unique-are you are a "Super-Moderator" or a "Stealth-Entrepreneur?"

I'm afraid your lack of candor and bellicose manner are starting to speak for themselves. We need honest answers-not more temper tantrums.

There's still time to save your scientific reputation-please make an admission to us. We'll all feel better once the truth is out-even you.

there's no temper tantrums here whatsoever. there are however plenty of people laughing at you. i believe that every other person is able to work out what products and services i sell, as i have link to my website which clearly states what i sell.

if i wanted to keep hidden the services i sell what would be the point of having a website which states the services?

I don't know why you just can't admit you were wrong in the first place. You sent me threatening emails because you can't get your own way. The truth of the matter is you were wrong and are still wrong about the SRMs. You're like a spoilt little child, not someone who is supposedly intelligent. You have also insulted several members of this forum.

See, yet another report about SRMs that need calibrating, from Andy. Oh! and the AIS and the BCF. Don't you get this? Oh that's it i forgot Andy is an apologist for me. Right...

Basically, i'm not prepared to do anything that you ask me, as you are a mean spirited, horrible, unintelligent, rude and demeaning little man.

Ric

 

[toa]

if i wanted to keep hidden the services i sell what would be the point of having a website which states the services?

Ric and his associates have always been helpfull, providing insights into methodology, physiology etc. etc. Giving top-notch answers rigth up to the point, where he'd have to start actually planning for people, which is obviously something you'd have to pay for IMO.

So much more quality than some of the other coaches that frequent this forum that sometimes just answers "Get a coach...", now how's that for comparison?

 

[yzfrr11]

Andy, what direction has it drifted?

Right - that's why not only the AIS but also the British Cycling Federation have felt it necessary to institute quality control programs to be confident in the numbers they get from their SRMs.

FWIW, I have two SRM Pro cranks, one road and one track. The factory calibration for both is, in a word, wrong. The good news is that the road crank, which I bought used, has not changed in the last 1.5 y. The same cannot be said for the track crank, which was wrong from day one and has drifted steadily ever since.

 

[yzfrr11]

I agree that Ric is a valuable member of this discussion group. It would be a loss to loose his expertise.

Ric and his associates have always been helpfull, providing insights into methodology, physiology etc. etc. Giving top-notch answers rigth up to the point, where he'd have to start actually planning for people, which is obviously something you'd have to pay for IMO.

So much more quality than some of the other coaches that frequent this forum that sometimes just answers "Get a coach...", now how's that for comparison?

 

[ric_stern/RST]

I agree that Ric is a valuable member of this discussion group. It would be a loss to loose his expertise.

Thanks, don't worry you won't be loosing me, as i ain't going anywhere. there's only one person we may end up loosing.

ric

 

[RapDaddyo]

I have never received a proper reference to the paper (or article?) by Gardiner. I would need more information to reference it.

I wanted to read this paper, so I did my own PubMed search, using the search string "Gardner AND SRM". BTW, I timed my search effort out of curiosity -- 90 seconds. Bozy, you really are an incompetent!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15235334&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=2

 

[Woofer]

To be honest, I don't really care if it is accurate. I just want to know if it is drifting so that I can track my progress.

You are right, I will perform the calibration. The pedal weight is canceled out by the other pedal.

OK I just redid mine with a more accurate measurement of the weight and got 19.91 which is pretty close to the last time I did it, 19.8, and still way different from the factory calibration. I also changed the crank arms and the chainrings which SRM says should not change the slope only the zero but some users have reported having issues. May be user error, may not be.

The process also requires a separate magnet to reactivate the crankarm every once in a while and goes easier if you turn off autoshut off - as is mentioned in the instructions. I used a 50 pound weight which can be awkward with only one person but doable.

 

[acoggan]

Andy, what direction has it drifted?

Both cranks have apparently drifted to a lower slope than their original factory calibrations (I say "apparently" only because the road crank has changed since I took possession of it - it is therefore possible that it was simply miscalibrated from the start). If not taken into account, this would lead to an underestimation of power.