PT+ recording interval

[Dave Harris]

The ANT+ updater for my PT 2.4 disc showed up yesterday - it updated the hub
without a hitch. The CPU was slightly more painful, requiring a firmware
update which added new features and made it invisible to WKO. I saw Gear's
response so know that fix is in the pipeline. How many gizmos is
trainingpeaks supporting right now? Gawd that must be fun.



Anyway, the displays for the 705 vs. the PT CPU are very different. The 705
has a longer smoothing window than the CPU, and I don't think it is
alterable. I wasn't convinced the data is the same so inspected a couple
simultaneous files.



To my surprise, the PT is now recording at exactly 1 second intervals - not
1.28 seconds. Seems insignificant at first brush but I think this will
prove to be fodder for a lot of conversation here J



To my even bigger surprise, the downloaded data was similar but by no means
identical. Most notably, during an out of the saddle 70ish rpm
acceleration, the PT showed a lot of precession, the 705 none at all. In
general, the 705 data looks smoothed just as it's display did.



The pic:



<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ofVetcprUKPL8y6rGPP1GQ"><img
src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_PhFtjJbmlI0/ST6bX4Kh-aI/AAAAAAAAGn8/2Y-HZ5C8eFs/s
800/pt%2B%20vs%20705.JPG" /></a>



In case that doesn't work:



http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ofVetcprUKPL8y6rGPP1GQ



Clearly, more to come on this.




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[r***@aol.com]

Yup, we are on it.  Hope to have a beta later today for direct download again.

67 devices we now directly download and support......

Are you using the virtual cadence on the PT? or do you have a cadence sensor?

Is the precession worse now? Yikes...

Mind sending me the raw, .csv and .wko  files directly?

hunter AT peaksware.com

Thanks.
Hunter


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Harris <***@gmail.com>
To: ***@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:27 am
Subject: [Wattage] PT+ recording interval




The ANT+ updater for my PT 2.4 disc showed up yesterday – it updated the hub without a hitch.  The CPU was slightly more painful, requiring a firmware update which added new features and made it invisible to WKO.  I saw Gear’s response so know that fix is in the pipeline.  How many gizmos is trainingpeaks supporting right now?  Gawd that must be fun.

 

Anyway, the displays for the 705 vs. the PT CPU are very different.  The 705 has a longer smoothing window than the CPU, and I don’t think it is alterable.  I wasn’t convinced the data is the same so inspected a couple simultaneous files.

 

To my surprise, the PT is now recording at exactly 1 second intervals – not 1.28 seconds.  Seems insignificant at first brush but I think this will prove to be fodder for a lot of conversation here J

 

To my even bigger surprise, the downloaded data was similar but by no means identic
al.  Most notably, during an out of the saddle 70ish rpm acceleration, the PT showed a lot of precession, the 705 none at all.  In general, the 705 data looks smoothed just as it’s display did.

 

The pic:

 

<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ofVetcprUKPL8y6rGPP1GQ"><img src="Loading Image..."; /></a>

 

In case that doesn’t work: 

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ofVetcprUKPL8y6rGPP1GQ

 

Clearly, more to come on this


 






--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Andy Coggan]

Post by r***@aol.com
Is the precession worse now? Yikes...

It shouldn't be. However, changing the recording/reporting interval
will have changed the "magic" cadence.

Andy Coggan
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Ben Wooliscroft]

Hi Hunter,

great webinar, I'd love to take you up on your offer of the TSS calculation spreadsheets. They look great.

Cheers

Ben

p.s. finally coming into summer and ... I get a cold. Hard to build CTL with that...

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Ben Wooliscroft]

Sorry all, my cold has blurred my mind and I sent an email for Hunter to you all.

Ben


-----Original Message-----
From: ***@googlegroups.com on behalf of Ben Wooliscroft
Sent: Wed 12/10/2008 2:53 PM
To: ***@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Wattage] spreadsheets offer

Hi Hunter,

great webinar, I'd love to take you up on your offer of the TSS calculation spreadsheets. They look great.

Cheers

Ben

p.s. finally coming into summer and ... I get a cold. Hard to build CTL with that...


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Robert Chung]

Post by Dave Harris
To my even bigger surprise, the downloaded data was similar but by no means
identical.  

Fascinating.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom_Anhalt]

Post by Robert Chung

Post by Dave Harris
To my even bigger surprise, the downloaded data was similar but by no means
identical.  

Fascinating.

Well...my experience with reading out a CinQo with both a 705 and an
iAero has revealed that even though 2 head units might be receiving
the same data stream and recording at the same rate, sometimes they
don't always "handle" the data stream in the same manner. I've asked,
and have been told, that the 705 just records the last data sent from
the CinQo just prior to the 1s recording interval. The iAero
supposedly does the same thing as well...but, the power traces don't
quite line up....hmmmm.

Now, granted, the CinQo is going to be slightly different than the PT
(I'm assuming) due to it's particular technique of calculating and
transmitting power (i.e. data "packets" sent at 4hz, with the "packet"
info updated upon the completion of a pedal revolution)...


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Stuart Lynne]

Post by Tom_Anhalt
Well...my experience with reading out a CinQo with both a 705 and an
iAero has revealed that even though 2 head units might be receiving
the same data stream and recording at the same rate, sometimes they
don't always "handle" the data stream in the same manner. I've asked,
and have been told, that the 705 just records the last data sent from
the CinQo just prior to the 1s recording interval. The iAero
supposedly does the same thing as well...but, the power traces don't
quite line up....hmmmm.

Even if the iAero and 705 are using the same recording interval the actual
intervals may not start and stop at the same time in both, so they may
(probably will) record a slightly different version of the samples received.
--
__________O___________
_______-\<,____________
_____(_)/_(_)___________
_________________________
***@enposte.net

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Dave Harris]

I take that back. Sometimes the data is not even similar.



These snapshots are from a SS ride - this is how you maintain 21 mph with a
gear limitation ;) Identical sections of the same ride but from different
computer heads, same PT hub. The first is the PT, the 2nd is from the 705.



Bottom line: the 705 does not handle bursty efforts at all.



I am really - really! - dissapointed to see how innacurate the data is
coming out of the garmin. I can't say why it's so different. The PT hub
transmits on 2 different channels now as I understand it, one for the PT CPU
and one for the ANT+ sport. Do both contain identical data? Does Garmin do
some whacky post-processing? A combo of the 2?



Steady efforts seem to be fine. 15 min intervals yesterday were all within
a watt between devices. A road race, crit, or MTB ride though and you'll
need your PT cpu.



Jesse, care to address this?

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Robert Chung
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:17 AM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval

Post by Dave Harris
To my even bigger surprise, the downloaded data was similar but by no

means

Post by Dave Harris
identical.

Fascinating.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Alex Simmons]

Yikes!

