# iBike prelim review



## feathers mcgraw (Mar 15, 2002)

https://www.nyvelocity.com/content.php?id=889

<img src="https://www.nyvelocity.com/pictures/graph22.jpg">

Just one ride, but I didn't want to be scooped.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

say what, scooped?

BTW, thanks for the real review. Sounds about like I thought for this thing -- in the category of "neat toy," but not "great training tool," especially considering the price and of a used Powertap.


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

Argentius said:


> BTW, thanks for the real review. Sounds about like I thought for this thing -- in the category of "neat toy," but not "great training tool," especially considering the price and of a used Powertap.


Say what, say what, it's almost like we didn't read the same review, so I went back and scanned over the key points again, and well, I don't think we did. It dosen't sound perfect, but it also dosen't sound like a "neat toy", more like, if they do the revisions they say they will do, then it could be a good cheap powermeter for those who don't want to fork over the cashola for a powertap/srm/ergomo. 

Btw, having used the powertap Sl for a while now, I'd say it is also far far farrrrr from perfect.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

well, if they get the revisions on board to where you can tick off an interval, that'd be a good start.

And the weight-loss thing was a big deal to me. I mean, I like testing myself on climbs a lot, and it would be a good place for me to see power improvements, but if I've dropped 2kg or something, it sounds like it's gonna send the numbers far enough off that it would be annoying.

It also sounded fragile and fickle.

But I'll admit to having a rather biased predisposition towards the thing, which is probably why I thought it looked "like I thought it looked." People are silly that way.


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

Argentius said:


> well, if they get the revisions on board to where you can tick off an interval, that'd be a good start.





> The numbers were a little late, but seemed to match pretty closely. Did it take a bit longer to do it's calculations, or does inertia delay the response of applied power?


A little late dosen't seem to be anything to get to much in a twist about, so your 1min interval is 2 seconds off, so what. The SRM actually is supposed to be set at 2 second interval of recording or more, if you set it below that, it gets finicky, yet it's billed as the best there is. 



Argentius said:


> And the weight-loss thing was a big deal to me. I mean, I like testing myself on climbs a lot, and it would be a good place for me to see power improvements, but if I've dropped 2kg or something, it sounds like it's gonna send the numbers far enough off that it would be annoying.


Considering it was off just about 1 watt for his ride, dosen't seem to be a issue, and considering the powertap has a 2.5% accuracy range, which one is right?




Argentius said:


> It also sounded fragile and fickle.


So kind of like the powertap then.... I'll tell you alittle story about a powermeter, it dosen't work when it's below 40, it works for about 30 min then stops when it's wet out(perhaps you melt in the rain?), the reciver can't be jossled at all or it cuts out and it's been replaced by the manufactuer once because it just up and broke. Guess which one I'm thinking of.




Argentius said:


> But I'll admit to having a rather biased predisposition towards the thing, which is probably why I thought it looked "like I thought it looked." People are silly that way.


And the truth finally comes out. So you paid allot for a powertap, and don't want to think that something half as much could be as good, well it's not as good, so your safe, but it looks as it might be pretty close.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

Hah, yeah, okay, at least I'll come clean about it!
---
The measurements for his whole ride seem fine, it was the hill intervals where he was getting +10% readings that had me a little concerned.


----------



## feathers mcgraw (Mar 15, 2002)

I don't think the slight delay is a big deal, just interesting. If it's due to the effects of inertia, however, that would mean the accelerometer isn't perfectly accurate, which would correlate with what most people are finding.

And I agree with FTF, my point was that I think it is a serious training tool, not a neat toy.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

It seems to have a serious problem with rough road conditions like chip-seal. - TF

http://lists.topica.com/lists/wattage/read/message.html?mid=913170011&sort=d&start=42876


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

Feathers, are you the main guy who writes the nyvelocity.com tour de france blogs?

If so, that's some FUNNY sh7t.

Didja see toto today?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Rough roads in general look bad for it according to the topica users (on top of intervals and other issues).

A few things posted in this thread require rebuttal - SRM's are not "finicky" if you set them below a 2 sec interval. Mine been at 1 second for 3 months now without any weird issues at all. Readings are right on the money as are the files in cyclingpeaks. It's billed as the best there is because it is. There is a reason pros and high level racers have been spending their own cash on them.

I have run my powertaps (both Pro and SL) below 40, and in the rain without issue. Same with the SRM, just need to reset your zero offset on the SRM for big temp changes. As for the pick-ups- that is true for ANY cyclocomputer. Yeesh. For a balanced understanding of the pro and cons of various true powermeters, topica is a good place to start, as well as _Training amd Racing with a Power Meter_ by Hunter Allen and Dr. Andrew Coggan (both prominent contributors on topica wattge forum). Note, Ergmo is still the wild card on these types of issues due to the lower installed base. But if someone wants to send me one I am happy to play with it and see how it handles real world racing and training.  

And as far as the promised upgrades fixing all the issues being revealed already- sounds like more hooey to me. It's still not (and never can be) a real powermeter, and no amount of marketing sillyness and puffery will change that. Thankfully, with topica and other forums- the pin pricks to the overhype balloon come much quicker now. So far, it's looking like a toy IMHO, and not a particullary useful one at that. Might as well get a Garvin for that price- at least it will tell you where you are.


