Power meter question! (Page 3)

You're right Sir.

I do have an opinion on PowerTap having used it.

For a unit I don't have experience with (Garmin Vector) I don't have an opinion yet.

No debate about the benefits of competition and that pedals will be viewed by many as an easier swap than wheels or cranks.  But the other PM devices mentioned do not 'make an assumption based upon the result'.  They measure and report power at a particular point.  No assumptions are made.  All this means is that, in theory, my power reading would be slightly higher on a Quark or SRM than on the PT.  And slighly higher again on the Garmin.  But that's information does not particularly matter for training purposes.

For someone with no opinions, you are sure showering us with a lot of them on this thread.

As to the angular force application, it is not "huge" and it's not "free work".  And if PCs are your "proof", again good luck.  I would prefer not to open this can-of-worms, but this is about as opinion-based as you can get.

I have nothing new to add other than on point 1.  I would say that there is a perception that pedals are easier to transfer than cranks and that could certainly influence the market.  I am sure that Garmin will take advantage of this as well as the strain gauges which, IMO, is also a non-factor.  

Really? Aren't the absolute numbers beneficial for more than that crucial function?

If you know your absolute numbers and your race performances, then you can also learn something about whether you're making effective use of the watts, i.e., in a good aero position. Currently, as somebody who uses a trainer as a cheaper substitute for power measurements, I certainly get good information on the progress that I'm making in terms of power, and I have some approximate guesses about the absolute numbers that this corresponds to. But one of the reasons why I'm looking forward to having the real numbers at some point is as a way of helping me to get more speed from the same number of watts. I suspect that I'm doing poorly in that department right now, so I have been assuming that a PM would be beneficial. But having never used a PM, I may be misled here.

yes. I can swap my PT wheel between my road, tri and cross bike without changing a thing as all are 10 speed, I race on 12-27 cassette most of the time and all are shimano. (I just bought a few extra Joule mounts (11.00 each).

ETA - Reading Fred's post below I lied; I do change the tires but only for racing (or if practicing cyclocross ) Since for training I use cheap heavy duty tires I keep the same whether on the trainer or outdoors.

"Now that I think about it I would say by far the most important thing about a power meter is.........

Knowing how to use it."

So true.

I've heard people say things like, "My power meter doesn't make me any faster." They are absolutely correct.

As you point out Fred, it is the interpretation and implementation of the data that could lead to a potential improvement in performance if an athlete does the work and interprets the data correctly.

Ultimately, it all boils down to doing the work, but a power meter is a good way to measure the work done.

I actually change mine bewteen bikes that have Shimano AND Campy without changing the hub & cassette (which I do when I am going to make a change to one for an extended time period).  Still works fine and I notice only very marginal shifting issues when I do this.  I do swap tires for the trainer and that adds a few minutes, but still probably prettty close, in total, to swapping cranks or pedals.   Like many, I add a cover for insta-disc when I race.

I'll concede that I'd like the simplicity of pedals and never have to worry about bottom brackets, choice of gruppo, tires, etc.  But I also wouldn't pay a big premium for that convenience.  Some people would (as Fred notes, some people have a second PT wheek just so they can have one dedicated to the trianer), so that's obviously a personal cost/benefit issue.

While I agree with you taking a crank off is not a hard job, it is the barrier to entry that is hard for people to get over. It "looks" substantially more complicated so people will not even try. I know many folks that will take off/change pedals, but would not dream of touching the crank and ask me to do it. So while it may be as easy to do, people will not try purely based on the perception of difficulty.

Except it locks you into their pedal system. So I see this one as a wash. It going to depend on what matters more to you. I've had some issues with the Look pedal system (which the Vector is reported to use) so that makes me nervous. Other people may want to keep their crankset and don't care as much about the pedals (or already use Look).

"Except it locks you into their pedal system."

for now.

Thanks. (I do follow those ST discussions, and try to filter out the noise; and I also use analyticcycling etc. for ballpark figures.)

If being misled saves me $1500 on an unnecessary purchase, then that's the kind of ignorance I can live with.