I take that back.  Sometimes the data is not even similar.
These snapshots are from a SS ride - this is how you maintain 21 mph with a
gear limitation ;)  Identical sections of the same ride but from different
computer heads, same PT hub.  The first is the PT, the 2nd is from the 705.
Bottom line:  the 705 does not handle bursty efforts at all.
I am really - really! - dissapointed to see how innacurate the data is
coming out of the garmin.  I can't say why it's so different.  The PT hub
transmits on 2 different channels now as I understand it, one for the PT CPU
and one for the ANT+ sport.  Do both contain identical data?  Does Garmin do
some whacky post-processing?  A combo of the 2?
Steady efforts seem to be fine.  15 min intervals yesterday were all within
a watt between devices.  A road race, crit, or MTB ride though and you'll
need your PT cpu.
Jesse, care to address this?

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Robert Chung
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:17 AM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval

Post by Dave Harris
To my even bigger surprise, the downloaded data was similar but by no

means

Post by Dave Harris
identical.

Fascinating.

 image003.png
88KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Robert Chung]

I take that back.  Sometimes the data is not even similar.

Maybe someone with a 705/SRM or 705/Cinqo can do some bursty efforts
for comparison.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Dave Harris]

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Robert Chung
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:14 PM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval

I take that back.  Sometimes the data is not even similar.

Maybe someone with a 705/SRM or 705/Cinqo can do some bursty efforts
for comparison.

Paging Tom Anhalt...


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom_Anhalt]

Post by Dave Harris
Paging Tom Anhalt...

Would a sprint workout suffice? :-)

I'm in a bit busy right now...but hopefully later I'll upload a .zip
file containing a "native" PT file (i.e. 1.26s recording), CinQo on
Garmin, CinQo on iAero, and Polar.

My brief recollection when comparing the traces for the sprints in the
iBike2 or 3 software was that the PT and CinQo/Garmin were basically
"lockstep", with the CinQo/iAero trace not tracking as closely, and
with (obviously since it's sprints) the Polar being "right out" ;-)

I've got almost a month's worth of rides to choose from, so if that
isn't good enough, then I can sift through some others to see about
something else.

Gotta go...
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[jason osborne]

Doh!!

Tom's post pointed out that I forgot a PM in my cursory list. The iAero...

Perhaps this is where the smoothing request came from?

Jason.

Post by Tom_Anhalt

Post by Dave Harris
Paging Tom Anhalt...

Would a sprint workout suffice? :-)
I'm in a bit busy right now...but hopefully later I'll upload a .zip
file containing a "native" PT file (i.e. 1.26s recording), CinQo on
Garmin, CinQo on iAero, and Polar.
My brief recollection when comparing the traces for the sprints in the
iBike2 or 3 software was that the PT and CinQo/Garmin were basically
"lockstep", with the CinQo/iAero trace not tracking as closely, and
with (obviously since it's sprints) the Polar being "right out" ;-)
I've got almost a month's worth of rides to choose from, so if that
isn't good enough, then I can sift through some others to see about
something else.
Gotta go...

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[racerfern]

I've got tons of files from both the iAero Gen 2 and 3 and haven't had
a problem with smoothing. I do have a problem with data drops
occasionally (unsure if I blame iBike or 705) and the 705 does not
record zero power. However, the wattage recorded in the 705 does not
appear smoothed to the point of skewing the graphs whether I record in
one second or smart recording. I'm at work but I can post files later.
The graphs certainly don't look like the ones posted earlier.

Doh!!
Tom's post pointed out that I forgot a PM in my cursory list.  The iAero...
Perhaps this is where the smoothing request came from?
Jason.

Post by Dave Harris
Paging Tom Anhalt...

Would a sprint workout suffice?  :-)
I'm in a bit busy right now...but hopefully later I'll upload a .zip
file containing a "native" PT file (i.e. 1.26s recording), CinQo on
Garmin, CinQo on iAero, and Polar.
My brief recollection when comparing the traces for the sprints in the
iBike2 or 3 software was that the PT and CinQo/Garmin were basically
"lockstep", with the CinQo/iAero trace not tracking as closely, and
with (obviously since it's sprints) the Polar being "right out" ;-)
I've got almost a month's worth of rides to choose from, so if that
isn't good enough, then I can sift through some others to see about
something else.
Gotta go...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Chris Cleeland]

Post by Robert Chung

Post by Dave Harris
I take that back. Sometimes the data is not even similar.

Maybe someone with a 705/SRM or 705/Cinqo can do some bursty efforts
for comparison.

Or an iAero and a PT+ANT, right?

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[[e-mail]]

Our testing and analysis showed the Garmin applies a liberal amount of
smoothing for some reason.

Preliminary comment from Garmin was that this was at the request of
other members of the ANT+ alliance.

I take that back.  Sometimes the data is not even similar.
These snapshots are from a SS ride - this is how you maintain 21 mph with a
gear limitation ;)  Identical sections of the same ride but from different
computer heads, same PT hub.  The first is the PT, the 2nd is from the 705.
Bottom line:  the 705 does not handle bursty efforts at all.
I am really - really! - dissapointed to see how innacurate the data is
coming out of the garmin.  I can't say why it's so different.  The PT hub
transmits on 2 different channels now as I understand it, one for the PT CPU
and one for the ANT+ sport.  Do both contain identical data?  Does Garmin do
some whacky post-processing?  A combo of the 2?
Steady efforts seem to be fine.  15 min intervals yesterday were all within
a watt between devices.  A road race, crit, or MTB ride though and you'll
need your PT cpu.
Jesse, care to address this?

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Robert Chung
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:17 AM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval

Post by Dave Harris
To my even bigger surprise, the downloaded data was similar but by no

means

Post by Dave Harris
identical.

Fascinating.

 image003.png
88KViewDownload

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Robert Chung]

Post by ***@gmail.com
Preliminary comment from Garmin was that this was at the request of
other members of the ANT+ alliance.

Yikes.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[[e-mail]]

I should mention we notified Garmin of the issue in June as we built
prototypes for Slipstream in preparation for the Tour.

Post by r***@aol.com

Post by ***@gmail.com
Preliminary comment from Garmin was that this was at the request of
other members of the ANT+ alliance.

Yikes.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[ggalat]

So,

Based upon this, and assuming (at least for myself) that Allen Lim and
the Slipstream guys need cleaner data than I do, how are they handling
the issues? Or, are some of us overthinking this? I have been using
my ANT+ PT Hubs since Saturday with my 705, and my coach says the data
looks "normal". I am untrained enough to not be able to see any
difference (except when I ride the trainer, with speed/distance
dropout,which is not as important)

Post by ***@gmail.com
I should mention we notified Garmin of the issue in June as we built
prototypes for Slipstream in preparation for the Tour.

Post by ***@gmail.com
Preliminary comment from Garmin was that this was at the request of
other members of the ANT+ alliance.

Yikes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Dave Harris]

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of ggalat
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 1:43 PM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval
So,
Based upon this, and assuming (at least for myself) that Allen Lim and
the Slipstream guys need cleaner data than I do, how are they handling
the issues? Or, are some of us overthinking this? I have been using
my ANT+ PT Hubs since Saturday with my 705, and my coach says the data
looks "normal". I am untrained enough to not be able to see any
difference (except when I ride the trainer, with speed/distance
dropout,which is not as important)

I can't speak for Slipstream - but in the end it is going to depend on what
you want out of the data and what type of training you are doing.