----------



## PMC (Jan 29, 2004)

Coolhand said:


> Note, Ergmo is still the wild card on these types of issues due to the lower installed base.


Coolhand-
I'm getting (finally) some miles on a Ergomo Pro after a couple false starts. 
Mine is the octalink model and the first unit I got went bad almost immediately. I also got some pretty crazy numbers from it before it totally died that if true would have put me at the elite level of the sport which I'm not. They thought it was probably the head unit so they sent a new one out and it didn't make a difference. Next was the BB unit and all has been well after the new install.
I've been running it with a PTsl on training rides (I have it on my P3) and the new unit has been pretty much dead on against the PT across the board.

The one feature that made me want to take a chance on one was that while in the interval mode it displays both current watts and average watts for the interval which is very cool for ITT pacing.


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

Coolhand said:


> A few things posted in this thread require rebuttal - SRM's are not "finicky" if you set them below a 2 sec interval. Mine been at 1 second for 3 months now without any weird issues at all. Readings are right on the money as are the files in cyclingpeaks. It's billed as the best there is because it is. There is a reason pros and high level racers have been spending their own cash on them.


Set it at .5 sec interval of recording and go for a 5 hour ride, and get back to me. OR you can call them in colorado springs, tell them that your powercontrol is having a hard time downloading all the data, that it won't give you the entire ride, tell them that it is fully charged etc, that you've tried it with two computers. They will tell you that the powercontrol should be set at 2 seconds interval of recording or more, infact I'm sure you know that the default from SRM is 5 seconds inteval of recording. I promise. Oh yeah, there's a woman, and a guy, you want to speak with the woman, the guys english isn't very good, though I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.

Also I assume you are using the USB cable, not the serial?

I think the SRM is better than the powertap, actually I know it's better, but that dosen't mean that it's perfect, which umm was my point, even the best has it's issues, and yes the srm does have it's quirks. Also my opinion of the powertap is so low that it dosen't take much for me to think that something is better than it.


----------



## feathers mcgraw (Mar 15, 2002)

No, I am not the Schmalz, the writer of the Tour day Schmalz stuff. He's the funny one, I'm the boring one.


----------



## whoawhoa (Aug 26, 2005)

feathers mcgraw said:


> https://www.nyvelocity.com/content.php?id=889
> 
> <img src="https://www.nyvelocity.com/pictures/graph22.jpg">
> 
> Just one ride, but I didn't want to be scooped.


Thanks, that's a good review.

Seems like it's definitely beyond "neat toy" but not quite a real powermeter. I mean, c'mon, who rides in one position the whole time? I don't really care if the average is within 1 watt for an entire ride, if the important parts of it are off by 5-10%.


----------



## feathers mcgraw (Mar 15, 2002)

Took it out again today, within 3% for the whole ride, 4% for a 15 minute interval. The 5-10% errors were on 40 second intervals. Just depends on what kind of training you do and what you want out of it. I still think it's legit, but if 3-4% error is not good enough for you...


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

feathers mcgraw said:


> Took it out again today, within 3% for the whole ride, 4% for a 15 minute interval. The 5-10% errors were on 40 second intervals. Just depends on what kind of training you do and what you want out of it. I still think it's legit, but if 3-4% error is not good enough for you...


SRM amature is 5% accuracy, pro is 2.5% of course. And given that you are testing against a device with a 2.5% accuracy....


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

feathers mcgraw said:


> Took it out again today, within 3% for the whole ride, 4% for a 15 minute interval. The 5-10% errors were on 40 second intervals. Just depends on what kind of training you do and what you want out of it. I still think it's legit, but if 3-4% error is not good enough for you...


Feathers -- curious whether the inconsistencies are predictable (i.e. always reads low or high on a long interval), or all over the map (one interval is high, one low, etc.)?

Since Coolhand has a HAC4 and compared it to his PT, maybe he can overlay some of the downloads of that device and his PT so we can all get a better understanding of whether the Ibike is closer to accuracy (assuming of course that PT=accuracy) than the HAC4?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

PMC said:


> Coolhand-
> I'm getting (finally) some miles on a Ergomo Pro after a couple false starts.
> Mine is the octalink model and the first unit I got went bad almost immediately. I also got some pretty crazy numbers from it before it totally died that if true would have put me at the elite level of the sport which I'm not. They thought it was probably the head unit so they sent a new one out and it didn't make a difference. Next was the BB unit and all has been well after the new install.
> I've been running it with a PTsl on training rides (I have it on my P3) and the new unit has been pretty much dead on against the PT across the board.
> ...


Cool- that's excellent feedback. Would you mind posting more feedback towards the end of the race season for us?

Thanks!

