Wonder if it'll work with my first generation Force crankset? It would simplify wheel choice on my TT bike.

I would expect the new P2M Sram stuff to use the 8-bolt pattern.

First gen Force cranks did not have removable spiders. The old 950 and 975 cranks used a 3-bold pattern - and I think they still do. Force 22 stuff, IIRC, uses the 8 bolt pattern for the spider.

Bah, humbug!

I actually think that the Force 22 stuff uses a 3 bolt pattern and are compatible with the pre-DZero Quarq spiders and I would assume most of the P2Max SRAM spiders.

I just changed the spider of my Force 22 crank for that of an S900 to be able to use my Powertap C1 on it. It has a 3-bolt pattern.

The NG ECO will work with the 3-bolt pattern. Not sure what first gen Force has.

Latest Gen Force 22 stuff uses 3-bolt pattern. Only the new "Quarq Prime" cranks use the 8-bolt pattern, but I haven't seen them available as non-OEM on factory bikes.

I would suspect Quarq/SRAM will have to respond to P2M. A $490 spider that works with their cheaper cranks is going to undercut the Quarq market pretty significantly. Hopefully Quarq/SRAM either release a spider with 3-bolt compatibility or they release a Quarq DZero Spider at the ~$500 price point.

On a related note: DZero (really DFour) long-term review that [MENTION=99188]tetonrider[/MENTION] might appreciate

So I have two units, one on the training bike, one on the race bike and while they both have a different zero offset number returned on calibration it really does not vary might beyond +/- 10 of their arbitrary calibration numbers so it seems like a big step up from previous units (Which tended to be +/- 50 IME). That +/- 10 is the biggest difference I have seen (Calibrating on the small instead of the big and with a large temperature swing). I feel like they have gotten their torque sensors squared away now. When the season comes to a close I might go and do a more in-depth calibration / testing slope / comparing with my Neo thing, but for now the unit seems to be pretty good at "just working".

For trainer enthusiasts (maybe I'm the only one lol), saw a thread on slowtwitch where someone ran across a wahoo test site and posted images of a new front wheel incline simulator (called kickr climb) to pair with their Kickr trainers, plus a refresh of the kickr. Unsure if overly gimmicky or cool

Now that we're on the topic of trainers:

Is any of them accurate/precise at all, power-wise? Thinking of leaving my old bike attached to the trainer all winter, but I don't know if I should try to find a cheap powertap wheel to attach to it or upgrade my trainer to something better (currently have a Tacx Genius.)

I believe that the Elite Drivo and the Tacx Neo claim +/- 1% accuracy. I have a Neo and a teammate has a Drivo and we both like our trainers.

I have the cycleops hammer, on paper it says +/- 3%, in practice it may be a bit lower (at least according to DC Rainmaker), my anecdotal experience is that I've done sweet spot intervals outdoors with the powertap and indoors and the watts align very closely to my effort. The Elite Direto is a new offering that is supposedly really accurate (2.5%) and really inexpensive (899) for a direct drive model

Yes, I've seen the numbers. Mine says 5%. But then when I compare it to the power meter, I get wildly varying numbers, sometimes I see 100+ watts differences. I am guessing the direct drive trainers are better than the regular ones.

someone asked for pics of the cleat placement I think?
http://i.imgur.com/zzibcvxl.jpg

Which one should i get, and will I be disappointed in my new power after using Stages for so long? :lol:

get whichever one allows for easier transition back to non-miniature cranks

Also, speaking of cleat placement - I am in need of new shoes, and my current shoes are not wide. Therefore they are much longer than my feet, and the cleats are as far back as possible and just barely at the balls of my feet.

What's a good super wide, inexpensive, durable, easy to use shoe from a company that allows returns if the size is wrong?

I was thinking the Rotor would allow a future transition to shorter cranks if the 165s turn out to still feel weirdly long. But Rotor is also $200 more expensive.

Lakes and Bont have the widest footbeds. I don't know if either has cheap and durable in the same model tho.

Looking at Lakes... their inexpensive versions say "high arch" which would never work. No or very little arch would be preferred. There is a $230 version that doesn't mention arch at all. Free size exchanges is good.

lakes are hard to find. I did mine via mail and got lucky that they fit OK. still not wide enough for me, though.

My instep hurts just looking at this.

Regular Bonts are pretty wide, so I assume their wide is really wide. The sole also molds to custom fit with heat, so that should help with the arch. Their size guide takes width into account and they usually have decent closeout options. Not sure on returns though.

I have the Rotor 3D version of those and if I had to do it again I would get the much cheaper FSA version. The Rotor crank arms have a few places where the material seems to have gotten chipped away (what would hit the crank arms? really donno). Plus, the additional 200$ imo isn't worth it. If you think you can switch back to longer crank arms with Rotor, you'll need a special tool and rotor crank arms don't come cheap.

Cool!

How long have you been testing these meters?

Although they will tell you it doesn't mean anything, a tighter range of pre- and post-ride ZO is a good thing.

As for the "they have gotten their torque sensors squared away" -- that would be great. I'd love your feedback and would love to be able to recommend them. (Honestly, they've been selling to the public ~10 years now, so the sad flip-side is that there were many sub-par units out there.)

"Just working" is truly a great thing; when you have a meter so solid you never have to check it, it's liberating!