A microinterval workout would probably have 2 very different outcomes based
on the files downloaded. Steady work? There's nothing to smooth so it
should be fine.

One really needs to compare both files to say it looks ok...

Fundamentally, altering the raw data stream makes no sense. Filters,
smoothing & the like are the domain of post-processing.

In reality, I can't yet say how close overall ride TSS/IF track because
there is an additional issue that wko doesn't recognize idle time in
Garmin's .tcx format. kJ however should still be identical. They aren't -
the PT file for yesterday was about 2.25% higher than the 705 downloaded
file. That may or may not seem like a big deal, but when you consider the
source of the difference - top end power being "scrubbed" from the file - it
matters, at least to me.

To put numbers to the issue: in yesterday's ride, time spent in L6 & above
in the PT direct download file was 16:30 while in the 705 file it was 11:10.
That's significant.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Daniel Lloyd]

For sale, SRM Dura ace 175mm.

I had the unit for about a year, but it has recently back to SRM more than
once for servicing. Finally, they couldn't decide what was wrong with it
and have replaced the crank system completely with a brand new one. Left
hand crank has just 50km of use. Head unit is around 1 year old, but has
also recently been back to SRM Germany for servicing. Comes with used bike
receiver cable, charger, wheel magnet and download USB cable.

Retail is £2700, looking for £1750 as this is basically a new unit.

I will also have a 4 month old PCVI wireless SRM system for sale soon (just
has to be sent back for servicing at SRM) which I will be selling for £1800.

Contact me for pics or more info: lloyd dot daniel at gmail dot com

Unit is in the UK.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Jim@Quarq]

Just FYI, Quarq didn't request any smoothing.

Jim

Post by ***@gmail.com
Our testing and analysis showed the Garmin applies a liberal amount of
smoothing for some reason.
Preliminary comment from Garmin was that this was at the request of
other members of the ANT+ alliance.

I take that back.  Sometimes the data is not even similar.
These snapshots are from a SS ride - this is how you maintain 21 mph with a
gear limitation ;)  Identical sections of the same ride but from different
computer heads, same PT hub.  The first is the PT, the 2nd is from the 705.
Bottom line:  the 705 does not handle bursty efforts at all.
I am really - really! - dissapointed to see how innacurate the data is
coming out of the garmin.  I can't say why it's so different.  The PT hub
transmits on 2 different channels now as I understand it, one for the PT CPU
and one for the ANT+ sport.  Do both contain identical data?  Does Garmin do
some whacky post-processing?  A combo of the 2?
Steady efforts seem to be fine.  15 min intervals yesterday were all within
a watt between devices.  A road race, crit, or MTB ride though and you'll
need your PT cpu.
Jesse, care to address this?

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Robert Chung
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:17 AM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval

Post by Dave Harris
To my even bigger surprise, the downloaded data was similar but by no

means

Post by Dave Harris
identical.

Fascinating.

 image003.png
88KViewDownload

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[jason osborne]

Well, then a quick process of elimination means SRM or Ergomo - the latter
being defunct and not ANT+ compatible anyway. The former offers a native
0.1s data collection in some models so I don't think it was them either.

Does that mean then that some people in the ANT alliance asked for smoothing
and it was applied for ALL data streams?

This really confirms my fears from Interbike last year - Garmin obviously
didn't do enough "voice of the customer" research on the wattage list. :)

Jason.

Post by ***@Quarq
Just FYI, Quarq didn't request any smoothing.
Jim

Post by ***@gmail.com
Our testing and analysis showed the Garmin applies a liberal amount of
smoothing for some reason.
Preliminary comment from Garmin was that this was at the request of
other members of the ANT+ alliance.

Post by Dave Harris
I take that back. Sometimes the data is not even similar.
These snapshots are from a SS ride - this is how you maintain 21 mph

with a

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Dave Harris
gear limitation ;) Identical sections of the same ride but from

different

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Dave Harris
computer heads, same PT hub. The first is the PT, the 2nd is from the

705.

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Dave Harris
Bottom line: the 705 does not handle bursty efforts at all.
I am really - really! - dissapointed to see how innacurate the data is
coming out of the garmin. I can't say why it's so different. The PT

hub

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Dave Harris
transmits on 2 different channels now as I understand it, one for the

PT CPU

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Dave Harris
and one for the ANT+ sport. Do both contain identical data? Does

Garmin do

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Dave Harris
some whacky post-processing? A combo of the 2?
Steady efforts seem to be fine. 15 min intervals yesterday were all

within

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Dave Harris
a watt between devices. A road race, crit, or MTB ride though and

you'll

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Dave Harris
need your PT cpu.
Jesse, care to address this?

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Robert Chung
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 10:17 AM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval

Post by Dave Harris
To my even bigger surprise, the downloaded data was similar but by

no

Post by ***@gmail.com

Post by Dave Harris

Post by r***@aol.com
means

Post by Dave Harris
identical.

Fascinating.

image003.png
88KViewDownload

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Dave Harris]

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:15 PM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval
Our testing and analysis showed the Garmin applies a liberal amount of
smoothing for some reason.
Preliminary comment from Garmin was that this was at the request of
other members of the ANT+ alliance.

Thanks for the heads up. At least that explains why Slipstream opted to use
the PT CPU at times. If I was Dr. Lim there'd be no 705's on those boys in
the tour!

There was a Garmin rep here not too long ago. Care to chime in?

In its current state the 705 IMO is not suitable as a power meter CPU.
Power is highly variable and to lose that in the data is unacceptable and
misleading. It's nothing a firmware change wouldn't fix, though.

I guess if you (Jesse & PT) weren't successful getting Garmin to change the
algorithm the little guy (end user) has a snowball's chance in hell, but hey
I'll try anything once. Except bayut.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Chris Cleeland]

Post by Dave Harris
I guess if you (Jesse & PT) weren't successful getting Garmin to change the
algorithm the little guy (end user) has a snowball's chance in hell, but hey
I'll try anything once. Except bayut.

Actually, I would think that general consumers and special consumers
(e.g., slipstream) has the BEST chance of influencing product.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Greg Steele]

I believe it was Ted that posted a quote from Garmin on the WW board
about the 705 that said (please correct me if I am wrong!) that garmin
offers power readings on the 705 *almost* as a courtesy. And that if
data is important, they reccomend using the manufacturer supplied head unit.

Was that right TS?

g

Post by Dave Harris

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:15 PM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval
Our testing and analysis showed the Garmin applies a liberal amount of
smoothing for some reason.
Preliminary comment from Garmin was that this was at the request of
other members of the ANT+ alliance.