:thumbsup:


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

FTF said:


> Set it at .5 sec interval of recording and go for a 5 hour ride, and get back to me. OR you can call them in colorado springs, tell them that your powercontrol is having a hard time downloading all the data, that it won't give you the entire ride, tell them that it is fully charged etc, that you've tried it with two computers. They will tell you that the powercontrol should be set at 2 seconds interval of recording or more, infact I'm sure you know that the default from SRM is 5 seconds inteval of recording. I promise. Oh yeah, there's a woman, and a guy, you want to speak with the woman, the guys english isn't very good, though I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.
> 
> Also I assume you are using the USB cable, not the serial?
> 
> I think the SRM is better than the powertap, actually I know it's better, but that dosen't mean that it's perfect, which umm was my point, even the best has it's issues, and yes the srm does have it's quirks. Also my opinion of the powertap is so low that it dosen't take much for me to think that something is better than it.



Interesting. I never tried to set it at less than 1 second. I was aware of the default rate and changed it when I was settting it up to 1 second and left it there for the last three months (after putting in the slope).

I have talked to the person you talking she was helpful to me. SRM is a bit of a learning curve device IMHO- more then the plug and play Powertaps (at least for me). 

I have had good luck with both my of my powertaps, but I can see that they are either good out of box, or a PITA out of the box. The SL I had was particullarly good (was made after the bad initial run, which I think was caused by a part part from a supplier). But, with a powertap it does seem that there are more "breaking points" to go wrong then the SRM's. 

Powermeters more then anything else take a major committment in time and training style to maximize their worth. That and a copy of cyclingpeaks software. 

I am using the USB cable (which just seems to be the old cable style with a built in converter). 

Despite the occasional hassles, and the learning curve- and the stunning cost, I do think training with power is the best thing a racer can do to improve, especially if they have a coach. Still every once and a while they make you want to pull your hair out!


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

shawndoggy said:


> Feathers -- curious whether the inconsistencies are predictable (i.e. always reads low or high on a long interval), or all over the map (one interval is high, one low, etc.)?
> 
> Since Coolhand has a HAC4 and compared it to his PT, maybe he can overlay some of the downloads of that device and his PT so we can all get a better understanding of whether the Ibike is closer to accuracy (assuming of course that PT=accuracy) than the HAC4?


I didn't keep my HAC4 downloads sadly enough. But it's accuracy, (and dependability) ease of set-up and use were all pretty deplorable. Then one day in middle of a ride, the mount broke (on its own, nice), the HAC4 jumped off. Before I could turn around TWO trucks ran it over. Seeing I wasn't that happy with it, I went back to a Polar HRM and sold off the download kit. 

The iBike would only have to make small improvements to be much better then the HAC4, which is pretty old technology at this point. 

Out of the newer PM's, the Ergmo's are currently the most intreging to me do to their closer intergration with cyclingpeaks (like the ability to display TSS). It is the reliability and predictions on overhaul cycles and costs I would like to see better quantified. 

Also the new 2.4 wireless Powertap SL's will be interesting, especially for multiple bike users- but I worry about interference, shorter battery life and things like that. But I digress as usual. . .


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

Coolhand said:


> I have had good luck with both my of my powertaps, but I can see that they are either good out of box, or a PITA out of the box. The SL I had was particullarly good (was made after the bad initial run, which I think was caused by a part part from a supplier). But, with a powertap it does seem that there are more "breaking points" to go wrong then the SRM's.


Dude, powertap is ****, expensive, but ****, I don't know anyone that actually rides that hasn't had to send theirs back, atleast once. I'm glad you haven't had problems with yours, probably got one of the rare ones that dosen't break. Mine was damaged by water, which is a very known problem, btw, so yeah if you ride your powertap in water, you are risking sending it in, no if's and's or but's about it. Maybe the 40 degree thing is a special addon to mine, never fails though, well to not work. Luckily they seem to know all these problems(and more I'm sure), and are more than willing to replace it, again, and again... and .... again.... I just got a new one back from them, I bet it's dead before the end of the season. Mine is a SL if your curious, with the new and improved seals for water, yeah right. 

In summation, there's a reason why you can pick up a used powertap pro for 500 dollars, a very good one. I've had waayyyyy to much experince with the shortcommings of the powertap for anyone to convice me it's worth the money they want. 

So I would say that their customer service, A+! product F-!, I would give them a lower score, but sadly the grading system only goes to F.


----------



## feathers mcgraw (Mar 15, 2002)

So far I haven't seen a consistent trend, but it's so time consuming to compare an interval (lots of photoshop work) that I haven't done that many. I added the graph of today's 15 minute interval to the review. I think I'll do the next coast down a little lower. I'm thinking that I sit up when climbing, where the low speed makes the change in drag less significant. I get lower when it's fast, which would create a bigger discrepancy. So if I do the coastdown lower, it should be closer to a correct average. It'll be interesting to see if the numbers (especially the total number) match up better.


----------



## whoawhoa (Aug 26, 2005)

FTF said:


> SRM amature is 5% accuracy, pro is 2.5% of course. And given that you are testing against a device with a 2.5% accuracy....



Yeah, but accuracy isn't nearly as important as precision. If 300 watts actually means 312, I don't care. But if 300 watts means anywhere between 288-312, well, then I do care.


----------



## jslopez93 (Aug 15, 2004)

feathers mcgraw said:


> https://www.nyvelocity.com/content.php?id=889
> 
> <img src="https://www.nyvelocity.com/pictures/graph22.jpg">
> 
> Just one ride, but I didn't want to be scooped.



