FAQ For Training With Power

4/23/2010 FAQ for training with power
FAQ for power-based training (version 12.04)

by Charles Howe, with contributions from members of the Wattage Forum at Topica.com
CONTENTS
Introduction/General Concerns Solutions
1. What is power? 27. The drive-side bearing cone in my both PT Pro and
2. Why is training by power suddenly so important? Standard hubs wore out quickly. Any suggestions?
3. Why should I train by power? 28. How can I make my PT hub more waterproof?
4. Has power-based training obviated training by 29. How do I build a custom wheel around a PT hub?
heart rate and by ‘feel’ (perceived exertion)? 30. What about for a 135 mm hub?
5. What are some of the various power-measuring 31. How do I build a PT hub into a fixed gear wheel?
systems on the market? 32. How can I mount my PT on the handlebar stem?
6. How do power-measuring devices work? 33. Can I use a PT Shimano freehub with a
7. Where can I buy a power-measuring system? Campagnolo derailleur?
8. Which model is best? 34. Which of the two PT pickups should I use?
9. Why does memory capacity vary so much? 35. How can I transfer data to a Mac Powerbook
10. What is the difference between signal rate, from my Polar S-710 with an IR connector?
display interval, and recording interval? 36. Hey wait! I’m using Virtual PC 6 with OSX, no
11. How do I make use of all the workout data? problem.
12. Why does power fluctuate so much while riding? 37. How much memory is needed to run VPC 6?
13. What is a ‘good’ power output? 38. I’m having trouble installing my Polar power
14. What is CD A? meter. Any suggestions besides the manual?
15. How can I test my progress with a power meter? 39. The cadence magnet for my Polar power meter
16. What are normalized power, intensity factor, and won’t stay in place.
training stress score? 40. As an aside, how does the Polar power module
17. How does altitude affect power output? ‘know’ the free length of the chain?
18. Where can I learn more about training by power? 41. Does downloading drain the battery in the PT
19. What about power-based training indoors? Standard computer?
20. Isn’t the consistency of the data what really 42. I can’t get the PT Link software to install.
counts, moreso than accuracy? 43. How can I download the PT to a USB port?
21. Can a power meter be used as an aid to weight 44. My PT Standard often stops downloading at 250
loss and dieting? records. How can I “rescue” the file?
45. I can’t open a PT file that was e-mailed to me.
Use and Operation 46. I forgot to zero out the torque on my PT hub; how
22. Does temperature affect accuracy of a strain- do I correct the file after downloading?
gauge based system (i.e., SRM and PowerTap)? 47. What should smoothing percentage be set at?
23. How do I calibrate my power meter? 48. My PT seems to have a case of the data drops.
24. Can I race using a power meter? How do I stop them?
25. How does the PowerTap calculate cadence 49. How can I open a PT database file in Microsoft
without a sensor? Access?
26. Can I use the PT Standard model just as a
computer, without the hub?
Q: What is power?
A: To Henry Kissinger it was an aphrodisiac, but for our purposes, the definition comes from physics, and in
particular the science of dynamics, which is a branch of mechanics. Power is the rate of doing work or
transferring energy, such that power = work/time, or P = W/Δt. As relates to cycling, it is measured in
international system (SI) units called Watts (W), rather than the familiar english unit of horsepower that is used
as a measure of engine power (1 horsepower = 746 W). Since work = force applied through a distance, or W =
F × Δx, these two expressions can be combined and rearranged to express power as the product of force and
speed, i.e., P = F × s, and this may be the best way to think of it: the speed you can maintain times the total
force resisting your forward motion. Similarly, power can be defined as pedal force (i.e., torque, which equals =
[measured frequency - zero offset]/slope) × cadence, which means you can increase power by exerting more
force on the pedals at a given cadence, by increasing cadence while exerting the same pedal force, or by
increasing both force and cadence.
midweekclub.ca/powerFAQ.htm#Q17 1/20
Here are some examples that give an appreciation for units of power:
A 68 kilogram (150 lb) rider traveling on an 8.6 kg (19 lb) bike at 20 mph in on flat ground in with no wind
requires about 177 W.
56.5 W are required to raise a 20 lb dumbbell 25 in. overhead in one second.
Q: Why is power-based training so important all of a sudden?
A: It’s no more so than it was previously, in fact, exercise physiologists have used calibrated ergometers for years
to impose precise loads on study subjects. Rather, the introduction of affordable on-bike power measurement
systems (power/speed measuring device, handlebar-mounted computer, receiver/wiring and computer mounting
bracket, download interface, software) have made it possible to use power in everyday training as well as racing,
then analyze the resulting workout data. This, and their widening use among both amateur and professional
riders has generated considerable “buzz.”
Q: Why should I train by power?
A: (Eddie Monnier and Andrew Coggan) Because it is the objective measure of exercise intensity, and as such
directly determines physiological and perceptual responses to exercise, so training by power provides immediate
and quantitative feedback on the intensity of effort. 300 Watts is 300 Watts, no matter how hot, windy, or hilly it
is, or what your heart rate is – though it may “feel” easier or harder, depending on various conditions.
Three variables to control in any training program are intensity, duration, and frequency; of these, the latter two
are easy to quantify objectively – duration is measured in hours, and frequency in sessions per week (the product
of the two is volume). Intensity, on the other hand, has traditionally been measured by perceived exertion (PE)
and/or heart rate (HR). HR is reliable enough at lower (i.e., aerobic-only) intensities, but for more race-specific
(i.e., shorter but more intense) training, it becomes a much less effective proxy for intensity. Besides being
subject to numerous environmental and physiological variables (e.g., temperature, humidity, hydration status,
altitude, overtraining, lack of sleep, nervousness, and upward “drift” as exercise progresses), HR responds
slowly to workload demands, and thus is a lagging indicator of effort. That is, it will be lower than power and
during the early part of an effort, and higher afterward. For example, if you bound up a few flights of stairs,
your heart rate will take a while to reflect the effort, and will continue to beat at an elevated rate for a while
even after you have stopped climbing steps. The shorter the duration of an effort, the less useful HR is.
Q: So power-based training has made perceived exertion and heart rate obsolete?
A: Not quite, but they seem to have been relegated to a definite second and distant third, respectively! Many still
cling to HR an indicator of overtraining – though declining power for a given PE is the deciding (and often first)
sign of that, too. Nonetheless, there persists some popular, if not scientific controversy as to the role of HR, with
some claiming that it indicates metabolic intensity, and therefore one should train by HR, while monitoring
power. In fact, just the reverse is true; particularly during outdoor cycling, metabolic load is more accurately
reflected by power, integrated with PE, the latter being more reliable than HR and incorporating more
physiological variables. Power provides an objective standard by which effort can be quantified, thereby
‘calibrating’ PE, while PE serves to modulate power output.
Q: How do I measure power – I mean, what are some of the various power-measuring systems available?
A: Here are the four bicycle-based systems presently available, with links to each manufacturer’s site:
Ergomo Sport (a torque-measuring bottom bracket available in Campagnolo square-taper or Shimano OctaLink):
http://www.ergomo-usa.com and www.ergomo.de/eng_main.html
Polar S-720i or S-710i (uses a chain vibration sensor that mounts on the right chainstay):
http://www.polarusa.com/consumer/productfinder/productfinder.asp or http://www.polar.fi/power_output.
User’s manuals are on-line at http://tinyurl.com/xyny and http://tinyurl.com/xys4
PowerTap (a torque-measuring hub that you build into a wheel): http://www.power-tap.com/
SRM Powercrank (a torque-measuring crank that replaces your present model): http://srm.de and
http://www.thebikeage.com
Note: contrary to claims, Ciclosport models do not actually measure power, rather, they only give a rough
estimate based on speed, total mass (rider/equipment), and road grade, which may be accurate on steeper
grades, but is useless on flat terrain, particularly in group rides or if any wind is present.