Thanks for the heads up. At least that explains why Slipstream opted to use
the PT CPU at times. If I was Dr. Lim there'd be no 705's on those boys in
the tour!
There was a Garmin rep here not too long ago. Care to chime in?
In its current state the 705 IMO is not suitable as a power meter CPU.
Power is highly variable and to lose that in the data is unacceptable and
misleading. It's nothing a firmware change wouldn't fix, though.
I guess if you (Jesse & PT) weren't successful getting Garmin to change the
algorithm the little guy (end user) has a snowball's chance in hell, but hey
I'll try anything once. Except bayut.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom_Anhalt]

I take that back.  Sometimes the data is not even similar.
These snapshots are from a SS ride - this is how you maintain 21 mph with a
gear limitation ;)  Identical sections of the same ride but from different
computer heads, same PT hub.  The first is the PT, the 2nd is from the 705.
Bottom line:  the 705 does not handle bursty efforts at all.
I am really - really! - dissapointed to see how innacurate the data is
coming out of the garmin.  I can't say why it's so different.  The PT hub
transmits on 2 different channels now as I understand it, one for the PT CPU
and one for the ANT+ sport.  Do both contain identical data?  Does Garmin do
some whacky post-processing?  A combo of the 2?
Steady efforts seem to be fine.  15 min intervals yesterday were all within
a watt between devices.  A road race, crit, or MTB ride though and you'll
need your PT cpu.
Jesse, care to address this?

Hey Dave...I just thought of something, and it's probably a dumb
question, but something about your 705 plot makes me ask this:

You don't have the 705 set to the so-called "smart recording" instead
of being set to 1s recording, do you?

Just checking to be sure...
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Dave Harris]

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Tom_Anhalt
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:24 AM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval
You don't have the 705 set to the so-called "smart recording" instead
of being set to 1s recording, do you?
Just checking to be sure...

Nope, 1s recording.

In regards to comparing iAero with the 705, is the iBike sensitive to rapid
variations in power? IOW if you did 2-3 seconds on/2-3 seconds off what
would the iAero show?


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom_Anhalt]

Post by Dave Harris

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Tom_Anhalt
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:24 AM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval
You don't have the 705 set to the so-called "smart recording" instead
of being set to 1s recording, do you?
Just checking to be sure...

Nope, 1s recording.
In regards to comparing iAero with the 705, is the iBike sensitive to rapid
variations in power?  IOW if you did 2-3 seconds on/2-3 seconds off what
would the iAero show?

Dave...was that basically what you were doing in the plots above?
(i.e. 2-3 secs on/off) Just trying to see what sort of ride files I
have on hand would best mimic that...

Of course, I could always just go out and try to recreate it...the
more info you can tell me about the plots above, the better.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Dave Harris]

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Tom_Anhalt
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 4:19 PM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval

Post by Dave Harris

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Tom_Anhalt
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:24 AM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval
You don't have the 705 set to the so-called "smart recording"

instead

Post by Dave Harris

Post by r***@aol.com
of being set to 1s recording, do you?
Just checking to be sure...

Nope, 1s recording.
In regards to comparing iAero with the 705, is the iBike sensitive to

rapid

Post by Dave Harris
variations in power?  IOW if you did 2-3 seconds on/2-3 seconds off

what

Post by Dave Harris
would the iAero show?

Dave...was that basically what you were doing in the plots above?
(i.e. 2-3 secs on/off) Just trying to see what sort of ride files I
have on hand would best mimic that...
Of course, I could always just go out and try to recreate it...the
more info you can tell me about the plots above, the better.

Those plots are a tiny snippet of a ride. It was on pavement on a SS (34.16
gearing) and to maintain speed it was short bursts every few seconds. 2-3
every 2-3 is my best guess.

Post by r***@aol.com
From another vantage point, I have 3 days of rides, 2 on the SS and one on

an MTB. All 3 days of files the L6 bin of a power by levels breakdown chart
is 1/3 less time for the 705 download. I'm sure you already have plenty of
files with which to do the comparison. You have a CinQ, 705 and iAero,
right? Just compare some files to see if you have top end trimmed for 705
downloads, that's a good place to start. If you want to actually test the
705 weakness, short bursty efforts should bring them to the forefront.

During the ride yesterday coming down that road I was watching both the PT
and 705 and saw that the 705 never went over the 200's while the PT was in
the 400s and 500s. It was sooo obvious at that point but I didn't think the
data would be the same, I figure it had to be a display smoothing artifact.




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom_Anhalt]

Those plots are a tiny snippet of a ride.  It was on pavement on a SS (34.16
gearing) and to maintain speed it was short bursts every few seconds.  2-3
every 2-3 is my best guess.
From another vantage point, I have 3 days of rides, 2 on the SS and one on
an MTB.  All 3 days of files the L6 bin of a power by levels breakdown chart
is 1/3 less time for the 705 download.  I'm sure you already have plenty of
files with which to do the comparison.  You have a CinQ, 705 and iAero,
right?  Just compare some files to see if you have top end trimmed for 705
downloads, that's a good place to start.  If you want to actually test the
705 weakness, short bursty efforts should bring them to the forefront.
During the ride yesterday coming down that road I was watching both the PT
and 705 and saw that the 705 never went over the 200's while the PT was in
the 400s and 500s.  It was sooo obvious at that point but I didn't think the
data would be the same, I figure it had to be a display smoothing artifact.

Dave...I looked at a bunch of files to find segments where I was doing
the same sort of "on/off" power and this is the best I could
find...it's from a portion of a Tues lunchtime hammerfest that is
fairly "stochastic" ;-)

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

The thing is, I'm not seeing the same level of "clipping" or
"smoothing" withe the CinQo data as recorded by the 705 (when compared
to the PT) as you seem to be when comparing the PT to PT on Garmin.
Now, one thing to remember is that the CinQo is sending a more "SRM-
like" power signal to the Garmin, i.e. it's sending (at 4hz) the
average power of the last complete pedal cycle, with the data value
updated upon the completion of a pedal cycle. So yes, the PT output
is slightly "spikier", but I expect that due to the fixed time base
sampling of the PT design. So the question then is: Which is more
"correct"? Are your L6 and above "bins" being filled at a greater
rate due to the PT's particular calculating/recording scheme? My
argument would be that the more "correct" data would be taken from
complete pedal revolutions...which is tough to do with a hub-based
PM. If you're going to look at power "bins" like that, perhaps the
power values put into the bins should be made up of averages over
longer time periods than 1s?

I've been told that the Garmin merely picks the last data value
transmitted prior to it's 1s recording time and saves it without any
manipulation. In fact, when I asked about how the Garmin handles the
CinQo data, I was forwarded an email from a Garmin representative that
said:

"The Edge will ask for the current value at the 1 per second rate.

If Smart recording.
The edge accumulates this data at the 1 per second rate. When
the
accumulated value is greater than 1200 watts then it drops a data
point
with power as the average of the accumulated power / time since last
dropped point. Of course this is if power is the only thing forcing
the
point to drop, in reality there are other decisions being made to
determine when to drop a track point besides just the power.

In 1 per second recording.
The edge just outputs the power value that it retrieved."

