I have been interested in power meters, and of course am interested in the soon-to-be-released Quarq.

I called up Quarq, and got to talk to a prinicipal in the firm (Mrs. Meyer, the wife of the engineer, James Meyer). I asked her about crankset compatibility, especially. I have a Campy Ultra-Torque, which isn't on the list of compatible cranksets. No Campy or Shimono, because the crank arm can't be integrated with the spider. She said eventually they may have a CinQo (the crankset power meter) that can work with such cranksets, but they are focused right now on getting their product to market with their compatible cranksets.





To get a Quarq CinQo would mean removing my beloved 643 gm Campy UT, and purchasing a compatible replacement. These choices are not very inviting. They are all low end and heavy. The CinQo is specific for each crankset, as the electronics are integrated with the spider. If Quarq eventually makes a CinQo for a better crankset, you won't be able to upgrade.

The website has been recently updated, and lists the crankarm compatibility:

Quote:

Crank Arms Compatibility:
The CinQo is designed for attachment to production cranksets with separate spider assemblies.

First Production Run (130mm BCD only):

* FSA Team Issue
* SRAM S900
* Bontrager Race X Lite
* Truvativ Rouleur Carbon

Future Production Runs:

* FSA Krono TT
* Cannondale SI Hollowgram
* Specialized S-Works Carbon
* Rotor Agilis
* Sibex Sports
* FSA Carbon Pro Track

We will continue to increase our list of compatible cranks as we move forward.

* Since the CinQo replaces the spider on stock cranksets, cranks that have an integrated spider and crank arm such as Shimano or Campagnolo will not be compatible with the CinQo.

https://www.quarq.us/Spiders/CinQo.html



The question is, are any of these cranksets acceptable?

The FSA Team Issue crankset and bottom bracket weighs 911 gms.





https://www.fullspeedahead.com/fly.as...xid=53&pid=144


The SRAM S900 is also low end, weighing 830 grams (without BB)




https://www.all3sports.com/product_in...1e2b285d3b7e6d



The Race X Lite GXP weighs 935 gms.





https://www.bontrager.com/Road/Compon...ranks/5807.php



The Truvativ Rouleur Carbon weighs 835 gms.




https://www.sram.com/en/truvativ/road...eur/carbon.php


The options listed under Future Production Runs don't look any better. The S-Works would have potential, but it is specific for Specialized frames with oversized bottom bracket shell.

As it stands now, to get a Quarq will necessitate tossing the high end lightweight crankset that potential Quarq customers surely have, for a low end heavy replacement. I don't see how this is going to work.

Methinks you place too much value on the crankset. I'm a pretty powerful sprinter, and I'm just as happy on cheap Suginos as on my Dura-Aces. Get over it

Don't buy quark version 1.0. You'll be sorry.

agreed.

I met with these guys over a year ago. They were 'almost ready' to introduce their product to the marketplace then. Seems they are still 'almost ready'. I also spoke to them about branding their own crankset (ala Ergomo and SRM). They weren't interested.

My feeling is that there are some technical issues or financial issue (or maybe even patent issues) that are holding this product back. I mean why get people excited about stuff when you don't have product or even a release date. Sram can do it because they are Sram. Quark is no-one. They have set them selves up so that the first generation (if there ever is one) better be flawless or they will be in big trouble.

I say danger Will Robinson. Danger.

$1200 new sounds like a good deal compared to SRM, but I can't agree with the above statement vigorously enough.

Yeah, but you still need a head unit with that $1200 crank. $1000 for the Qranium, or $600 (?) for a G705. Still cheaper than an SRM I suppose...

Don't forget that's only for the spider; you need a head unit too. Theirs won't be out for some time, and the new Garmin isn't out yet either. I don't believe there are any other choices....

That being said, I just got a SRAM S900 for my TCR, replacing the Rouleur (not carbon), which is going to my cyclorcross bike I'm building up. I needed a new crank anyway because of a) the new frame, and b) I wanted to switch to a standard 130 BCD. I am likely going to get the new Garmin when it comes out, so I'll be all set to get the Cinquo if the initial reports are positive. I also have the S-Works carbon crankset on my Tarmac so I may get that too, or instead.

I'm the one at Quarq that Ritterview spoke to on the phone last week. He emailed us and suggested we respond to this thread. We've tried to stay out of the forum chat for the most part (although we stay up on what people are writing). We realize that until we have something actually for sale, any claims and hype we generate are pretty much just marketing.

That being said, I'm not sure who Mr. Dopolina met with a year ago that said we were almost ready to introduce our powermeter to the marketplace. We did start a teaser blog in Feb. 07 with the hopes of having things for sale by Christmas 07. The delay is not caused by technical, financial or patent issues. Since we are a new company building our first products, we could only estimate the time it would take for all the designers, engineers, compliance testers, etc. to complete their parts. We do expect to be shipping the first CinQos at the end of March (I know, it's only hype until we deliver).

We don't blame anyone waiting for the early adopters to report back before you make a decision on our powermeter; it is a big investment for a lot of folks. Lucky for us, there seems to be plenty of early adopters interested.

Regarding the cranks, as Mr. Dopolina said, we do not really want to be in the crank business. We think there are plenty of alternatives out there and would rather invest our resources into making a great power sensor. We fully recognize there are a lot of people wanting a CinQo version that is compatible with Shimano or Campy, so we'll see what we can do in the future. In the meantime, we want to get another alternative out there for people interested in training with power.