Finally, you don’t need a high-tech gizmosystem to figure your power. For instance, you can use a hill with a
steady grade of ~7% or more by timing yourself over a measured portion of it, and then calculate power quite
accurately (so long as air was sufficiently calm) using http://analyticcycling.com. You can even get a consistent
estimate running up a constant grade or a flight of continuous steps, such as in a stadium: Watts = (mass in kg
´ 9.81 ´ net elevation gain in meters)/time in seconds; kg = lbs ´ 0.4536.
Q: How do power-measuring devices work?
A: (Garth Rees and Charles Howe) The various on-bike systems measure force the applied either at the crank
(SRM), the rear hub (PowerTap), crank spindle (Ergomo), or chain (Polar). (Note: a patent was granted to
Shimano in November 2003 for a torque-measuring bottom bracket, U. S. Patent 6,644,135.) The former two
use strain gauges, which are fine polymer sheet, with ultra-fine wire or foil sandwiched in it, and the electrical
conductivity of the metal changes as they are twisted or deformed when force is applied, due to the secure
bonding to the material under test (the energy absorbed by the strain gauge is so close to nil that it can be
neglected in any loss equations). Strain gauges are fragile when not bonded, and typically no bigger than your
small fingernail, often 2 × 4 mm or smaller, depending on application. They may be in single, half-rosette (2
gauges, 90° offset), or full rosette (4 gauges, all at 90° offset, i.e., 2 opposed half-rosettes) configuration, with
the last having the best accuracy of all, since it compensates best for the strains in the two major axes, resulting
in good self-cancellation of any errors in the two devices. The difference in accuracy from half to full rosette is
not as great as is the implementation cost. Here are pictures of the PowerTap hub mechanism (U. S. Patent
6,418,797) from cyclingnews.com and bike.com , showing the strain gauges in a full-rosette arrangement:
The strain gauges measure torque inside the hub, then this data is transmitted, along with wheel speed, to a
seatstay-mounted receiver via digital radio frequency (RF) waves, and then by wire to a handlebar-mounted
computer with a 16-bit microprocessor, where they are used to calculate instantaneous power, road speed,
cadence, etc.
Similarly, the SRM senses torque exerted at the crankset, then multiplies it by crank rpm (cadence), measured
with a crank magnet and sensor, to give power.
Both Polar models measure chain tension via a chainstay-mounted sensor that detects vibrational frequency; just
like a guitar string, a chain vibrates faster as its tension goes up. This is translated into an amount of force,
which is then multiplied by chain speed, as measured by an optical sensor mounted on the rear derailleur, thereby
giving power output: power (W) = chain tension (N) x chain velocity (m/s).
Finally, the Ergomo Sport uses a bottom bracket with a photointerruptor circuit actuated by two “combs,” or flat
discs mounted on the bottom bracket spindle, each having numerous slots spaced evenly in a radial fashion. Two
optical sensors measure changes in the alignment of the slots, which is determined by how much the spindle
twists, and hence how much torque is being exerted. This value is then multiplied by crank rpm (cadence),
which is measured by the bottom bracket unit, thereby yielding a value for power.
Q: Where can I buy a power-measuring system?
A: Check with your local bicycle or triathlete shop, or the manufacturers’ web sites for dealer listings. You may
also find the products in cycling catalogs and/or on the web, and many coaches are also dealers for the several
systems.
Q: Which model is best?
A: Would you believe the stadium steps?! Accurate, reliable, and the least expensive! Kidding aside, this is an area
which can excite considerable controversy (!), so no recommendations are made here; each of the four models
available can be a valuable training aid if used properly, and the final choice is largely a personal one. Indeed,
Wattage forum member Robert Chung has compiled several “Rosetta Stone” files comparing power data
collected simultaneously, which showed close consistency between the models tested, as did Kraig Willett’s test
at Kraig Willett’s test. Here is a comparison chart:
Ergomo Sport Polar S-720i/710i PowerTap PowerTap Pro PowerTap Pro SRM Professional
Standard SL / Amateur
Measurement Bottom bracket Chainstay and rear Rear hub (130 or 135 Same as Standard Same as Standard Crank (Shimano
location (Campagnolo or derailleur mm; 24, 28, and 32 hole OctaLink or
Shimano OctaLink) drillings) Campagnolo; 167-182
mm lengths in 2.5 mm
increments)
Method Photointerrupter circuit Chain speed and 4 strain gauges Same as Standard Same as Standard 4 strain gauges for Pro,
vibration frequency 2 for Amateur
Claimed ± 2% ± 10% at any one ± 1.5% Same as Standard Same as Standard ± 2.5% for Pro, ± 5%
accuracy instant, but 2-5% or for Amateur
less on average
Recording Averaged values Current values Current values Current values Same as Pro Averaged values
interval recorded every 5 sec. recorded every 5, 15, recorded every 1.26 or recorded 1.26, 2.52, recorded 0.01-30 sec.
or 60 sec. 2.52 sec. 5.04, 10.08, or 30.24
sec.
Memory 11 hr. 4:57-76:37 hr. 4 or 8 hr. depending on 7.5-180 hr. depending Same as Pro 0:45-225 hr. depending
capacity 1 workout file Up to 99 workout files recording interval, on recording interval. on recording interval.
1 workout file 1 workout file Numerous workout
files
Calibration By manufacturer only; No; but accuracy can No; accuracy can be Same as Standard Same as Standard Slope setting is user
accuracy can be be checked on hill of checked via static adjustable;
checked via static known grade ‘stomp test’ described manufacturer
‘stomp test’ described below calibration now
below available in U.S.
Mass (grams) BB w/bolts & wires = Sensors = 118* g Hub = 579* g (w/o Same as Standard, Hub = 416 g (w/o Pro = 560 g
344 g Computer = 53* g skewer) plus slight added skewer) Amateur = 640 g
Computer & mount Computer =39.5* g mass due to crank- Remaining compo-
Mount/wiring = 71* g mounted cadence Computer = 120 g
=168 g Mount/wiring = 36* g nent masses are
sensor. same as Pro Mount bracket/wire =
30 g
Advantages 1. outstanding software 1. least expensive of 1. easiest to move from Same as Std., plus: Same as Pro, plus: 1. excellent software
(CyclingPeaks) with all options one bike to another 1. expanded memory 1. improved hub 2. time-tested, reliable
many useful analysis 2. feature-rich 2. affordable and (up to 180 hr.); can internals (4 sets design
tools software, and extra accurate store only one file of sealed 3. can display rolling
2. third-generation hardware features 3. compact, readable, but can create cartridge average for current
design like altitude easy-to-use display unlimited number bearings), but not wattage
3. fully hard-wired 3. allows use of any of intervals user serviceable
4. most hub internals 4. large memory
system is not wheel or crank that (axle, freehub, and 2. display has time of 2. hub is 162 g capacity, can store
affected by electronic you want drive side bearings) day, and rolling lighter than Pro or multiple workouts
or radio interference 4. large memory are all user- average capability Std.
for power, speed, 5. no limit on wheel
4. easy installation capacity, stores serviceable without 3. available in fixed choice
many workouts disturbing strain and cadence data; gear and Cam-
5. rechargeable can be customized
computer battery 5. incurs the smallest gauges and pagnolo freehub
electronics for these functions versions
lasts 5,000 hr., is weight penalty
good for ~30 hr., 5. easiest to install, and 3. can display 4. improved
6. not affected by “pedaling power”
recharges in 2-3 hr. temperature easiest to remove for software is also
racing – just swap (excludes 0, i.e., Java-based and
6. almost no limit on 7. does not require coasting values)
component choice rear wheels Mac-compatible
calibration 4. can be used with
fixed gear
5. measures actual
5. measures actual
cadence (more
accurate than the
Standard model’s
“virtual” cadence)
6. easier operation of
interval feature
7. mileage is
programmable
8. faster downloading
with Link software
v. 1.04
Drawbacks 1. large/heavy computer 1. most difficult to set 1. mediocre software Same as 1-7 for Std., Same as 1-5 for Std. 1. expensive
2. bearings must be up properly interface (also not plus: 2. not made to be
factory serviced 2. difficult to move Mac-compatible 1. hub requires moved from one bike
($300) every 15- from bike to bike (to 2. limits wheel choice modification to be to another
20,000 mi. the point that it will 3. wheel-based system used with fixed 3. some find display
3. not easily moved likely never happen) (not hub itself) is gear more difficult to read
from bike to bike 3. small display is hard more likely to be 4. daily calibration
4. cannot accept 2004 for some to damaged in crash (takes ~30 sec.)