Now you can see why I asked if you had it set to "smart
recording"...also why I'm confused as to why you're seeing that with
the PT. From what I've been told what menus are displayed in the
Garmin when it finds the various PMs, it "knows" what type of power
meter it's communicating with. Does the Garmin do something different
with PT data than with CinQo data??



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom_Anhalt]

Doh! To add to the confusion, the screen pic that has the athlete
name as "Powertap,Tom" is actually the CinQo/Garmin plot...sorry about
that.

To repeat...the first link is to the PT data, the SECOND is the CinQo/
Garmin data...clear as mud? :-)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Alex Simmons]

It can't (well shouldn't) be the precession effect of PT data, because
even though that results in a "spikier" looking power line when
plotted v time, the average of those up n downs still comes out right
over the course of time (over say 5, maybe 10-seconds is usually
enough for the average power to be OK).

Dave's plots were from a much longer time period it, so it sure isn't
precession doing it and the the averages Dave was seeing from each CPU
were substantially different.

Post by Tom_Anhalt

Those plots are a tiny snippet of a ride.  It was on pavement on a SS (34.16
gearing) and to maintain speed it was short bursts every few seconds.  2-3
every 2-3 is my best guess.
From another vantage point, I have 3 days of rides, 2 on the SS and one on
an MTB.  All 3 days of files the L6 bin of a power by levels breakdown chart
is 1/3 less time for the 705 download.  I'm sure you already have plenty of
files with which to do the comparison.  You have a CinQ, 705 and iAero,
right?  Just compare some files to see if you have top end trimmed for 705
downloads, that's a good place to start.  If you want to actually test the
705 weakness, short bursty efforts should bring them to the forefront.
During the ride yesterday coming down that road I was watching both the PT
and 705 and saw that the 705 never went over the 200's while the PT was in
the 400s and 500s.  It was sooo obvious at that point but I didn't think the
data would be the same, I figure it had to be a display smoothing artifact.

Dave...I looked at a bunch of files to find segments where I was doing
the same sort of "on/off" power and this is the best I could
find...it's from a portion of a Tues lunchtime hammerfest that is
fairly "stochastic" ;-)
http://i36.tinypic.com/2e1spbo.jpg
http://i34.tinypic.com/29ctohu.jpg
The thing is, I'm not seeing the same level of "clipping" or
"smoothing" withe the CinQo data as recorded by the 705 (when compared
to the PT) as you seem to be when comparing the PT to PT on Garmin.
Now, one thing to remember is that the CinQo is sending a more "SRM-
like" power signal to the Garmin, i.e. it's sending (at 4hz) the
average power of the last complete pedal cycle, with the data value
updated upon the completion of a pedal cycle.  So yes, the PT output
is slightly "spikier", but I expect that due to the fixed time base
sampling of the PT design.  So the question then is:  Which is more
"correct"?  Are your L6 and above "bins" being filled at a greater
rate due to the PT's particular calculating/recording scheme?  My
argument would be that the more "correct" data would be taken from
complete pedal revolutions...which is tough to do with a hub-based
PM.  If you're going to look at power "bins" like that, perhaps the
power values put into the bins should be made up of averages over
longer time periods than 1s?
I've been told that the Garmin merely picks the last data value
transmitted prior to it's 1s recording time and saves it without any
manipulation.  In fact, when I asked about how the Garmin handles the
CinQo data, I was forwarded an email from a Garmin representative that
"The Edge will ask for the current value at the 1 per second rate.
If Smart recording.
    The edge accumulates this data at the 1 per second rate.  When
the
accumulated value is greater than 1200 watts then it drops a data
point
with power as the average of the accumulated power / time since last
dropped point.  Of course this is if power is the only thing forcing
the
point to drop, in reality there are other decisions being made to
determine when to drop a track point besides just the power.
In 1 per second recording.
    The edge just outputs the power value that it retrieved."
Now you can see why I asked if you had it set to "smart
recording"...also why I'm confused as to why you're seeing that with
the PT.  From what I've been told what menus are displayed in the
Garmin when it finds the various PMs, it "knows" what type of power
meter it's communicating with.  Does the Garmin do something different
with PT data than with CinQo data??

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom_Anhalt]

Post by Alex Simmons
It can't (well shouldn't) be the precession effect of PT data, because
even though that results in a "spikier" looking power line when
plotted v time, the average of those up n downs still comes out right
over the course of time (over say 5, maybe 10-seconds is usually
enough for the average power to be OK).
Dave's plots were from a much longer time period it, so it sure isn't
precession doing it and the the averages Dave was seeing from each CPU
were substantially different.

Right, but from the data from over 10 rides with the PT and CinQo/
Garmin together, I found fairly good agreement between the "stock" MMP
durations produced in WKO+.

See the discussion here on that data:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2122536;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

BTW, I found that the TSS values from each ride were within a point or
two of each other each time as well...and that was even including
sprint workouts.

That's why I was wondering above if it's a Garmin/PT "thing", and not
necessarily just a Garmin "thing"...
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Alex Simmons]

Oh I can see where you are coming from, and I'd have probably thought the
same initially, I just don't *think* that's it. And yes, it could well be
an issue unique to the PT-Garmin interface. And one that needs addressing.

Certainly on that basis I wouldn't recommend the PT hub & Garmin CPU
combination to any of my clients until I knew it was fixed.

It'll be a while before I ever see it personally. I'm a wires man for the
time being and appreciate all the wattage early adopter beta testers out
there :D


-----Original Message-----
From: ***@googlegroups.com [mailto:***@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Tom_Anhalt
Sent: Saturday, 13 December 2008 3:02 PM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval

Post by Alex Simmons
It can't (well shouldn't) be the precession effect of PT data, because
even though that results in a "spikier" looking power line when
plotted v time, the average of those up n downs still comes out right
over the course of time (over say 5, maybe 10-seconds is usually
enough for the average power to be OK).
Dave's plots were from a much longer time period it, so it sure isn't
precession doing it and the the averages Dave was seeing from each CPU
were substantially different.

Right, but from the data from over 10 rides with the PT and CinQo/
Garmin together, I found fairly good agreement between the "stock" MMP
durations produced in WKO+.

See the discussion here on that data:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2122536;sb=post_latest_reply;so=
ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

BTW, I found that the TSS values from each ride were within a point or
two of each other each time as well...and that was even including
sprint workouts.

That's why I was wondering above if it's a Garmin/PT "thing", and not
necessarily just a Garmin "thing"...



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Dave Harris]

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Tom_Anhalt
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 9:02 PM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval

Post by Alex Simmons
It can't (well shouldn't) be the precession effect of PT data,

because

Post by Alex Simmons
even though that results in a "spikier" looking power line when
plotted v time, the average of those up n downs still comes out right
over the course of time (over say 5, maybe 10-seconds is usually
enough for the average power to be OK).
Dave's plots were from a much longer time period it, so it sure isn't
precession doing it and the the averages Dave was seeing from each

CPU

Post by Alex Simmons
were substantially different.

