Power Meters / Powermeters (SRM, Powertap, Quarq, Ergomo, Vector, Stages, power2max, P2M, 4iii, InPower, Cinch)

I actually did briefly contemplate if I somehow installed of them backwards/inside out or something. The only explanation I can think of is one of them is reporting left as right and vice versa. Will try some single leg pedaling to see if that's the case.

I just worry that the difference between the two means they might not be consistent in power reporting too, which would be shitty to say the least.

Impressively ugly, that.

Looking at the cranks from the driveside. They report everything from 12 oclock to 6 oclock as right foot, and from 6 oclock back to 12 oclock as left foot. Sounds like a massive fudge. Because it is. But other a few thousand pedal strokes it gives a decent enough number.

So simply pulling up With you left will give a big right side Balance.

Yeah agreed. I just don't understand why given the two powermeters are identical, why one would consistently contradict the other. Something fishy is going on.

Definitey something going on.

Have you E-mailed them? They were super helpful when mine started giving power spikes.

Yeah got a response from them earlier, they want serial numbers. Let's see what happens

was secrety hoping they tell me it was fine and the 7000w spikes came from my epic legs......

intrigued to see what reviews of the production units will say... DC Rainmaker's report on a pre-production unit wasn't exactly glowing.

There's a whole thread of comments about the units with some information.

I'll be sticking with Powertap and P2Ms.

Update on my not matching power2max's. They want me to send in the older one to update firmware which should make them give the same number... Effort.

Here I was thinking I was right leg dominate all the years, now I learn I am lefty. I don't know who I am anymore.

You're someone who should remove R/L Balance from the screen of their Garmin and get on with your life.

Problems with accuracy / calibration according to the few who've had theirs so far (scroll towards the bottom of the comments).

http://www.dcrainmaker.com/limits-power-accuracy

Looks like garbage, look at the limits power curve for this one for example, its way off in a bunch of places. Sometimes over reporting and sometimes under reporting. Could be great for over unders workouts!

https://analyze.dcrainmaker.com/#/public/aa8bc997-07b6-4705-56a2-f89055f13060

You need an inverse shim

Won't that thing make your Q factor huge?

Limits are working on a pedal washer with a thickness of -15mm to solve the Q factor problem

I decided to check their website, this is from the FAQ

"LIMITS has been used by a number of the Spokes Racing Team and Club Members generating positive feedback with many of the cyclists reporting an improvement in foot position leading to an improvement in comfort, especially over longer rides.
Analysis of this feedback highlighted that many cyclists knees track outward at the top of the pedal stroke adding unwanted stress on the knee and splaying the power outwards on an inefficient vector relative to the pedal travel.
This outward tracking is typically addressed by adjusting cleat position or/and adding spacers between the cleat and shoe to intentionally narrow the knees all the way through the pedal stroke but this over recruits the stabilizers to track the knee on a unnatural plane, good pedal action involves as straight a vertical tracking of the knees as the riders physiology permits.
LIMITS allows the cyclist to ride with a stance width that is comfortable and so allows the knee to track on the most vertically linear path as possible, it stands to reason that this action will put power directly down through the pedal."

How to answer like a politician to your own question.

Lol, I think @xavierdisley might have something to say about that.

Narrow q all the way.

it stands to reason

Not a phrase which has ever been uttered by a scientist :)

It's probably worth quoting from the abstract of Xav's thesis, just in case anybody new to the thread wants an alternative view from that provided by the manufacturer.

"Self selected Q Factor (SSQ) was lower than standard [150mm across the crank faces at the pedal eyes] in trained cyclists and could be predicted using a simple suspension task. The use of SSQ compared with Q Factors higher and lower than SSQ provided a combination of kinematic stability and increased efficiency, lowering the risk of injury and the oxygen cost of cycling."

Theres Space for a Limits type system on a pedal. You just need manufactures to provide ultra short axles.

You can already get knock off replacement axles for speedplay, look, and a few other common pedals. Not sure how many you'd need to order to convince the a chinese factory to do a few runs.

I emailed them in April 2015 from memory, they lied about sending some Limits units to a university then. They lie a lot in fact, really surprising when you've got people who will definitely pick them up on it but well done to them for taking half a million dollars off people ... bunch of charlatans.

Its an intriguing system. I Wonder if the wrong People are working With it.

To my (uneducated in such matters) mind. A system were the customer sends in their pedals for conversion, buys completely New pedals, or buys the PM plus the correct short axle, is the way to go.

Doesnt market as well as 'cheap universal powermeter' though.

So stages but for pedals.

Yeah that actually seems like a much better idea tbh.

Doesnt quite fit that holy grail of 'fit this to any bike you want, Yourself, for cheaps' though. At least not in such a simple manner.

Its pretty common to race both road and XC up here. So a system that could be swapped between a hardtail and a road bike would good. Stages can do this With a little bodging. But if you could just convert a pair of road, and a pair of XC pedals to uber short spindles. You could move the Limits across and still keep Your Q.

How do you think these limits style meters would hold up in a crash?