Dura-Ace cranks navigate 4. no disc version; recommended
5. averaged data can be 4. the least “clean” requires a cover (not 5. user-serviceable, but
accessed only by installation (multiple USCF-legal after factory service
download (cannot be sensors and cables) 1/1/07) to be used as recommended every
viewed during 5. averaged data a disc 1500 hr., and
interval) cannot be viewed 5. no disc brake replacement interval
6. not useful on during intervals (or version for MTB for cranks (not
tandems ‘laps’), only at the 6. not available with including power
end of the ride Campagnolo freehub measuring unit) is
6. accuracy once yearly
7. drive-side bearings
questionable on and cone are 6. crank is slightly
stationary trainers, substandard quality more flexible than
possibly from other models; Dura-
harmonic vibrations 8. cannot be used with Ace version
effects fixed gear available at
7. not practical on 9. “virtual” cadence significant extra cost
MTB, and cannot only (limited to 40- 7. not useful on
be used with fixed 140 rpm) tandems
gear 10. reliability problems 8. accuracy of Amateur
in wet weather with deteriorates outside
original version; a ~100W range, and
Graber version has may drift
better seals and significantly over
coated circuitry the course of a
11. limited memory (7.5 season
hr.), stores only
one workout
12. no rolling average
or “pedaling
power” capability
Pedal analysis No Yes No No No Extra option
MSRP $1,200 720i, $575; add-on kit $700 without rim and $900 without rim and $840, hub only; Pro, $2,650; Amateur,
only, $315 wheel build wheel build; $1,200 without rim $1,770
$1,000 with built and wheel build;
wheel $1,300 with built
wheel
Other Display and software Display and software Data transmission is Average power display
give average power give only average through carbon obtained only from
for pedaling time only. power for with 0 fiber “windows” in pedaling time, but non-
(coasting) values. hub shell. zero values (i.e., when
Original grey case Electronics are coasting) included by
changed to yellow in completely SRM software.
2004. contained inside
hub; only batteries
are accessible from
cap.
*Actual mass; all others are manufacturer’s claims.
For comparison, the mass of a Shimano Dura-Ace FC-7700 rear hub is 312 g, while Campagnolo lists the Chorus at 260 g, and Record as 248 g (all masses without
skewer). A Dura-Ace FC-7700 bottom bracket is 201 g; an FC-7410 right crank and chainrings are 395 g; an Avocet 45 computer and mounting bracket are 20 g and
16 g; and a Polar Coach heart rate monitor (HRM) and mounting bracket are 40 g and 26 g, respectively.
Q: It looks like memory capacity varies considerably. Why?
A: It depends on the chosen recording interval, and, for the Polar S-710, which features are turned “on” and “off.”
Scott Harvel has compiled this chart showing all the possibilities:
FEATURE RECORDING RATE

Altitude Speed Cadence Power 5s 15 s 60 s
On On On On 4 h 57 min 14 h 53 min 59 h 34 min
On On On OFF 8 h 56 min 26 h 48 min 99 h 59 min
On On OFF On 5 h 35 min 16 h 45 min 67 h 01 min
On On OFF OFF 11 h 10 min 33 h 31 min 99 h 59 min
On OFF OFF OFF 14 h 53 min 44 h 41 min 99 h 59 min
OFF On On On 5 h 35 min 16 h 45 min 67 h 02 min
OFF On On OFF 11 h 10 min 33 h 31 min 99 h 59 min
OFF On OFF On 6 h 23 min 19 h 09 min 76 h 37 min
OFF On OFF OFF 14 h 53 min 44 h 41 min 99 h 59 min
OFF OFF OFF OFF 44 h 42 min 99 h 59 min 99 h 59 min
TOTAL ONE
99 h 59 min
FILE
TOTAL ALL
520 h 00 min
FILES
Q: If the data is sampled every 60 seconds, what good is that? After all, it seems to change so quickly.
A: (Alan and Jean-Joseph Coté, Jason Yanota, Andrew Coggan, Hunter Allen, Tom Compton, and Dave Wendt)
On longer rides, it is likely sufficient to record data with relatively infrequency, whereas on the track, every
second may not be often enough. Still, 60 seconds seems too long to be of use, at least for Polar units, which
record current values at the end of each interval, rather than an average over its duration. They do so since they
are designed as multisport devices, and the longer recording intervals are more appropriate to other data they
collect (HR, temperature, altitude), which does not change as rapidly as power.
There are three different measures of the ‘data stream’ which must be distinguished:
Signal rate – the number of times torque is measured in a given period. The strain gauges in the PowerTap hub
do this 60 times per second (Hertz), while the sampling rate for the SRM is 200 Hz. The Ergomo measures
torque 72-144 times second, i.e., every few degrees, which is why it or a future model has the potential to
provide data on variations in torque within a single revolution.
Display (or refresh) interval – the length of time between each update of the readout (display).
Recording interval – the length of time between each record of elapsed time, distance, speed, power, and
cadence that is stored in memory for downloading.
The Polar S-720i and S-710i group power data by crank revolution, and consider each crank revolution to be
indivisible with respect to the actual power reading. Values saved in display memory are an average over the
last few crank revolutions. The number of crank revolutions isn’t always the same, i.e., when you pedal really
slowly, it doesn’t average over a really long time, but over the recently completed revolutions (in a specific time
window) where the instantaneous samples are grouped by revolution. At higher cadences, more revolutions are
included in the calculation. Since the update is faster than 5 seconds, the instantaneous values during a given
revolution may be included in more than one successive reading. It isn’t a straight average, i.e., the total work
over the interval divided by its duration, but rather an average that is weighted toward the more recent
revolutions. The details of this calculation are proprietary, but the bottom line is that viewing it as a 5-second
average is a pretty good approximation.
The values stored in memory that is downloaded are not averages of some interval, but rather, the current
numbers as displayed on the monitor which are captured and stored once every 5, 15, or 60 seconds. Since the
update interval is faster than the recording interval, a high value may be displayed (and then saved as the
maximum value on the S-720 “FILE”), even though it doesn’t occur at the point when the value gets stored for
downloading, so the true maximum value might not appear in the downloaded data. Again, the 5 second interval
is really the only useful one for recording wattage.
Other than the Polar units, power-measuring devices display current power as an average over some short time
period, which leads to a problem known as the “precession effect.” That is, unless you are pedaling at a rate
where one or several revolutions are exactly completed in each averaging interval, an extra quarter-revolution
can occur, and that partial turn of the crank may be either a power stroke or a dead-center (and perhaps the
opposite for the next sampling period), which will produce a less consistent reading, especially for short intervals;
the maximum power value captured in the PowerTap’s display memory, for example, is significantly affected,
since it is the highest average value achieved over just 1.26 seconds. Thus, averaging over one (or just a few)
crank revolutions would reduce variability in the current power display, track power more nearly as a rider
senses it, and result in more accurate maximum values for instantaneous power. Recorded power values could,
and perhaps should, still be based on time.