Will there be a follow up review? I'm reading firmware updates that supposedly improves the product's performance.

I just want to know if it's a viable training tool.


----------



## feathers mcgraw (Mar 15, 2002)

Yes, I'll keep updating as I go. I have some ideas for different tests to put it through.


----------



## jslopez93 (Aug 15, 2004)

I just really know if this is a viable tool for training and as someone who obviously can compare between a powertap and the ibike, identify the pros and cons of this new product.

I'm sure there are shortcomings but if it doesn't put a damper on it as a training tool then maybe we are quibbling over the wrong stuff.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

jslopez93 said:


> I just really know if this is a viable tool for training and as someone who obviously can compare between a powertap and the ibike, identify the pros and cons of this new product.
> 
> I'm sure there are shortcomings but if it doesn't put a damper on it as a training tool then maybe we are quibbling over the wrong stuff.


Everybody has different needs and a lot of these negatives just don't hold water.

"...just a toy..." - Unless you are a pro, the whole bike is just a toy.

"...buy a real one..." (i.e. SRM) - That's like saying if you get a car, get a Porshe or nothing. Can't afford one of those either.

For many it's something like the ibike or nothing do to the cost and/or the inability of the others to handle your set up. Which is better? Each has to decide.

TF


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

*Sorry theses statements are not accurate*



FTF said:


> So kind of like the powertap then.... I'll tell you alittle story about a powermeter, it dosen't work when it's below 40, it works for about 30 min then stops when it's wet out(perhaps you melt in the rain?), the reciver can't be jossled at all or it cuts out and it's been replaced by the manufactuer once because it just up and broke. Guess which one I'm thinking of.


None of these things apply to any on the 3 PTs my wife and I own/owned.

Multiple cold weather rides

Multiple rides in the rain


----------



## jslopez93 (Aug 15, 2004)

TurboTurtle said:


> Everybody has different needs and a lot of these negatives just don't hold water.
> 
> "...just a toy..." - Unless you are a pro, the whole bike is just a toy.
> 
> ...



Sorry never worked with a poower meter so I really don't know what to look out for (plus power forums seem to need a PHD to understand). Insight is greatly appreciated.


----------



## LyncStar (May 1, 2005)

jslopez93 said:


> I just really know if this is a viable tool for training and as someone who obviously can compare between a powertap and the ibike, identify the pros and cons of this new product.
> 
> I'm sure there are shortcomings but if it doesn't put a damper on it as a training tool then maybe we are quibbling over the wrong stuff.


Any updates on the iBike as a viable training tool compared to a PT?


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

I'm pretty dissatisfied with mine, and am going to dump it in favor of a PT or SRM soon as I've got the cash. I'm going to post soon about the details of why.


----------



## LyncStar (May 1, 2005)

Argentius said:


> I'm pretty dissatisfied with mine, and am going to dump it in favor of a PT or SRM soon as I've got the cash. I'm going to post soon about the details of why.


Love to hear about yer experience. You may also want to take a look at the ergomo pro. It's priced closer to the PT than the SRM. Also, it comes with a 2yr warranty.


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

As a 1,000-mile iBike user, I am interested to read your upcoming post. Your review on your blog was very comprehensive and well written, and you seemed fairly happy with the device despite the set-up issues. I'll be looking for your post. 



Argentius said:


> I'm pretty dissatisfied with mine, and am going to dump it in favor of a PT or SRM soon as I've got the cash. I'm going to post soon about the details of why.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

*Why I gave up on the iBike*

Well, after a little under two months, I decided I was done with the iBike powermeter. I wrote this little sentimental paragraph about why I was dispensing with it/

But basically, when it came down to it, the iBike was a pretty cool device for adding power into your repertoire of data, and allowed you to track your training with kilojoules, as well as miles and hours. "Rough roads" weren't as big of a problem as people made them out to be, but of course serious terrain changes, like gravel, dirt, or pave, would foul the readings. Most errors caused below went away when you removed the situation, but it still got annoying. It also became a pain to weigh myself with my bike before every ride, and with different amounts of gear, water, and stomach fullness, it was necessary to do so. Also, that means adding in the error in my bathroom scale to the total measurement, which I'd prefer not to do. 

It worked well:
* When riding on flat-to-rolling terrain on reasonable pavement
* When climbing a steady grade in the saddle

It worked, but marginally
* When climbing a steep hill, in and out of the saddle
* Group rides with sudden bursts of acceleration, into and out of drafts
* Intervals done in positions that differed from the coast-down -- I tend to do intervals in the drops, but most riding on the hoods. The drag difference between the two isn't enough to do much to the overall ride average, but will make 5-minute interval data useless.
* When pavement changed noticably -- going from smooth pavement to rough chip seal changes resistance, obviously, and power data is reported somewhat off

It did not work at all:
* When water got into the wind port. This was the kiss of death for an all-weather rider in Seattle. Light drizzle was okay, but heavy rain was not. Even when it was not actively raining, a rider in front of me hitting a puddle occasionally splashed into the port, and the data would be fouled until it dried out. Because this often caused vastly erroneous readings, like 30mph phantom headwinds, it could destroy the data for a whole ride.
* On an indoor trainer. I knew that from the beginning, but still.

