Originally Posted by waterrockets
What I'm saying is that matching the front wheel has exactly 0.0% impact on my rear wheel choice. I don't care what priorities others have, and nobody else does either.
I know you don't care; good for you.
Originally Posted by
merlinextraligh
Go to a race, or the local training ride. Count the power meters. My bet out of 100 riders, you'll see 2-3 SRM's, 6-8 Quarqs, 15-20 Powertaps, and 0-1 Ibikes.
I don't see anyone buying the Generation III Ibikes. I do see a lot of the cheaper PT's. I think that tells you something.
Road cyclists tend to be purists, and have a tendency to shut things down without trying them (like Campy fanatics vs. Shimano). If you had tried the iBike and found it to not work, I would have been more likely to listen to you recommending against getting one.
Originally Posted by
merlinextraligh
No, but if your priorities lead you to an Ibike Sport, because the cost of having a matched front wheel with your PT were too much, that might say something.
As you mentioned before, iBike Sport is not really comparable to the PT so I am not sure why you are comparing them now. I still think it is better than paying $100-$150 for a cyclo-computer, though.
Originally Posted by umd
Not buying a more reliable device for training because you don't want to "have to" buy a matching wheel means you care more about posing than training.
This assumes that PT is more reliable enough to make a difference than the current iBike, which most tests show not to be the case.
The point I am trying to make here is that people are bashing the iBike without a good basis. When compared to a similarly priced entry-level PT (or even other more expensive power meters), the tests out there suggest it is almost as accurate, and it allows you to use any wheels you want and put it on any bike you want, without the mess of wires. Even if it is not as accurate, I don't think the differences will be large enough to have an appreciable impact on anyone's training.