For current power, the PowerTap Standard displays only the power calculated every 1.26 seconds, and when set
to record every 2.52 seconds, discards values calculated at 1.26 seconds, i.e., it records every other value
without averaging. The Pro model, on the other hand, can display average over the last 1.26, 2.52, 5.04, 10.08,
or 30.24 seconds for the current power value, but like the Standard, it records the instantaneous value at the
selected recording interval, so for instance, when at the 10.08 second recording interval, every 8th value is
stored, and the other 7 are discarded. Some have noted that displayed memory is often a couple Watts higher
than what is downloaded. In fact, the “raw,” recorded data represents is the most accurate and unaltered
information, coming directly from the hub. The reason the display is slightly off is that it uses lower-precision
arithmetic, rounds improperly, or computes running averages using a method that is prone to accumulated errors
or truncation. These corners are cut because memory and CPU computing power are at a premium.
The SRM averages torque during each pedal revolution, then multiplies the result by the average angular velocity
(cadence) during the revolution, then makes calculations according to the specified interval:
0.1 second – all completed revolutions are averaged, if a revolution hasn’t been completed then the
previous data is sampled again.
1 second – all completed revolutions in the previous second are averaged. One revolution will be sampled
in the first sample, two revs will be used in the second sample, etc.
10 second – all completed revolutions are averaged; at 90 rpm this would mean the average of the previous
15 pedal revolutions.
Instantaneous power is estimated using the torque analysis function, which samples torque at 200 Hz, and in this
way, SRM claims there are no artifacts in its power calculations, however, this is only an estimation of
instantaneous power, because we don’t know instantaneous crank speed, and speed variations, though slight, do
occur while pedaling. The crank torque and angular velocity that are combined to calculate power aren’t
necessarily time-aligned properly, which can be an issue if cadence is changing rapidly.
As previously mentioned, the Ergomo takes 72-144 measurements per second (depending on cadence), averages
them each second, and temporarily saves the result. Each 1-second average in turn is averaged every 5
seconds, and then this number is recorded for download. For example, 300 W, 300 W, 300 W, 305 W, and 310
W will be averaged by the computer and recorded as 303 W. The Ergomo display is updated every second from
a rolling average of the last 8 rpm, so a new number appears in the display each second as the rolling average is
kicking out the last number.
Although both the Ergomo and SRM measure the torque, or twisting force, generated by the rider’s leg(s), the
Ergomo measures it at the bottom bracket, whereas with the SRM, it is measured between the chainrings and
the right crank arm. When you push down with the left pedal, that torque is transmitted through the bottom
bracket spindle, to the spider, and then to the chainrings. When you push down with your right leg, however, the
torque is transmitted only through the spider to the chainrings – none is transferred to the bottom bracket spindle,
hence, the Ergomo measures the power output of the left leg only (and then doubles it), whereas the SRM
measures the power output of both legs. (If you use your right leg to help lift your left back to the top of the
stroke – and many of us do – then there is some torque applied to the bottom bracket spindle. This is, however,
considerably smaller than the torque generated during the downstroke with either leg, furthermore, it is in the
opposite direction.) Some therefore claim that an imbalance between left and right leg strength (due perhaps to
an injury or even just occurring normally) renders the Ergomo inaccurate, even as it may give consistent and
repeatable values, however, this has yet to be demonstrated.
Q: It sounds like each ride produces a lot of data. How to make sense of it all?
A: Software is included with each system, and there are also several aftermarket packages with enhanced
capabilities, including http://cyclingpeakssoftware.com, http://www.crosstrak.com, and
http://www.powercoach.ch (comes in versions for both Mac and PC). Lastly, http://analyticcycling.com has
some useful analysis features.
Q: I just had my first ride with my new power meter. Is it normal for current power to fluctuate so much?
A: First-time power meter users are almost invariably surprised at how “jumpy” the current power display is, and
question the readout’s reliability. This is a result of having become accustomed to the heart rate monitor (HRM)
as a gauge of intensity, and being fooled into thinking that the energy requirements of outdoor cycling are
relatively steady by the delayed response heart rate to changes in intensity, an effect that is accentuated by the
smoothing algorithm incorporated in the HRM’s firmware. Although some of the variability in power is due to
instrument artifact (the “precession effect,” as just discussed), the energy demands of road cycling do indeed
fluctuate very rapidly and widely (sometimes referred to as the “stochastic” nature of on-road power output),
something that can easily be verified by comparing power data collected outdoors against that obtained from
most any indoor trainer. Using your power meter’s interval feature, if it has one, or setting it to smooth
(average) readout data over a period of time such as 30 seconds can help to ‘settle’ the display.
Q: My friend says he can average 275 Watts for 30 minutes. Is that any good?
A: It all depends. Power is somewhat ‘personal,’ such that three riders traveling the same flat section of road
together, at the same speed, side-by-side (not drafting each other), might each have considerably different power
outputs, so absolute Watts do not necessarily provide a valid basis of comparison. This is even more
outstandingly true going uphill, where the force you must overcome is determined largely (75%+ for an 80 kg
bike/rider putting out 300 W on grades over 5%) by weight. For instance, if Dan’s mass is 70 kg and he
averages 315 W on a particular climb, while Felicia is 49 kg and maintains “only” 270 W on the same hill, she
will drop him easily, since she is putting out 5.5 W/kg, while he generates only 4.5 W/kg. On flat terrain, by
contrast, the main resistance (80%+) is from air, so speed is a question of Watts per square meter of effective
frontal area (CDA), which determines air drag.
The amount of good data on power-generating capabilities for cyclists across different skill levels, disciplines,
and gender is limited, and of course, statistics don’t determine the outcome of a race; if they did, we could just
set up trainers at the starting line, run a few tests, and proclaim the winner! Still, it may be useful to gauge your
own power against others, or those with whom you hope to compete, and if so, be sure to “normalize” (divide
by) body mass or frontal area. For timed events, such as a 40 km time trial, you can get a reasonable idea of the
power needed to achieve a certain time for yourself by using an online model like those available at
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm, http://analyticcycling.com, or http://www.machinehead-
software.co.uk.
For his World Hour Record in 1996, Chris Boardman averaged an estimated 442 W, while Miguel Indurain
needed about 510 W when he broke the same standard in 1994 (both about 6.5 W/kg), and an analysis of Lance
Armstong’s time of 38 minutes 1 second in climbing L’Alpe d’Huez during the 2001 Tour de France produced
an estimate of 6.5 W/kg, which came at the end of a 209 km long stage featuring two prior “hors categorie”
(beyond category) climbs. In setting a new women’s record of 54 minutes 2 seconds at the 2002 Mt.
Washington (NH) Hillclimb, Geneviève Jeanson averaged an estimated 278 W (5.56 W/kg). At the other end of
the power-duration relationship, the best male match sprinters have hit 23 W/kg, females ~20 W/kg, however,
comparable and even higher values than these have (somewhat surprisingly) been recorded by non-cyclists, such
as weightlifters, hockey players, etc.
Q: What in the heck is this ‘CDA’ you refer to?
A: It’s the product of your aerodynamic drag coefficient, CD , and frontal area A. Let’s start with A, which is
simply the area of the profile a rider presents to the air they move through. Stand directly in front of a rider, look
at his or her outline, and you’ll see that a smaller rider has a smaller frontal area, while larger rider has more
area to push through the air, and therefore must put out more power for a particular speed.
CD is a measure of how ‘streamlined’ you are, i.e., how smoothly air flows around your body/bike without
swirling behind you. Imagine two riders of exactly the same size and position, where one is using a Cervélo, an
aero helmet, shoe covers, etc., while the other has a standard round-tubed bicycle, a Pneumo helmet, and no
shoe covers (both wheelsets have 42 spokes, but the first has 58 mm deep-section rims, while the second has
standard box-section rims). Although both riders present the same frontal area, the former will have a lower
CD, encounter less aerodynamic drag, and go faster at a given power output.
The product of these two components is CDA, or effective frontal area, and it is most accurately determined in a
wind tunnel, but it may be possible to measure it with a power meter, on a flat course in calm air. As a rough
2
rule of thumb, an 0.005 m reduction in CDA = 0.5 seconds/kilometer = 0.1 lbs difference in drag at 30 mph = 5
W.