It's a price-to-performance comparison, I suppose. Imagine if I were paying retail for both; my iBike would've cost $488, a powertap pro wheel about $900. Okay, sure, it's almost double. But when I compare what I could actually DO with each one, the powertap, reliability notwithstanding, actually allows me to TRAIN with power. The ibike pretty much just lets me TRACK power. Not the same, you know?


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

I really want to call out the "reliability" claims on the PowerTap.
Mine's been great, and I've ridden it through some serious crap - 6" of rain in 3 hours or something, I was out there on my bike (heh... freak storm surprised me. it was actually pretty fun!), I figured the PowerTap was toast. Glanced at my computer... no... there were still numbers. It was working quite happily. After 3 hours and 6" of rain on it. Hell, I was choking and having trouble breathing from all the water in my lungs, and the PowerTap was still eating it up. I would have stopped working before the PT.
2000 miles and nothing's broken. Wonderful, ultra reliable device. More reliable than me, certainly.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

Yeah, the PT reliability SEEM to be largely fixed. That's why I tried to bracket it in my description -- a number of people seem to say it's perfect, others say they've had to send theirs back XXX times. I think I will soon find out...


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

Argentius said:


> Yeah, the PT reliability SEEM to be largely fixed. That's why I tried to bracket it in my description -- a number of people seem to say it's perfect, others say they've had to send theirs back XXX times. I think I will soon find out...


My PT Pro is two years old and has close to 10K miles and has been bulletproof. Of course, I live in the desert.


----------



## LeRoi (Jan 4, 2007)

I have about 13,000 miles on my PT and everything has been replaced at least once. The hub got wet and needed warrantied. The head unit completely stopped working for now apparent reason and needed replaced. And finally the wiring harness went bad where it showed "host" mode whenever I put the head unit on.

The PT does work well when it works, but its not bullet proof..unless you're one of the lucky ones.

I still won't bike the ibike though...


----------



## tete de la tour (Oct 26, 2006)

for me the ibike serves it purpose fine. Also I ride a bit, 30-40 miles about every day. Also I climb alot. It seems to work fine. BUT, I don't use the trainer much and find training with *power* indoors silly. as it will never provide accurate numbers because of riding dynamics outdoors. As for a training to my ibike has cadence as well. I think a speedometer and cadence are enuff to train but the power on climbs specificly is where it has helped me. i would love to have a PT but it won't help me ride better. numbers are just that numbers and for the average rider all this POWER talk is silly. many of you will never fully utilize the full potential of a garmin let alone a powertap. 

i have notice in cycling many of the riders think because it cost more its better, or the guy at the club meet who weighs 300lbs and has $10,000 Fondriest /campy with SRM on his first ride. cycling much like golf is expensive and I often notice other riders being look down upon because of equipment. Alot of this carries over on to this forum.


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

Woah. I'm not even sure what you are saying here.

You are saying most riders are not good enough for powertaps, and that it won't help you ride better, but you think an ibike will? They are awfully expensive if you think power is silly...


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Argentius said:


> Woah. I'm not even sure what you are saying here.
> 
> You are saying most riders are not good enough for powertaps, and that it won't help you ride better, but you think an ibike will? They are awfully expensive if you think power is silly...


Just get an HRM, they'll tell you everything you need to know


----------



## tete de la tour (Oct 26, 2006)

Argentius said:


> Woah. I'm not even sure what you are saying here.
> 
> You are saying most riders are not good enough for powertaps, and that it won't help you ride better, but you think an ibike will? They are awfully expensive if you think power is silly...


I certainly think it can make you ride better, But I think many riders assume "i paid more for it so it works better" with the PT. And alot of the times the riders that are saying that are riders that would do much better with just a HRM and lots of miles. But I guess to each his own. Power can help, of course. it has helped me with climbing. BUT just like the pros, power is just a small piece of it or else sprinters would win every race. the ibike provides the same as many other computers, cadence, speed, gradient, intervals, power. Also when recreational cyclist is worrying about how much power they are putting down when bombing down a hill is silly. Cyclist who are worried about accuracy but then follow power on a trainer and expect that to translate to power on the pavement is silly. Especially when it's the same cyclist who are trying to argue a 2% difference in power between powermeters. also I paid 350 for my ibike with cadence. Not too bad. Also another arguement is the BIAS on this forum, the assumption is made that the PT is always right. this is wrong. perhaps the ibike is reading the proper output and the powertap is not? why not look at it that way? has anyone done the proper calculation to find out which is closer to real poweroutput? perhaps a test should be done rather than assuming that the SRM and powertap are correct? Yes, I'm sure many have tested them already but I would like that all three be tested ( at the same time) against the formula and then determine which is the most accurate. ...


----------



## shawndoggy (Feb 3, 2004)

There's a lot wrong with your post, but I want to pull out just one thing...



tete de la tour said:


> Cyclist who are worried about accuracy but then follow power on a trainer and expect that to translate to power on the pavement is silly. Especially when it's the same cyclist who are trying to argue a 2% difference in power between powermeters.