Right, but from the data from over 10 rides with the PT and CinQo/
Garmin together, I found fairly good agreement between the "stock" MMP
durations produced in WKO+.
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=2122536;sb=post_latest_repl
y;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread
BTW, I found that the TSS values from each ride were within a point or
two of each other each time as well...and that was even including
sprint workouts.
That's why I was wondering above if it's a Garmin/PT "thing", and not
necessarily just a Garmin "thing"...

That is what I was asking Jesse to address - based on his response I'm
satisfied it's a "Garmin thing".

Since Garmin didn't address the issue when it was brought to their attention
from Saris/Slipstream I’m guessing they either don't care or at the very
least it is waaay down on the priority list. There have been major firmware
updates since the tour.

The algorithm you shared for how the 705 "may" store data very well could be
reality for the Quark but most certainly not how it works for the PT. I
don't know how the 705 is storing/processing data, but I do know that TSS,
Pave, Pnorm, IF, kJ are all significantly different for identical rides
compared to the PT cpu download. With the PT cpu set to display NZAP, the
displayed AP between units is different by as much as 10% depending on the
nature of the ride.

The 705 has a lot of potential. At this time it has a ways to go before I'd
recommend it.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom_Anhalt]

Post by Tom_Anhalt
That's why I was wondering above if it's a Garmin/PT "thing", and not
necessarily just a Garmin "thing"...

That is what I was asking Jesse to address - based on  his response I'm
satisfied it's a "Garmin thing".

Except that since I'm not necessarily seeing similar things as you are
when comparing a CinQo/Garmin to a "native" PT, that tells me that
it's likely a PT/Garmin thing...on one end or the other...or both..and
doesn't necessarily reflect the result of using a Garmin when
recording the output of other PMs.

Since Garmin didn't address the issue when it was brought to their attention
from Saris/Slipstream I’m guessing they either don't care or at the very
least it is waaay down on the priority list.  There have been major firmware
updates since the tour.  
The algorithm you shared for how the 705 "may" store data very well could be
reality for the Quark but most certainly not how it works for the PT.  

Right...which again points to a PT/Garmin "thing"...as opposed to just
a Garmin thing when used with any other PMs.

I don't know how the 705 is storing/processing data, but I do know that TSS,
Pave, Pnorm, IF, kJ are all  significantly different for identical rides
compared to the PT cpu download.  With the PT cpu set to display NZAP, the
displayed AP between units is different by as much as 10% depending on the
nature of the ride.

I'm definitely NOT seeing that when comparing CinQo/Garmin recordings
to PT "native" recordings.

The 705 has a lot of potential.  At this time it has a ways to go before I'd
recommend it.

For use with a PT ;-)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Dave Harris]

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Tom_Anhalt
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 6:53 PM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval

Post by Tom_Anhalt
That's why I was wondering above if it's a Garmin/PT "thing", and

not

Post by Tom_Anhalt
necessarily just a Garmin "thing"...

That is what I was asking Jesse to address - based on  his response

I'm

satisfied it's a "Garmin thing".

Except that since I'm not necessarily seeing similar things as you are
when comparing a CinQo/Garmin to a "native" PT, that tells me that
it's likely a PT/Garmin thing...on one end or the other...or both..and
doesn't necessarily reflect the result of using a Garmin when
recording the output of other PMs.

I don't think you can fault Saris for how Garmin chooses to handle the PT
data. Tis a garmin thing in my eye. I would be quite surprised if the PT
is transmitting different types of data or different intervals on the ANT+
network.

Just for grins, if Jesse is still reading this long thread - does the PT
transmit on ANT+ at 1 sec intervals? If not, that would explain a lot.

Post by r***@aol.com

Since Garmin didn't address the issue when it was brought to their

attention

from Saris/Slipstream I’m guessing they either don't care or at the

very

least it is waaay down on the priority list.  There have been major

firmware

updates since the tour.
The algorithm you shared for how the 705 "may" store data very well

could be

reality for the Quark but most certainly not how it works for the PT.

Right...which again points to a PT/Garmin "thing"...as opposed to just
a Garmin thing when used with any other PMs.

I don't know how the 705 is storing/processing data, but I do know

that TSS,

Pave, Pnorm, IF, kJ are all  significantly different for identical

rides

compared to the PT cpu download.  With the PT cpu set to display

NZAP, the

displayed AP between units is different by as much as 10% depending

on the

nature of the ride.

I'm definitely NOT seeing that when comparing CinQo/Garmin recordings
to PT "native" recordings.

Wanna trade?

Post by r***@aol.com

The 705 has a lot of potential.  At this time it has a ways to go

before I'd

recommend it.

For use with a PT ;-)

Hey, don't go altering my recommendations for me! The 705 has other
issues...that are not PM dependent. The firmware will take some time to
catch up with its hardware but it's getting better.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom_Anhalt]

Post by Dave Harris
I don't think you can fault Saris for how Garmin chooses to handle the PT
data.  Tis a garmin thing in my eye.  I would be quite surprised if the PT
is transmitting different types of data or different intervals on the ANT+
network.
Just for grins, if Jesse is still reading this long thread - does the PT
transmit on ANT+ at 1 sec intervals?  If not, that would explain a lot.

True...but I was trying to point out (and it appears we might be
slightly talking past each other on this) that it didn't necessarily
reflect what Garmin decided to do with the data from other PMs.

Post by Dave Harris

Post by Tom_Anhalt
I'm definitely NOT seeing that when comparing CinQo/Garmin recordings
to PT "native" recordings.

Wanna trade?

I can't since it's not mine (I'm assuming you're referring to the
CinQo) ;-)...besides, can you use a 130bcd chainring on your SS?

In any case, I'll be willing to bet your PT is a disc/MTB version,
right? I don't have any use for that right now...sorry :-)

Post by Dave Harris

Post by Tom_Anhalt

The 705 has a lot of potential.  At this time it has a ways to go

before I'd

recommend it.

For use with a PT ;-)

Hey, don't go altering my recommendations for me!  The 705 has other
issues...that are not PM dependent.  The firmware will take some time to
catch up with its hardware but it's getting better.

Yeah...the firmware does have a few things to be worked out...which,
from what I understand, isn't necessarily unusual for a Garmin product
<rolleyes>.

Well, now that the 705 is going to be used by 2 ProTour teams for
power recording (Garmin/Slipstream with the PT and Cervelo TestTeam
with the CinQo)...hopefully some of those firmware "issues" will be
put to rest a bit quicker! One can only hope...
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Chris Cleeland]

Post by Tom_Anhalt

Post by Dave Harris
Just for grins, if Jesse is still reading this long thread - does the PT
transmit on ANT+ at 1 sec intervals? If not, that would explain a lot.

True...but I was trying to point out (and it appears we might be
slightly talking past each other on this) that it didn't necessarily
reflect what Garmin decided to do with the data from other PMs.

Is there a way that an ANT+ receiver can know the vendor identity for
an ANT+ sender? I don't remember seeing that in the protocol docs,
but perhaps the keys have an identity in them?