Q: How can I test my progress when training by power?
A: (Eddie Monnier) Keep in mind that testing does not necessarily guarantee racing results, rather, it allows for
periodic evaluation of your condition and training program. If you do this often enough, you will have a bad test
from time to time, so it’s important not to get too hung up on any one result.
There are several test protocols to determine what might be termed ‘functional threshold power,’ including the
critical power and maximal aerobic power (MAP) tests (the latter is usually administered indoors). The method
proposed in the training guide referenced further on, however, is not a lab test, but a functional test of average
power for a 40 to 60 minute time trial which is used for determining training levels since it integrates the
underlying physiological mechanisms of endurance exercise: maximal VO2, lactate threshold, and efficiency,
thereby giving a sort of “bottom line” measure of fitness.
You may also want to test your power-generating capacity at various durations, depending on race objectives
and personal development needs; for instance, a criterium specialist will be more interested in maximal and
average power over a 200-meter sprint than a climber, who will tend to focus more on average power on a
particular climb. In this regard, something like Power Profiling can be helpful.
Q: What are “normalized” power, intensity factor, and training stress score?
A: Created by Andrew Coggan, Ph.D., a noted exercise physiologist, this is obtained via an algorithm that adjusts
for variations in power with reference to lactate threshold and other physiological responses.
Suppose you race a 1 hour criterium, where you are frequently sprinting out of corners, covering breaks, etc.,
and you race to your limit, such that there are very few if any slack periods. Average power with coasting time
will nonetheless be considerably lower than a flat 1 hour time trial where you paced steadily and had nothing left
at the end, yet you feel just as stressed physically. The normalizing algorithm adjusts for variations in power,
such that the resulting normalized power value will be very close to what you would have achieved in a TT of
equivalent duration. In short, it is meant to more accurately reflect the actual metabolic strain that the body
incurs, rather than the average stress load imposed.
Here’s how it is calculated: first, a rolling 30-second average (mean of the last 30 seconds) is applied to the
wattage values from the downloaded workout file, since the body does not respond instantaneously to rapid
changes in exercise intensity, rather, most physiological responses follow a predictable time course with a half-
life of approximately 30 seconds. Next, each of the values obtained from this is raised to the 4th power, just as
blood lactate response has been shown to closely fit the plot of y = x4, where y = blood lactate and x = power
output; indeed, many critical physiological responses (e.g., glycogen utilization, lactate production, stress hormone
levels) are similarly related to exercise intensity in a curvilinear, rather than linear relationship. Finally, all these
values are averaged, and the 4th root is taken.
If that all seems a bit complex, just think of adjusted power as the equivalent power you would have achieved if
the race course had been perfectly flat and the pace perfectly steady, with no variations.
Two other metrics of workout performance, intensity factor (IF) and training stress score (TSS), are derived
from normalized power, though space considerations preclude further discussion; the previously-mentioned
CyclingPeaks Software includes all three of these features and has a nice explanatory article as well, at
http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/defined.html, while there is a free on-line calculator at
http://www.virtusphysica.com/htmlspecialedition2003.htm.
Q: How does altitude affect power output?
A: The effects of altitude on VO2 uptake (and hence aerobic power) are highly individual, so it is difficult to predict
to what extent any one person will be affected, although as a general rule it has been shown that elite athletes,
as compared to normal individuals, have a greater decline in VO 2max under conditions of reduced ambient pO2
(partial oxygen pressure). This is caused by their higher cardiac output, which results in a decreased mean
transit time for the erythrocytes (red blood cells) within the pulmonary capillary, and thus less time for
equilibration between alveolar air and blood in the pulmonary capillary.
These equations from Bassett et al.1 were generated from 4 groups of highly trained or elite runners, so they are
population-specific to that group, but can be used to estimate aerobic power at a given altitude as a percentage y
of what is normally available at sea level, where x = elevation above sea level in km:
2 2
acclimatized athletes (several weeks at altitude): y = -1.12x - 1.90x + 99.9 (R = 0.973)
3 2 2
non-acclimatized athletes (1-7 days at altitude): y = 0.178x - 1.43x - 4.07x + 100 (R = 0.974)
whereas Peronnet et al.2 found y = -0.003x3 + 0.0081x2 - 0.0381x + 1. Here is a table derived from these
equations:
ELEVATION AVAILABLE AEROBIC POWER
Bassett et al.1 Peronnet et al.2

(feet above sea level)
acclimatized non-acclimatized
0 99.9% 100.0% 99.9%
1,000 99.2% 98.6% 98.8%
2,000 98.3% 97.0% 97.8%
3,000 97.2% 95.2% 96.8%
4,000 95.9% 93.2% 95.8%
5,000 94.4% 91.1% 94.7%
6,000 92.7% 88.9% 93.5%
7,000 90.7% 86.5% 92.2%
8,000 88.6% 84.2% 90.7%
9,000 86.3% 81.7% 88.9%
10,000 83.7% 79.3% 86.7%
11,000 80.9% 77.0% 84.3%
12,000 78.0% 74.7% 81.4%
13,000 74.8% 72.5% 78.0%
14,000 71.4% 70.4% 74.2%
1Bassett, D.R. Jr., C.R. Kyle, L. Passfield, J.P. Broker, and E.R. Burke. Comparing cycling world hour records, 1967-1996:
modeling with empirical data. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 31:1665-76, 1999.
2Peronnet, F., P. Bouissou, H. Perrault, and J Ricci. A comparison of cyclists’ time records according to altitude and materials
used. Canadian Journal of Sport Science 14(2):93-8, June 1989.
Thanks to David Bassett, Jr., Ph.D., for his contributions to this section.
Q: Where can I get more information on training by power?
A: Wattage forum member Andrew Coggan has created a ‘schema’ of Power-based training levels (backup sites
#1 and #2), which Charles Howe has included in Part 1 of The Road Cyclist’s Guide to Training by Power, at
http://pdqcleveland.org/power.htm. Another article by Coggan is Racing and Training With a Power Meter
(backup sites #1 and #2), while a number of power-related articles can be found at the Power Tap (archived),
SRM (plus more at The Bike Age), and Cycling Peak Software web sites. Additionally, Robert Chung and Amit
Ghosh have personal web sites with many good articles, as do http://analyticcycling.com and
http://bicyclewattage.com.
Finally, the Wattage Forum (http://topica.com/lists/wattage) can provide much help and advice from that list’s
many members; supplemental list archives are at http://users.icubed.com/~mayhew/wattage as a StuffIt file,
while the StuffIt Expander utility needed to open this file is at http://stuffit.com.
Q: What about power-based training indoors?
A: (Charles Howe, Andrew Coggan, and Bruce Sargent) Stationary trainers can offer an important form of
supplementary training, not merely over the winter months or when the weather is foul, but even during good
weather when a controlled, structured workout is desired. Stand-alone trainers such as the SRM and Velotron
appear to be well-calibrated, as is most any good lab ergometer, such as those manufactured by Lode. In
evaluating the wattage readout accuracy claims of bike-stand models, however, it is important to realize that just
because a device has a digital display (such as the Computrainer, Cateye CS-1000, and various Tacx models)
does not mean it accurately or reliably reports power output – and precision in administering the exercise load is
one of the most important benefits of power-based training. Indeed, of the various models that claim to be
calibrated for power, only the Velodyne (http://www.velodynesports.com) appears to be consistently accurate
and precise (see http://tinyurl.com/36j5v), while realistically replicating the actual demands of cycling on the
road. It achieves this with a feedback control system that measures and adjusts the resistance of an electrically-
controlled brake as well as a 10 kg flywheel that simulates the “inertial” forces encountered during actual riding.