Huh? Are you saying that my PT says I generate more power when I'm on the trainer than I can on the pavement? Please explain.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

tete de la tour said:


> BUT, I don't use the trainer much and find training with *power* indoors silly.


Actually, training with power indoors makes a lot of sense. A fluid trainer or ergometer is about as close as the average joe can come to a laborotory environment, and it's a perfect setup to test performance. A heart monitor and a power meter or calibrated trainer can provide a ton of useful information that can be used to plan and/or modify a rider's training program. If you don't know how you're perfoming, you don't know if you're improving or going down hill...you don't know if your training plan is working or not. As an alternative to testing indoors, you could ride time trials over a known course outdoors, but outdoors, there are way more variables to confuse the results.


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

StillRiding said:


> Actually, training with power indoors makes a lot of sense. A fluid trainer or ergometer is about as close as the average joe can come to a laborotory environment, and it's a perfect setup to test performance. A heart monitor and a power meter or calibrated trainer can provide a ton of useful information that can be used to plan and/or modify a rider's training program. If you don't know how you're perfoming, you don't know if you're improving or going down hill...you don't know if your training plan is working or not. As an alternative to testing indoors, you could ride time trials over a known course outdoors, but outdoors, there are way more variables to confuse the results.


I fully agree with your post, a big +1.
I would also like to comment that the "power translating to the pavement" comment by tete de la tour makes no sense. I've never had an issue with that, in any way. Last time I checked, I could do 282 watts for an hour indoors, and feel like crap, and I could do 282 watts for an hour outdoors, and feel like crap. Power's power... The power curve on your trainer may be different on the real road, but that just means you ride at a different "speed" (IE with my trainer, when I'm putting out 380W, I go 19mph, in real life that's more like 180W. As such, on the trainer, I average liek 12-13mph, but I still average ~230W)

PS OT, StillRiding, didnt you start a thread just a while ago saying power was useless?  
Or something along those lines? Maybe I'm getting you confused with somebody else.

-estone2


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

estone2 said:


> I fully agree with your post, a big +1.
> 
> PS OT, StillRiding, didnt you start a thread just a while ago saying power was useless?
> Or something along those lines? Maybe I'm getting you confused with somebody else.
> ...


I started a thread asking for justification of the use of power meters. My argument was never that they're useless, but my conclusion after all was said and done is that a road power meter is an expensive toy for everyone except the elite, and that even then the application is very specialized. After that the discussion degenerated into a debate as to whether the heart (CV system) or the muscles are the limiter of performance. 

99% of the useful information that a rider can get concerning power can be gotten indoors on a calibrated trainer with a speedometer. A power meter for $38.95 is handy, but not necessary if you know speed (which can be converted to power on a calibrated trainer). A heart monitor is critical to the complete analysis and understanding of this information.


----------



## estone2 (Sep 25, 2005)

StillRiding said:


> I started a thread asking for justification of the use of power meters. My argument was never that they're useless, but my conclusion after all was said and done is that a road power meter is an expensive toy for everyone except the elite, and that even then the application is very specialized.


Oh. My bad
Shows how much attention I paid to the thread  
-estone2


----------



## tete de la tour (Oct 26, 2006)

StillRiding said:


> Actually, training with power indoors makes a lot of sense. A fluid trainer or ergometer is about as close as the average joe can come to a laborotory environment, and it's a perfect setup to test performance. A heart monitor and a power meter or calibrated trainer can provide a ton of useful information that can be used to plan and/or modify a rider's training program. If you don't know how you're perfoming, you don't know if you're improving or going down hill...you don't know if your training plan is working or not. As an alternative to testing indoors, you could ride time trials over a known course outdoors, but outdoors, there are way more variables to confuse the results.


you're telling me that the "average joe" cyclist ( this is where I think it gets out of hand) should be thinking of a " laboratory environment"? you don't think this is out of hand? then I might as well hit the local wind tunnel up as well. Power on the trainer will not net you the same results on the pavement. Numerically it will yes 280 is 280 - but 280 watts in the rain into a head wind is much different in terms of fatigue and endurance. Yes for a math nut maybe numbers are everything but real cycling is done on roads. not in a room with a calculator. if it were about training indoors then why would a team waste their time going to different locations to train? think about it. when I first started cycling I got caught up in numbers, looking at my HRM and cadence really didn't help much when it was time to improve. it actually limit me because i felt like a bomb about to explode watching numbers. then I turned to mental training techniques and the changes came quick. My endurance level went way up, my body became stronger and now that I I didn't watch my limits tick off on a meter I felt limitless. Training with power on the road has helped me in areas of climbing. However the same hill I can do in 10 minutes may take me 12 min on a good day because of environmental changes. Labs are made for rats not cyclist.

Dont get me wrong however, I think training indoors can help, I think that the " average joe" can benefit from it especially when done correctly with interval training. And for those in the snow/wet places then of course train indoors. But to try to simulate a lab at home for a recreational rider to improve will not work. because those number are just that numbers. Cycling is not about math..

thats also one expensive " average joe" laboratory environment. 