We really appreciate the interest from those of you that have been following our progress and who have emailed us with suggestions and questions. Feel free to email me if you have any other questions.

Thanks,
Mieke Meyer
thinkfast@quarq.us
www.quarq.us

I should add that the SRAM S900 crank is basically the same unit that was developed for use with SRM...

As a Power Tap owner who thinks the PT actually works, I do fail to see the real need for PM's that install in BBs, are limited to one bicycle, and run in the $3K range. For most amateur racers, the PT works. Worked for Floyd Landis too (he had a PT on his bike during his now infamous Tour de France failed doping test breakaway performance). I get the advantages, but to me they seem offset by the high price and the disadvantages. To each his own.

At a minimum I'd suggest a PT as a first PM, with an SRM or Quarq later.

I apologize for my error regarding the timing of our first meeting. I originally contacted your company early in '07 and I met with someone at Interbike as I was interested in distributing in Taiwan, HK and China (sorry, I can't say who it was as I'm at home and my business cards are at my office and obviously Bob Dopolina is not my real name).

The comment I posted regarding a branded crank and the response you just posted is exactly what was said to me at Interbike when I broached the idea. Although I understand your position, it is interesting to note that the concerns I raised then are exactly the concerns being raised by potential end users now.

You mentioned, in your post, that you may look to produce Shimano and Campagnolo compatible equipment in the future. If, in the near future, you are interested in exploring these possibilities, please PM me as I believe this is something I could help you with.

I'm glad to hear that financing is in place and you are not being held up by technical or patent issues but, as I said in my post, and as other have echoed here and elsewhere, both anticipation and expectations for your products are high.

Good luck and I look forward to reading the first product reviews.

I guess you can have arguments on both sides. A PT is easily transferrable to multiple bike. A crank based PM makes it easy to switch between a training set of wheels and race day wheels. I mean if you have to choose between a nice carbon tubular race wheel or your clincher set to mount the PT on, which do you go with?

-D

I understand the dilemma here. I purchased a used (2 years old) PT SL laced to a Zipp 404 clincher rim. I can train with it all week. On race day I can leave it on the back of my bike and throw the Zipp 404 tubie on the front and I have a Zipped PT bike. No big deal to carry a spare tubular and a spare inner tube on a group road ride, for racing the spares are not an issue. Seems like an ideal solution. It's working so far.



That's the training set-up, throw the Zipp tubular on the front and you're in business.

One minor drawback to the PT is that it certainly doesn't like the cold. Display is dim (computer still functions) in sub 40º temps. That's OK. It will be > 40º for most of the season. I just don't like subjecting the batteries to cold air, wears them out faster. I keep both the PT hub and the computer indoors in the winter so that it spends time in the 70º house, not the 30-40º garage. Again, battery wear considerations.

That Zipp/PT set-up is about $2000 brand new, scored mine on eBay for $1100, and you can generally find them for that price, which all things considered seems quite the bargain. My PT works perfectly, needed all new batteries, but so far so good.

They're saying end of March, what's the hurry? No sense in releasing the Cinqo before the Garmin Edge 705...


(I predict pcad will own one of these within two years...)

How can that be right? You don't post graphs.

The PT works. I'm not some MIT weenie with a data fixation however. Besides, if you PT graph lunatics are so brilliant, how come you're not all rich?

My graphs are rich with data

Of the available choices, the Specialized S-Works looks to be a lightweight high-end crankset, and it shares the Campy UT Hirth joint design. The problem is that is comes only with the Specialized oversized BB. I don't know how involved the re-engineering would be, but if Specialized could produce their S-works to a standard BB size, the S-works would appear to be a good option.



The Specialized crank uses a large-diameter aluminum spindle and an oversize (nonstandard) shell.


https://www.specialized.com/bc/SBCEqP...jsp?spid=35857

Yeah, I'm sure they'd like to make it so every orbea owner could use it. If you read around, they think BB30 should be the new standard. They're waiting for other framemakers to climb aboard.

The Specialized crankset uses the patent from Lightning. Lightning will soon be introducing its crankset, available in standard BB sizes. It should be compatible with Quarq.








Lightning Carbon Crank

KEY FEATURES:

* Weight: 580 grams with 34x50 chainrings
* Length: 165 mm, 170 mm, 172.5 mm, 175 mm, 180 mm.
* Increased Strength & Stiffness to conventional
* Adaptability: Standard Road & ATB Bottom Bracket shells with BSA (English) threads, 68mm (double), 70 or 73mm (triple)
* Spyder sizes: 110, 130, and 74MTB double; 64x104 and 74x130 triple.
* Q factor:149mm (double), 162mm (triple)
* 250 pounds rider weight limit
* Patent awarded

https://www.lightningbikes.com/Cranks%20of%20Carbon.htm

Technical discussion of center clamp cranks (eg Campy, Specialized, Lightning)
https://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-005/000.html#lightning

cheapest option:



FSA Energy ISIS ($60 new on ebay)

FSA is always the cheapest option. I don't think the OP was necesarily looking for cheap.

The center interface is the spider/spindle interface the same as well? That's what determines compatability.

OP should get a Cannondale with the Si Hollowgram crank... supposed to be really light and stiff, plus it's in a Cannondale frame.