BikeMax

Thanks, I am surprised at the results because I have seen a number of other tests where the SRM & Ergomo's outputs were for all practical (not laboratory) purposes identical. A quick google search will bring up lots of results but here is one: http://www.thebikeage.com/ergotest.htm You have got me a bit worried, are you saying that an Ergomo is not accurate enough to use for power training ? No - I don't think that.. but I do think it has some issues that affect it's consistency of reading. I found exactly the same as the study when I tested my unit - it consistently over read at lower powers but got closer and closer towards and over threshold. I think the unit is so ultra sensitive to installation and maybe even BB material, that it is just so dificult to isolate any issues. In a race I did on the road, with lots of variability (lots of high power and lots of very low) it was 30w higher than my PT for the duration of 2.45. It odes appear to be pretty consistent though so really only an issue if comparing with other non Ergomo data. I believ they have recalled a number (if not all) units sold in SA back to Germany - so the issue may have been solved.

Hey Dan - hope all good. We were introduced to these guys by Hunter Allen when he was over - it looks like a very interesting product indeed - cant wait to see more. Hope that SRM is still in good use..

Not sure Iven B has read this study...

Anyone who has been following the other thread should read the bottom of page 44 of this study.

Yes I know that. Those are the figures put out by the software. I accept what you say. Just interesting to see what guys are getting. It also shows that not all 'measuring tools' are perfect, as you say some only estmate.. Sure - but you have a duty to make sure that the numbers you post are valid and reasonable before using them to market your product. Not all of the readers know that these numbers are absolute hogwash - and so some may be tempted to buy your product on the basis of those improvements. They are misleading and you should correct them or remove them IMO. Bikemax Nothing is misleading that is the information is put out by the training units used. You should be telling them their units are hogwash in your opinion. The fact is positive changes are shown when using q rings. Itis not here for marketing purposes but for interest. Every one will have different readings, different times dependant on what they use to measure, whether it is in your facility on the road or in their bedroom. What is important is that when they measure with the same tools or units the results are consistent. So I'm not interest in product bashing whether its q rings or now tacx devises in your opinion, but rather an interesting discussion Ivan - lets get this 100% straight. I am not interested in product bashing - what does upset me is when guys like you post unreliable and patently incorrect data in support of your product. You acknowledged in your previous response that this data is likely to be wrong, and now you try and hide behind the fact that the accuracy of the data is not your responsibility... you can't have it both ways. The fact remains that you posted that data, and you did so in support of the claims that you make for your product. So I ask you - are you willing or able to confirm the accuracy of this data, and do you stand behind it as proof that Q rings have elicited a 70% improvement in this rider ? (if not then you have a duty to remove it as the rubbish it so patently is) This thread has become a joke - which is a shame, as it was a reasonable discussion of the merits of a product.

Yes I know that. Those are the figures put out by the software. I accept what you say. Just interesting to see what guys are getting. It also shows that not all 'measuring tools' are perfect, as you say some only estmate.. Sure - but you have a duty to make sure that the numbers you post are valid and reasonable before using them to market your product. Not all of the readers know that these numbers are absolute hogwash - and so some may be tempted to buy your product on the basis of those improvements. They are misleading and you should correct them or remove them IMO.

I would love to see it.. You are more than likely referring to the study apparently put together by Jeroen at SSI - it has never seen the light of day (and I'll wager it never will) It's a bit like putting a study together to show that using your finger for measuring the temperature of liquid is more effective than using a thermometer Yes' date=' I spoke to Jeroen that apparently did a thesis comparing the two. He said that I he had to chose between heart rate or power he would choose HR. He also commented on my poor spinscan and when I asked him about q-rings, he said that it should help my. Any comments? [/quote'] Fanie Re the "Thesis" - I cannot comment on something I have not seen. Re the Q rings - re read my posts in this thread and you will get a very clear picture of what my thoughts are.

I would love to see it.. You are more than likely referring to the study apparently put together by Jeroen at SSI - it has never seen the light of day (and I'll wager it never will) It's a bit like putting a study together to show that using your finger for measuring the temperature of liquid is more effective than using a thermometer

No - there wasn't.

Hi all - thanks for the feedback, keep it coming. Thanks to all for your support - with the sort of numbers we got we will bring him out again for sure. I will work on some notes for you in the form of the presentations. Thanks Peter

A few well chosen words..

Floyd - all still good, no complaints and bike as good as ever.

Not really sure I understand you here.. but a power meter is simply a tool that measures ouptut. There is no contention that it may or may not do what it says - it just measures. It does not claim to make you a better cyclist or any other exciting stuff, and it certainly does not challenge the laws of physics- it just helps you measure what you are doing, and train more effectively. There is a very big difference between a power meter, and a device such as Q rings that promises extra performance for no extra effort. One needs all the marketing hype that you are currently trying to give it - the other doesn't. BikeMax2007-08-05 14:57:48

I thought this was the best take I have seen on the whole Q ring concept; "These Rotor Crank people do not recognize that work is FORCE x DISTANCE and that their crank only changes the phase of the legs, not the work performed. This is basically a perpetual motion machine, one that creates power with no additional effort. If these people would ride up a long grade, they would notice that the limitation is cardiovascular (assuming they were in condition to do so) and that all the phase change mechanisms do not alter the work performed or achieved. In fact smooth sinusoidal motion does that best. Jobst Brandt jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

Rest in Peace Ryan - you will not be forgotten.