I agree it can help but I think when we are talking about the average cyclist in a real world environment then we should stick to the pavement.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

tete de la tour said:


> Numerically it will yes 280 is 280 - but 280 watts in the rain into a head wind is much different in terms of fatigue and endurance.


Actually its harder to do the same watts on the trainer that you woudl on the road the raod allows for more rest in you pedal stroke while on teh trainer any let up and you power drops quickly and you have to fight to return it to the proper level. For example I can easily hold 300+ avg for a 8 mile winter TT but doing 4x8 min intevals on the trainer at 280 watts avg. is much harder. 

I don't think that people are try to turn everything into number but for someone like me who has limited time to train i want to make sure my workouts are doing for what they are suppose to do and my power meter lets me do that. The old addage of riding lots is definatly a good way to get fit but I just don't have the time to clock in hour after hour esp during the week. By follow a training program based on and using a power meter I managed to make gains over the past two seasons. 

I would consider myself close to joe avg cyclist but since I race in cat 1,2 races and compeditive master fields I have to make sure my training is as good as it can be and the use of a power meter has let me do that. Of course if you don't know how to use it and intepret the data it is just a expensive toy.


----------



## StillRiding (Sep 16, 2006)

tete de la tour said:


> you're telling me that the "average joe" cyclist ( this is where I think it gets out of hand) should be thinking of a " laboratory environment"? you don't think this is out of hand? then I might as well hit the local wind tunnel up as well. Power on the trainer will not net you the same results on the pavement. Numerically it will yes 280 is 280 - but 280 watts in the rain into a head wind is much different in terms of fatigue and endurance. Yes for a math nut maybe numbers are everything but real cycling is done on roads. not in a room with a calculator. if it were about training indoors then why would a team waste their time going to different locations to train? think about it. when I first started cycling I got caught up in numbers, looking at my HRM and cadence really didn't help much when it was time to improve. it actually limit me because i felt like a bomb about to explode watching numbers. then I turned to mental training techniques and the changes came quick. My endurance level went way up, my body became stronger and now that I I didn't watch my limits tick off on a meter I felt limitless. Training with power on the road has helped me in areas of climbing. However the same hill I can do in 10 minutes may take me 12 min on a good day because of environmental changes. Labs are made for rats not cyclist.
> 
> Dont get me wrong however, I think training indoors can help, I think that the " average joe" can benefit from it especially when done correctly with interval training. And for those in the snow/wet places then of course train indoors. But to try to simulate a lab at home for a recreational rider to improve will not work. because those number are just that numbers. Cycling is not about math..
> 
> ...


Judging from the above, I'm not sure you really understood my point. I'll try to make it one more time as simply as I can.

1. Measuring performance indoors is better than on the road because there are fewer variables to affect the results.

2. Performance should be measured periodically to gauge the effectiveness of your training program.

3. A calibrated fluid trainer and a speedo or cheap power meter is all the equipment that the average Joe (not rich or with a sponsor) needs to test performance.

If you buy the three statements above, it's not too big a leap to conclude that training indoors is an effective use for a power meter for the average Joe.

If you'd like to dispute any of the points above, please clearly state your reasons for disagreement and the facts supporting them.


----------



## tete de la tour (Oct 26, 2006)

StillRiding said:


> If you'd like to dispute any of the points above, please clearly state your reasons for disagreement and the facts supporting them.


nah....


----------



## powerrules (Jun 22, 2008)

I advise everyone to avoid ibike . It is definitely NOT worth the money. Last September I was naively intrigued by ibike's guaranteed accuracy and staggeringly low price. With the hopes of using it to monitor my training, I ordered the unit. Upon receiving it I discovered that it came without the essential handlebar mounting equipment. I called ibike and they shipped me the parts. On my first ride with the ibike it started raining halfway in. It wasn't a hard rain, just steady. Not long after that the ibike began to fill with water. It didn't take more than ten minutes before the computer short-circuited and died. Surprised that any company would make an expensive cycling computer that leaked, (I have never ever seen a non-waterproof cycling computer, water is part of the sport) I contacted ibike and they made it clear that the unit should not have leaked and wanted it back for some sort of failure analysis. They replaced it with what looked like a refurbished model. (That didn't really matter to me because I was sick of all the setbacks and just wanted to use it) Unfortunately at this point the New England winter had set in and the ibike could not be used on a trainer. In March I mounted the ibike and used it for several rides. On one of the rides it rained, and again the ibike filled with water. However, this time it did not stop working (although using it in its wet state was similar to swimming with goggles full of water). It took a week to completely dry the unit out, and when I remounted it I noticed that the adhesive used to hold together the handlebar mount had failed. Consequently the unit was not secure and could not properly measure power. When I contacted ibike about the matter asking about the leaking unit and internally fractured handlebar mount, they responded with THE IBIKE WARRANTY ONLY LASTS 45 DAYS! There is really nothing I can do about the unit now. I will have to eBay it. Overall I am disappointed with the quality of ibike. It is clear the company has not spent enough time testing their product. The 45 day warranty is evidence that they have no faith in there own product. This is a case and point of you get what you pay for. Sure the ibike is cheaper than PowerTap, SRM and ciclosport, but that is exactly what it is - cheaper. If you want a training tool that can be used in rain or shine to accurately record power, do yourself a favor and look elsewhere.