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom_Anhalt]

Post by Chris Cleeland

Post by Tom_Anhalt

Post by Dave Harris
Just for grins, if Jesse is still reading this long thread - does the PT
transmit on ANT+ at 1 sec intervals?  If not, that would explain a lot.

True...but I was trying to point out (and it appears we might be
slightly talking past each other on this) that it didn't necessarily
reflect what Garmin decided to do with the data from other PMs.

Is there a way that an ANT+ receiver can know the vendor identity for
an ANT+ sender?  I don't remember seeing that in the protocol docs,
but perhaps the keys have an identity in them?

They must...because as we've been told by Saris, the 705 displays
options for setting the PT autozero function after being paired with
an ANT+ PT hub.

I can tell you from personal experience that option isn't present when
it's paired with a CinQo.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[[e-mail]]

The hub now transmits on both networks at 1 second intervals.

Post by Dave Harris

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Tom_Anhalt
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 6:53 PM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval

Post by Tom_Anhalt
That's why I was wondering above if it's a Garmin/PT "thing", and

not

Post by Tom_Anhalt
necessarily just a Garmin "thing"...

That is what I was asking Jesse to address - based on  his response

I'm

satisfied it's a "Garmin thing".

Except that since I'm not necessarily seeing similar things as you are
when comparing a CinQo/Garmin to a "native" PT, that tells me that
it's likely a PT/Garmin thing...on one end or the other...or both..and
doesn't necessarily reflect the result of using a Garmin when
recording the output of other PMs.

I don't think you can fault Saris for how Garmin chooses to handle the PT
data.  Tis a garmin thing in my eye.  I would be quite surprised if the PT
is transmitting different types of data or different intervals on the ANT+
network.
Just for grins, if Jesse is still reading this long thread - does the PT
transmit on ANT+ at 1 sec intervals?  If not, that would explain a lot.

Post by r***@aol.com

Since Garmin didn't address the issue when it was brought to their

attention

from Saris/Slipstream I’m guessing they either don't care or at the

very

least it is waaay down on the priority list.  There have been major

firmware

updates since the tour.
The algorithm you shared for how the 705 "may" store data very well

could be

reality for the Quark but most certainly not how it works for the PT.

Right...which again points to a PT/Garmin "thing"...as opposed to just
a Garmin thing when used with any other PMs.

I don't know how the 705 is storing/processing data, but I do know

that TSS,

Pave, Pnorm, IF, kJ are all  significantly different for identical

rides

compared to the PT cpu download.  With the PT cpu set to display

NZAP, the

displayed AP between units is different by as much as 10% depending

on the

nature of the ride.

I'm definitely NOT seeing that when comparing CinQo/Garmin recordings
to PT "native" recordings.

Wanna trade?

Post by r***@aol.com

The 705 has a lot of potential.  At this time it has a ways to go

before I'd

recommend it.

For use with a PT ;-)

Hey, don't go altering my recommendations for me!  The 705 has other
issues...that are not PM dependent.  The firmware will take some time to
catch up with its hardware but it's getting better.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom_Anhalt]

Post by Dave Harris

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Tom_Anhalt
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:24 AM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval
You don't have the 705 set to the so-called "smart recording" instead
of being set to 1s recording, do you?
Just checking to be sure...

Nope, 1s recording.
In regards to comparing iAero with the 705, is the iBike sensitive to rapid
variations in power?  IOW if you did 2-3 seconds on/2-3 seconds off what
would the iAero show?

Sorry, but I forgot to answer this...but here's the iAero vs. PT plot
out of the iBike3 software for that same segment I posted the plots on
earlier. Unfortunately, Garmin changed some "tags" in the .tcx file
format and the iBike3 software has some difficulty synching up the
files now, or I would have put that in the same overlay as well.

Loading Image...
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[racerfern]

For the issue with the tcx file not syncing up do the following:
Open the tcx file in an editor, I use "foxe" from www.firstobject.com

Then search and replace every instance of "<Track></Track>" with "".
Save the file as a new file name and use the iBike3 software to blend
the two. It should work just fine.

Post by Tom_Anhalt

Post by Dave Harris

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Tom_Anhalt
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:24 AM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval
You don't have the 705 set to the so-called "smart recording" instead
of being set to 1s recording, do you?
Just checking to be sure...

Nope, 1s recording.
In regards to comparing iAero with the 705, is the iBike sensitive to rapid
variations in power?  IOW if you did 2-3 seconds on/2-3 seconds off what
would the iAero show?

Sorry, but I forgot to answer this...but here's the iAero vs. PT plot
out of the iBike3 software for that same segment I posted the plots on
earlier.  Unfortunately, Garmin changed some "tags" in the .tcx file
format and the iBike3 software has some difficulty synching up the
files now, or I would have put that in the same overlay as well.
http://i34.tinypic.com/2m6u5xu.jpg- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Tom_Anhalt]

Open the tcx file in an editor, I use "foxe" fromwww.firstobject.com
Then search and replace every instance of "<Track></Track>" with "".
Save the file as a new file name and use the iBike3 software to blend
the two. It should work just fine.

Thanks Fernando...to tell the truth, when Travis first mentioned that
as a workaround, I opened a .tcx file in just a regular text editor
and decided to just wait for that "bug" to be fixed ;-) The .xml
editor works much nicer...thanks again. (BTW, what needs to be
replaced is "</track><track"...slightly different than what you wrote)

So, here's the pic of the same section including the CinQo data as
recorded by the Garmin:

Loading Image...

And, since I know someone will ask, here's the same plot with the
CinQo data as recorded by the iAero. There appears to be a phasing
issue with the synch up of the power files (I believe they synch on
speed) and you can also see some other "issues" that the iAero
recording of the ANT+ presents (such as the power value "hanging" on
the previous value when cadence goes to zero)

Loading Image...

I'm not sure if it's possible from those plots to determine which of
the "recorders" employs any filtering or not...although it's pretty
interesting how different they are considering they are coming from
the same data stream...
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Andy Coggan]

Post by Dave Harris
the downloaded data was similar but by no means
identical.  Most notably, during an out of the saddle 70ish rpm
acceleration, the PT showed a lot of precession, the 705 none at all.  In
general, the 705 data looks smoothed just as it's display did.

FWIW, I read on another forum (weightweenies?) yesterday that someone
else had reached the same conclusion, i.e., the 705 is doing some
unspecified post-processing of the data to make it appear less
"jumpy".

Andy Coggan
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[FasCat]

Until the direct download into WKO+ works the work around is to drag
and drop from the Garmin folder onto the WKO+Navigation pane.