When properly calibrated, it faithfully reproduces the experimentally validated speed-to-power equation (by
software design), although it assumes a set value for frontal area which may or may not correspond to that of
the individual riding it. Additionally, it will simulate drafting (though the magnitude of the simulated reduction in
air resistance is unknown), but not headwinds or tailwinds. In ergometer mode, it will hold wattage constant
down to ~5 mph, i.e., power will not vary as your speed changes at levels over 100 Watts. The ability to
maintain constant power in “erg” mode is a bit speed-dependent in the other direction too, i.e., rolling resistance
accounts a large enough fraction of the total power demand that it is hard to get the power down when wheel
speed is too high.
Overall, an on-bike power meter in combination with most any bike-stand load generator is the most affordable,
flexible, and accurate arrangement for precision power-based training indoors; those with a flywheel adequately
heavy to simulate inertial forces (designated with an “*” below) are recommended. Except for the Velodyne, an
accurate power meter is the only way to know the energy requirement of bike-stand models, which renders the
load generator’s readout superfluous. (Note: the accuracy of the Polar S-720i/710i on indoor trainers has
frequently been observed to be highly unreliable.)
Stand-alone trainers:
Cardgirus – http://www.cardgirus.com/english.htm (See also Andy Birko’s review)
Cyclesimulator – http://www.cyclesimulator.com
Kettler Ergo Racer – http://www.worldclasscycles.com/kettler_ergo_racer.htm or http://www.kettler.net
Lode ergometers – http://www.lode.nl/en/index.html
PowerTap – http://www.power-tap.com SRM – http://www.srm.de/trainerclothing.html
Velotron – http://www.velotron.com/index.asp
Bike stands:
1up USA CPR A-2000 – http://www.1upusa.com/bike_trainer.html
*Bike Technologies Advanced Training System – http://www.biketechnologies.com/products/ats/ats.html and
http://www.usauzziesales.com/training_system_details.htm
Blackburn Fluid and Mag Trainers – http://www.blackburndesign.com/2004/trainers_04.htm
Cateye CS-1000 – http://www.cateye.com/products/accessories/CS_1000.html
*Chaindriver – http://www.chaindriver.com Cycleops – http://cycleops.com
Kinetic – http://kurtkinetic.com (*custom version: http://analyticcycling.com/ThingsWeSell.html)
Kreitler – http://www.kreitler.com Tacx – http://ww.tacx.nl
Power requirements of numerous bike-stand models have been charted at

http://www.geocities.com/almost_fast/trainerpower, while Robert Wells has posted a careful evaluation of the
Tacx Flow at http://home.comcast.net/~rwwells/Tacx/DOEFlow.html.
Q: What does accuracy matter anyway, so long as a unit’s readout is consistent?
A: (Andrew Coggan) Accuracy is important if:
1. you wish to compare your performance over the long term with different devices;
2. you wish to compare your performance to others;
3. you want to use a self-assessment tool such as use my “Power Profiling” tables, or
4. you wish to do any modeling, e.g., to predict your time on a new course.
It is true, however, that precision (reproducibility) is probably more important than accuracy – but that includes
across various power outputs, pedaling speeds, etc., as well as across brands of powermeter. Care must be
exercised when comparing data collected using different power meters, even if they have all been carefully
calibrated. In my own case, for example, the slight improvement in power I’ve seen at various longer durations
recently, as compared to previous years, can potentially be accounted for entirely by my switch to SRM from
PowerTap, since the former measures power “upstream” of the chain, whereas the PowerTap measures it
“downstream,” or after the chain. On the other hand, my power at 5 seconds is down significantly, as are peak
values at 10, 15, and 30 seconds, but 1 minute isn’t, which makes me believe that it is real, and not an artifact of
the change in systems. Without careful assessment of the data collected with each powermeter, however, an
incorrect conclusion about whether a certain type of training is or isn’t working might be reached.
Q: Can a power meter be used as an aid in dieting?

A: Since they accurately measure energy output, power meters can be used to estimate metabolic energy
expenditure in kilocalories (simply “calories” in common usage.) Most models give the total work for a ride in
kilojoules (kJ), but if not, average power output for the ride can be converted to kJ when multiplied by ride
duration in hours (decimal form) and a factor of 3.6. For instance, if you averaged 142 Watts for 1 hour 22
minutes, that’s 142 W ´ 1.37 hr ´ 3.6 = 699 kJ. Since the body is ~20-25% thermodynamically efficient, this
roughly cancels out the unit conversion factor (4.184 kJ = 1 kcal), and the work accomplished in kJ during a ride
is pretty near equal to kcal burned by the body. Unfortunately, efficiency varies during a ride, increasing directly
with intensity, and it must be determined in a lab, but here are factors for converting kJ to kcal over a range of
values for efficiency:
If you are 25% efficient, kJ × 0.96 = kcal, and 87.1 W are produced by each liter of oxygen uptake
for 24% efficiency, kJ × 1.00 = kcal, and 83.6 W are produced by each L of O 2 uptake
The OwnCal feature of Polar HRMs only estimates calories expended, based on averages derived from large
samples, and thus can vary widely by individual, as the manufacturer itself admits.
Q: I’ve heard that temperature really affects the accuracy of the SRM and PowerTap. True?
A: (Andrew Coggan, Chris Cleeland, Jesse Bartholomew, and Andy Birko) A recent study found that both read
higher in colder air than warmer (8° C, or 36 F) as compared to the lab (70° F), but this was because the
investigators tested them without re-zeroing. In other words, they deliberately disregarded the manufacturer’s
recommendations for use, and the error should therefore be viewed as a worst-case scenario due to improper
operation. If you reset the zero at the same temperature at which you collect data, then accuracy will be
unaffected.
The PowerTap autozeros when coasting (i.e., whenever there is zero torque applied), however, if there is an
offset of more than ±8 in-lbs, the unit will require the user to re-zero. This usually occurs due to a large
temperature change, so to obtain the most accurate data, you shouldn’t just look for non-zero watt values while
coasting, you should look for non-zero torque values.
This page from a software company shows that proper engineering can detect strain in the presence of thermal-
induced stress.
Q: How do I calibrate my power meter?
A: (Andrew Coggan) Neither the Polar S-710 nor the PowerTap require calibration after initial set-up. Calibration
of the SRM via slope adjustment can be performed by the user, as described in the Owner’s Manual at
http://www.srm.de/index.php?la=3&lb=3&lang=ger (click on “Troubleshooting,” then “Calibration check”), and
a more complete calibration procedure is now available un the U. S. as well.
Technically, the PowerTap cannot be user-calibrated, but its accuracy can be checked using a simple test that is
similar to the SRM calibration check. First, check that the transmission icon is on, and if not, give the rear wheel
a spin. Then, enter the torque mode by holding the “Select” button down for 2 seconds or longer (the “WATTS”
designation will disappear from the top line.) Apply the rear brake sufficiently to lock up the rear wheel. Now,
measure torque as follows: with the cranks exactly horizontal (right crank at 3 o’clock), hang a known weight of
at least 50 lbs from the right crank, or simply stand on it – hence the name ‘stomp test’! Measured torque =
(weight in lbs) × (crank length in mm) × (1 in/25.4 mm) × (cog teeth/chainring teeth). For a 159 lb rider
standing on a 175 mm crank, with the chain on the 39 tooth ring and the 23 tooth cog, 159 lbs × 175 mm × 1
in/25.4 mm × 23/39 = 646 in-lbs. Compare this to the displayed value by calculating % error as (measured
torque - displayed torque)/measured torque.
Q: Can I race with a power meter?
A: Sure! The most obvious application is time trialing, where it is invaluable for pacing, particularly in the initial
stages of the race, and even for pursuit events on the track, as well as short (<10 minute), prologue-type events
on flat terrain. Although criteriums allow fewer situations where power data can be conveniently accessed
during the race, it can be used in road races to judge effort when off the front, in a breakaway, or bridging up,
and when seeking the “sweet spot” in a paceline or echelon. Even if not useful during the race, a power meter
can be used as a “black box” (ride data recorder), allowing informa-tion to be analyzed afterward to quantify the
demands of the race, and training programs to be tailored accordingly. Still, some who train using a power meter
choose to race without it for psychological reasons, and ultimately, its use in competition is a matter of personal
preference, like an HRM.