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

Sorry to read you had such a tough time with the Velocomp (iBike's parent company) guys. I always found them to be very accommodating via e-mail. LikeI posted above, I put over 1,000 miles on my iBike. I had two mounts fail and Velocomp offered to replace them for free immediately. 

But, in the end, what bothered me most about the iBike was all the upgrades required to get it ready for prime time. From day 1, I had issues with the iBike reading high on rough roads. iBike admitted this problem, and came out with all sorts of things to mitigate it.I was seeing wattage data when coasting downhill, so they wanted me to buy the cadence sensor so the I bike would zero out when I stopped pedaling. Over the winter winter, I was almost ready to buy a bunch of new upgrades: new stem mount, vibration-reducing device, new firmware (free) and recalibrate the device. I was looking at $200+ for my two bikes.

Then the Velocomp guys helped me figure out that another reason my power was reading high was because I was taking the iBike from a 68F house to 40F winter rides. So even after buying all the upgrades, I would have to go through the following procedure to make sure I could record accurate power data...before every ride:

1. Cool down iBike close to outside temperature (in the refrigerator?).
2. Make sure I have battery power to cover the ride.
3. Make sure I have enough available memory to record the ride.
4. Cover wind port without touching and try to reset wind offset to 0.
5. Make sure weight is correct.
6. Go outside.
7. Find a flat surface and reset tilt to 0.

So I've given up on the iBike. Now I see they are offering yet another upgrade, a housing with vibration-resistant chip boards. I can get this for $179. Unbelievable. So if I had purchased the above upgrades and the new housing, I'd be into iBike for $800. And I still could not use the iBike on my trainer because their trainer software does not apply to my particular trainer.

So I found a used PowerTap on eBay for less than $500. It is bullet-proof so far and I'm very happy with it.


----------



## WampaOne (May 28, 2004)

ok i didn't get the pic to load


----------



## WampaOne (May 28, 2004)

The iBike is not without problems but it absolutely works. If properly calibrated it is as good as anything else. 
The CdA analysis is a really great feature and can proved real information on the aerodynamics of your position.
However, it is not without things I would like to change. The need to have it adjust to the outside temperature before doing the wind offset is annoying. As is the wind offset itself. 

Attached is a picture of the iBike aero data and powertap SL 2.4 data from the same ride. Could you predict which one is the iBike and which one the powertap? 
as far as averages go:
iBike - 197.8W
Powertap - 192.2W

Thats 5.6W difference over 2h. Less then a 3% difference is a number I can live with.


----------



## team_sheepshead (Jan 17, 2003)

Yes, I agree with you that when it works, it works. I've seen a fair number of these graphs favorably comparing the iBike to another power meter. But more than accuracy, I'm concerned with the expense and time involved to get it to work properly. With more than 1,000 miles on the iBike, I think I can safely say the thing never worked well for me on rough pavement (high readings) or when coasting downhill (power readings where none should be).

The guys at iBike kept admitting to me in the nicest ways that these were inherent problems, then would offer me some tip (reset wind offset!) or try to sell me some upgrade (usually at a discount) to mitigate them: cadence kit, vibration dampers, stem mounts, new housings. It all got to be a bit absurd after a while.

I know some folks have also had trouble with PowerTaps, but after 500 miles my previously used PowerTap is flawless.Price is comparable to a fully upgraded iBike, and, better yet, I just get on my bike and go.


----------



## multirider (Nov 5, 2007)

I'm pretty satisfied with my iBike. I bought it from Performance Bike on sale for $379 less a 20% coupon which brought it to about $300. I upgraded to wireless to get the HR and cadence for $250. 

I did the 10 coast downs and 4-mile-out-and-back and created a Profile. The iBike stays in the garage with my bike, so acclimating it to outside temp is no big deal. I checked Tilt for the first month or two and it never varied, so I quit doing that step. Even that step is trivial -- two marks on the garage floor, put the tires on them and look at the Tilt reading, switch the bike around, the Tilt reading should be the opposite. In my case, it always registered 1.5 degrees one way and negative 1.5 degrees when switched. That means the Tilt is correct. Not hard, not time consuming, and I quit doing it because it was always the same. And the wind offset was almost always 0 on mine. Push the button, see if it is 0, if it's not, reset it. What's the big deal? 

I am a solid convert to training with power. I now really dislike using the Garmin on my mtb, would much rather have power. I like simultaneous measurement of effort, not significantly-trailing measurement. HR is helpful as a secondary measure on longer efforts.

I would have to admit to being a bit put off by the iBike $179 upgrade offer. I think they should have made it a lot less for current iBike owners. I don't have their financials and possibly they couldn't afford it, but I've had my iBike for about 8 months. Getting a "upgrade now to the more vibration-resistent model" offer was great, but $99 would have seemed a lot fairer than $179. I'd really like the new one, but that seems like a lot to me.

But I really like training with power. And it is 52 grams instead of the >1 pound for the PT. 52 grams on the handlebar, not >1 pound on the hub. That's a pretty big difference when you're stomping up a climb.


----------