Post by Dave Harris
The ANT+ updater for my PT 2.4 disc showed up yesterday - it updated the hub
without a hitch.  The CPU was slightly more painful, requiring a firmware
update which added new features and made it invisible to WKO.  I saw Gear's
response so know that fix is in the pipeline.  How many gizmos is
trainingpeaks supporting right now?  Gawd that must be fun.
Anyway, the displays for the 705 vs. the PT CPU are very different.  The 705
has a longer smoothing window than the CPU, and I don't think it is
alterable.  I wasn't convinced the data is the same so inspected a couple
simultaneous files.
To my surprise, the PT is now recording at exactly 1 second intervals - not
1.28 seconds.  Seems insignificant at first brush but I think this will
prove to be fodder for a lot of conversation here J
To my even bigger surprise, the downloaded data was similar but by no means
identical.  Most notably, during an out of the saddle 70ish rpm
acceleration, the PT showed a lot of precession, the 705 none at all.  In
general, the 705 data looks smoothed just as it's display did.
<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ofVetcprUKPL8y6rGPP1GQ"><img
src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_PhFtjJbmlI0/ST6bX4Kh-aI/AAAAAAAAGn8/2Y-HZ5C8eFs/s
800/pt%2B%20vs%20705.JPG" /></a>
In case that doesn't work:  
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ofVetcprUKPL8y6rGPP1GQ
Clearly, more to come on this.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[mattmor]

Hasn't that been the only way to get data from a 705 into WKO+ in the
past anyway? At least that's the way I've always done it.

What's the deal with the MAX PWR between the 705 and PT files being
different. Any thoughts on that?

-matt

Post by FasCat
Until the direct download into WKO+ works the work around is to drag
and drop from the Garmin folder onto the WKO+Navigation pane.

Post by Dave Harris
The ANT+ updater for my PT 2.4 disc showed up yesterday - it updated the hub
without a hitch.  The CPU was slightly more painful, requiring a firmware
update which added new features and made it invisible to WKO.  I saw Gear's
response so know that fix is in the pipeline.  How many gizmos is
trainingpeaks supporting right now?  Gawd that must be fun.
Anyway, the displays for the 705 vs. the PT CPU are very different.  The 705
has a longer smoothing window than the CPU, and I don't think it is
alterable.  I wasn't convinced the data is the same so inspected a couple
simultaneous files.
To my surprise, the PT is now recording at exactly 1 second intervals - not
1.28 seconds.  Seems insignificant at first brush but I think this will
prove to be fodder for a lot of conversation here J
To my even bigger surprise, the downloaded data was similar but by no means
identical.  Most notably, during an out of the saddle 70ish rpm
acceleration, the PT showed a lot of precession, the 705 none at all.  In
general, the 705 data looks smoothed just as it's display did.
<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ofVetcprUKPL8y6rGPP1GQ"><img
src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_PhFtjJbmlI0/ST6bX4Kh-aI/AAAAAAAAGn8/2Y-HZ5C8eFs/s
800/pt%2B%20vs%20705.JPG" /></a>
In case that doesn't work:  
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ofVetcprUKPL8y6rGPP1GQ
Clearly, more to come on this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Alex Simmons]

Post by mattmor
What's the deal with the MAX PWR between the 705 and PT files being
different.  Any thoughts on that?
-matt

Post by FasCat
Until the direct download into WKO+ works the work around is to drag
and drop from the Garmin folder onto the WKO+Navigation pane.

Post by Dave Harris
The ANT+ updater for my PT 2.4 disc showed up yesterday - it updated the hub
without a hitch.  The CPU was slightly more painful, requiring a firmware
update which added new features and made it invisible to WKO.  I saw Gear's
response so know that fix is in the pipeline.  How many gizmos is
trainingpeaks supporting right now?  Gawd that must be fun.
Anyway, the displays for the 705 vs. the PT CPU are very different.  The 705
has a longer smoothing window than the CPU, and I don't think it is
alterable.  I wasn't convinced the data is the same so inspected a couple
simultaneous files.
To my surprise, the PT is now recording at exactly 1 second intervals - not
1.28 seconds.  Seems insignificant at first brush but I think this will
prove to be fodder for a lot of conversation here J
To my even bigger surprise, the downloaded data was similar but by no means
identical.  Most notably, during an out of the saddle 70ish rpm
acceleration, the PT showed a lot of precession, the 705 none at all.  In
general, the 705 data looks smoothed just as it's display did.
<a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ofVetcprUKPL8y6rGPP1GQ"><img
src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/_PhFtjJbmlI0/ST6bX4Kh-aI/AAAAAAAAGn8/2Y-HZ5C8eFs/s
800/pt%2B%20vs%20705.JPG" /></a>
In case that doesn't work:  
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ofVetcprUKPL8y6rGPP1GQ
Clearly, more to come on this.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Alex Simmons]

Post by mattmor
What's the deal with the MAX PWR between the 705 and PT files being
different.  Any thoughts on that?

That's due to:
- the precession effect of the way PT records power that Dave is
talking about
- the way in which the 705 is dealing with the data, using some other
mechanism we don't know about yet to smooth the data. If it were, for
instance, using the torque data from last whole number of revolutions
of the hub since the previous data sample, then that would be cool...
but then again maybe that's not a good idea for hub based as what
would it do at speeds < 2.1 m/s?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Dave Harris]

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of FasCat
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:52 PM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval
Until the direct download into WKO+ works the work around is to drag
and drop from the Garmin folder onto the WKO+Navigation pane.

Right. It's the PT CPU that no longer works with WKO - so far as I know
poweragent 7.4 is the only program that can communicate with the new PT
firmware.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[r***@aol.com]

That will be changed within 24 hours....or less!
;-)

Dave, you have a beta in your inbox.


Hunter Allen

Buy your Wattage based training plan ONLINE!
www.trainingpeaks.com/hunter

The Peaks Coaching Group
"We care about your success!"
www.peakscoachinggroup.com

TrainingPeaks WKO+
The Ultimate Analysis Software
www.trainingpeaks.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Harris <***@gmail.com>
To: ***@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 4:48 pm
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval

Post by r***@aol.com
-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of FasCat
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:52 PM
To: Wattage
Subject: [Wattage] Re: PT+ recording interval
Until the direct download into WKO+ works the work around is to drag
and drop from the Garmin folder onto the WKO+Navigation pane.

Right. It's the PT CPU that no longer works with WKO - so far as I know
poweragent 7.4 is the only program that can communicate with the new PT
firmware.





--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[mark]

To add one more report, today I rode outdoors with my PT 2.4SL hub,
recently updated to ANT+, with both my Garmin 705 and PT Computer. I
did approximately 20 miles at endurance pace, with a few
accelerations. On the outbound 10 mile leg the 705 was set to 1 sec
recording, inbound leg 705 set to smart recording. Comparing the data
in Training Peaks WKO+, average power reported by the 705 and PT
computer was very close, but maximum power reported by the 705 was 10%
less using 1 sec recording and 40% less using smart recording. The
average cadence reported by the 705 was 3-4% lower than the PT
computer. The cadence data was from the hub, no separate cadence
sensor. Regards, Mark


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this email because you're subscribed to the Google [Wattage]
group at http://groups-beta.google.com/group/wattage?hl=en.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a blank email to:
mailto:wattage-***@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---