Q: How does the PowerTap calculate cadence without a sensor?
A: (Andrew Coggan) This “virtual cadence” feature estimates crank rpm based on the time from one peak in
torque to the next as your legs pump up and down. Such peaks occur very frequently (e.g., every 333.3
milliseconds at 90 rpm) and have to be identified “on the fly,” so any slight variation in either when pushed down
the hardest or when the computer thinks you pushed down the hardest will therefore have a significant effect.
Depending on how/how fast you pedal, the cadence values can therefore be quite erratic, even though the
power measurements are still accurate.
Q: Can I use the PowerTap just as a computer, without the hub?
A: (Andrew Coggan) An undocumented function of the original (grey case) PowerTap Standard, this is now
explained in the owner’s manual for the PowerTap Pro. Anyway, in the normal (not interval) mode, scroll to
current cadence (it should be all dashes if the cranks are not turning). Hold down the “select” (right-hand)
button for about 3 seconds until it says “OFF” on the top line where Watts are normally displayed. Speed, heart
rate, and distance will now be shown, but not cadence or Watts. Return to normal mode by reversing the
process (you will have to cycle back to current cadence, since as soon as you let up on the right button during
the above procedure, the computer jumps to average cadence).
You need to mount a magnet on the rear wheel and ensure it passes very close to the sensor (5 mm or so).
According to a PowerTap, the receiver on the bike may be more “particular” about magnet strength and location
than your average cycling computer, which may be why this function was left undocumented.
Q: The drive-side bearing cone in both my PowerTap Pro and Standard hubs wore out after less than 3,000
miles – it makes a crunching sound and does not turn very smoothly. Any suggestions?
A: This is a clear deficiency in materials that should be corrected by the manufacturer. Until they do so, try using
item SH-3AO9803, a right cone for Shimano Dura-Ace rear freehub FH-7700, available from Loose Screws for
$12.20 each. Grind or machine the narrow end of the cone down a few millimeters since it is too long, and file
the inboardmost ‘step’ off the aluminum spacer that comes with the PT hub, but once you do, it all works fine,
and since there is a rubber lip seal on the cone, the hub will be double-sealed. There are other Shimano cones
that may fit better, but I don’t know which ones for sure, and this one is the best quality.
Note that the non-drive side bearings are sealed, and must be serviced by the manufacturer.
Q: What can I do to improve the waterproofness of my PowerTap hub?
A: (Chris Cleeland and Lindsay Edwards) Get some tune-up grease, also known as dielectric grease (or heat sink
grease in the electronics world, although that tends to have thermal conductivity properties as well as being
dielectric) from the nearest auto parts store (or “auto spares” as they say in the U. K.) This is the stuff that’s
made for the inside of spark plug wire boots to ensure that they can be removed, but won’t conduct electricity.
Squeeze a liberal portion of this on to your finger, then smear it all over the leaf contacts both on the cradle and
the nubs on the back of the CPU. This will keep water and moisture out of the contacts, but maintain the
connection.
The other issue is water in the hub itself, which happens to me less often, perhaps 1/3 of the time I ride in rain
(though I have yet to be caught in an all-out downpour). It also happens in heavy fog occasionally. A simple
overnight period where you take the cover off is enough to dry it out and get things working again. I’d suggest
using tune-up grease here, too. It’s a little thicker than Pedro’s syngrease, doesn’t break down in heat as much,
and if it does, it won’t affect electrical connections. Here’s a link describing Permatex’s product and to a place
selling it online:
http://www.permatex.com/products/prodidx.asp?automotive=yes&f_call=get_item&item_no=22058
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/autoaccessconnect/digr.html
Finally, apply some silicone sealant around all the joints of the receiver, paying special attention the point where
the cable enters the body of the receiver.
Q: I want to build custom wheel from a PowerTap hub, but I’m not sure how to spec it.
A: Critical dimensions for both old and new versions are given below, and you also need the effective rim diameter
(ERD). Armed with these parameters, you can determine spoke length using one of the on-line calculators at
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html#length. The following table provides specifications for selected
rims (more ERDs can be found at the above link as well).
OLD PowerTap Hub (130 mm over-locknut distance)

Mfd. before 2001 by Tune; painted matte silver finish.
Center-to-flange width, left side: 36.2 mm

Center-to-flange width, right side: 16.7 mm
Diameter through spoke holes, left side: 78.0 mm
Diameter through spoke holes, right side: 66.0 mm
Spoke hole diameter: 2.4 mm
NEW PowerTap Hub (130 mm O.L.D.) PowerTap SL Hub (130 mm O.L.D.)
Introduced late 2001 by Graber; shiny polished Introduced late 2004 by Saris/CycleOps; carbon fiber
silver finish. center section.
Center-to-flange width, left side: 32.7 mm Center-to-flange width, left side: XX.X mm
Center-to-flange width, right side: 16.7 mm Center-to-flange width, right side: XX.X mm
Diameter through spoke holes, left side: 78.0 Diameter through spoke holes, left side: XX.X mm
mm Diameter through spoke holes, right side: XX.X mm
Diameter through spoke holes, right side: 66.0 Spoke hole diameter: 2.4 mm
mm
Spoke hole diameter: 2.4 mm
PROFILE
MASS ERD
RIM MODEL TYPE DEPTH
(g) (mm)
(mm)
CAMPAGNOLO Sydney (32° only) C 30 553 581
MAVIC Open Pro CD C 18 439* 602
SUN ME14A C 20 421 601
SUN Venus C 25 440 592
VELOCITY Aerohead C 21 405 598
VELOCITY Deep V C 30 520 582
VELOCITY Pro Elite T 30 500 582
ZIPP 415 C 38 415 567
ZIPP 280 T 38 280 569
ZIPP 505 C 58 568* 529
ZIPP 360 T 58 360 530
*Actual mass; all others are manufacturer’s claims.
ERD – effective rim diameter C – clincher T – tubular.
For 28 spokes, use 2-cross, for 32, 3-cross (all rims available in both drillings unless noted). As a general rule, round the
calculated spoke length down if using brass nipples, up for alloy nipples.
The CH Aero wheel cover, available from Excel Sports, essentially converts the PowerTap wheel to a disc,
although the hub opening on the left-side cover must be cut larger to ~73 mm diameter; a carbon fiber version is
available by calling the manufacturer at (800) 227-6751. To make a home-made disc/wheel cover, see these
instructions from Warren Beauchamp and Bob Schwartz, as well as an additional note from Ken Lehner. Note:
wheel covers will become illegal under when the U. S. Cycling Federation adopts UCI bicycle regulations on
January 1, 2007.
Q: What about a PowerTap hub with 135 mm over-locknut distance?
A: (Rick Moll and Jeese Bartholomew) The hubs are the same with except for axle length and spacing; a 5 mm
spacer is added to the left (non-drive) side, so the right side flange is shifted 2.5 mm away from the hub center,
while the left side flange is shifted 2.5 mm towards it, therefore:
Center-to-flange width, left side = 32.7 mm - 2.5 mm = 30.2 mm

Center-to-flange width, right side = 16.7 mm + 2.5 mm = 19.2 mm
Q: How can build up a Power Tap hub as a fixed-gear wheel?
A: Check out this article: http://www.smartcyclinginc.com/helparticle.html
Q: How can I mount the PowerTap harness on my stem?
A: (Chris Mayhew) You can do this by crossing the zip ties so that they exit one side of the mount but cross over
and enter the other side. A cleaner method, however, is to tightly wrap electrical tape around the stem and the
lower part of the mount, behind the ‘ears.’ Be careful how much tape you use; too much will cause a poor fit
between the harness and PT. With both methods it’s best to put a very small piece of pipe insulation under the
harness to fill in the gaps.
