Therefore the maximum tolerance but it is good to know how the sensor evolves within this tolerance. Indeed,
if your sensor must calculate 305w real and displays between 302 and 308w most
of the time, it is therefore very good. If the 2% (299w / 311w) are often
reached or even slightly exceeded, it becomes difficult to The principle rely on it
for precision training. This is
what a study on 54 sensors on the market wanted to verify, the
Link to which can be found
cyclists ride on an inclined treadmill. Each cyclist was held by different
masses, and if they weren’t pedaling, they were
pulled towards the back of the treadmill and phone number list therefore had to exert a certain amount of power
to stay on the treadmill.
Before talking about the results, we should note that four brands are
widely represented: SRM, Powertap, Quarq, and Stages. Verve, Vector Garmin,
Power2max, and Rotor are insufficient in number to produce solid statistics.
Of the 4 brands represented, SRM seems to be the most accurate. Almost
all SRMs are under 1% accuracy (as advertised), including 4 close to
0.3%! Powertap is
also very well placed with all sensors under the advertised 1.5%. Quarq
also seems validated even if one of the 14 tips to extend the battery life models is outside the tolerances. The red lantern goes to Stages with
variations up to 6% and a large dispersion. Verve seems to perform
well as well as Rotor (<1%) but as
Mentioned above the number of models tested is low
Measurement variation around the standard value, wide base and close to 0% = precise sensors
Tour int magazine also conducted tests with the
latest sensors on the market. To do this, they created a measurement bench
capable of comparing two cranksets with each other. They betting email list started with a
reference sensor (Verve infocrank) and compared all the others against it.