An off-the-shelf mount can be purchased at http://www.cingcycling.com.
Q: My bike has a Campagnolo derailleur, but the PT has a Shimano 9-speed freehub. What to do?
A: (Brian Smith and Eddie Monnier) Quoting Sheldon Brown, “For reasons that are not quite clear, 9-speed
hubs/cassettes seem to work pretty well with the opposite brand of 9-speed derailleur/shifter,” the operative
words being “pretty well,” so results may vary, but many report doing so without any problem (avoid using a
Campagnolo chain on Shimano cogs, however).
An excellent cassette to convert the PowerTap for use with Campy 10 is available from Wheels Manufacturing
(see http://www.wheelsmfg.com/4.html), but the one from American Classic is not recommended (see
“Important Notes” at http://www.amclassic.com/Cassettes_Conv.html – “The following wheels and hubs are
incompatible: Shimano pre-built paired spoke wheelsets, and ALL Powertap hubs.”) It seems that the spacers
on this model, and on the cassette from Miche as well, are fixed so that the smallest cog (e.g., the 11) just barely
seats onto the PowerTap freehub body, making it vulnerable to “spinning” on the freehub body. With the
Wheels cassette you will get a few spacers that are wafer thin, so you can fine tune how much the smallest
sinks into the body. This gives a more positive fit so that you shouldn’t have any problems.
Q: Which of the two types of PowerTap pickups should I use?
A: (Jesse Bartholomew) All PowerTap hubs made by Tune (matte silver-grey hub body) and some CycleOps
PowerTap hubs are designed to be used with a receiver that mounts 7" from the hub for optimum signal
transmission; these have a serial number of 27383 or less. In a successful attempt to limit data drops, we
“tuned” the hub and receiver, resulting in a new receiver that needs to be mounted closer (3-5") to the hub; these
have a sticker indicating how to mount them on one side, a CycleOps brand sticker the other side, and serial
number greater than 27383.
Part of the tuning was to desensitize the receiver a bit, and because the new PowerTap SL hub transmits
through carbon “windows” in the hub shell, the signal is weaker, and the receiver won’t pick it up consistently, so
we’ve gone back to the original 7" style receiver, but we recommend mounting it no more than 3" from the hub
to maximize consistent data transmission. I know that’s terribly confusing, but the short version is that the only
combination that won’t work together is the SL with the 3-5", current receiver. So if you do upgrade to the SL
you’ll need to use the SL model receiver with whatever other hub you are using for training.
Q: I have a Mac G3 Powerbook without serial ports and want to run the Polar software with IR interface.
How can I do this?
A: (Bill Pence) Use the Keyspan High Speed Serial to USB adapter and the serial version of the IR receiver from
Polar. You need to be running Virtual PC 5.0 and Windows 2000. The Mac OS needs to be 9.2, as 9.1 does
not seem to work too well with VPC, nor does OSX (OS 10). I’ve run the Polar PPP under VPC 3.0, which
worked fine, but the IR adapter didn’t work. I found that I needed to upgrade my device driver to Keyspan V
1.9.
Finally, I needed to plug the Keyspan Serial Port adapter into a USB port on the back of my G3 – for some
reason it was not happy plugging into the spare USB port on the keyboard. I have not been able to make the
USB IR interface work with this setup, but serial port works just fine the way I have it set up now with my S-
710.
After that it is a matter of setting all of the dialog boxes correctly. With the IR adapter plugged into Port 2 of
the adapter, the Keyspan Control panel it will advise you of the devices attached. Click Advanced Settings for
more detail. Pull down the menu in the dialog box to Port #2. It should read something like P#2USA28X02.
This is specific to the Keyspan device, and identifies port number 2 (where you plugged the adapter). If funny
things have been happening, you may reset the port here. Mine is set to receive FIFO of 16 and a buffer of 64,
both default values. Also, make sure interrupt endpoints is set. I do not know what effect it has, and am not
anxious to find out.
Leaving Keyspan and launching VPC, once Windows has booted up, look in the menu bar on the Mac side of
the house (hold down the Apple key and the Mac menu bar appears) and pull down “Edit Windows 2000
Settings’” which brings up the settings list. Click on COM 1. A dialog box will appear to the right of the
window with various radio buttons. Click “Mac Serial Port.” P#2USA28X02 should appear below it; this is
your Keyspan Port with the IR adapter on it. Check “Non-Modem device” on the next line below, and the
COM 1 port is now mapped to the Keyspan port that the IR Adapter connects to.
One more step. Launch the Polar Software (new versions are best). Pull down the “Options-Preferences”
menu. A dialog box will appear labeled “Software Preference,” and click on the “Hardware” tab. In the top of
the box is a section devoted to the Polar S-series HR monitor. Set the pull down menu to COM 1. Click the
“Options” button. I have mine set to USB Autocheck and Keep HR in Connect Mode. I don’t think it matters
unless you check “Use Windows Internal IR” port, which would be very bad.
Set the 710 in front of the IR receiver and click the connect button. It should connect and work just like running
on a Windows PC, and that should be all there is to it. I do not believe the USB IR adapter will work with
Virtual PC. I tried. A lot. VPC is not happy sharing USB devices with the Mac OS.
Q: (Brian McLaughlin) Hold on there! I have been using OSX with VPC 6, using the USB Keyspan
converter model USA-19QW. It all works fine with PowerTap software and CyclingPeaks software. The
driver CD that I have is 1.2 for OS X, 1.9 for 8.6-9.x, and it works fine as long as I make sure it is
recognized in the set-up of VPC before I try to download data. I use COM 2.
A: Thanks!
Q: When starting VPC 6 on my iBook (OSX), it takes forever – so much so I have never actually opened it.
My iBook has 128 MB – and I have a suspicion that VPC 6 needs 256 MB. Does anyone know?
A: (Anne Grofvert, Chris Bartholomew, and Jeff Lawson) 192 MB of RAM is what Microsoft specs for 6.1, but to
run VPC you really need to allocate much more RAM than recommended. I have 756 MB and have allocated
almost 400 MB to VPC to get it running smoothly. When you exit VPC be sure to “save all and quit” to
preserve your settings, so that VPC it doesn’t take forever to load the next time.
The beauty of the new Panther operating system is that it allocates memory to the programs being used, so VPC
does not affect the functioning of the machine when you are using other applications. VPC does not seem to
run on a G4 either, again, due to lack of memory capacity. It just sits there and does not load.
Q: My Polar S-710 has been difficult to install. Any suggestions beyond what’s in the owner’s manual?
A: Wattage Forum member Robert Chung has devoted a page to this at his web site: http://tinyurl.com/ijav, and
there is a video at the Polar web site http://polarusa.com/consumer/powerkit/installvideo.asp
(Tom Anhalt) The angle of the chain across the sensor and whether or not the sensor module is parallel to the
chain do not matter; all that counts is to position the module so the chain is no farther than 30 mm, in all usable
gear combinations, from an approximately 1” square area centered on the “middle” mark on the module. If this
requirement is met, and if the cadence sensor is properly positioned (which depends on the particular magnet you
use), you’ll get consistent readings, otherwise, the chain vibration signal will be weak and the signal processor
will tend to “lock on” to signal noise, causing erroneous readings.
Some comments on the Polar installation video:
1. why mark the center of the chainstay? This is the first thing shown, but it’s not used for anything. The
location of the module on the chainstay is driven solely by the placement of the magnet on the crank, and
then placing the module so that the cadence sensor lines up.
2. the routing of the speed sensor wire just begs for it to get snagged and ripped out. There are much better
techniques for routing and securing this wire to the derailleur that will minimize this threat.
3. it is a mistake to make the vertical spacing measurement 5-10 mm in the small-small combo. It’s the
wrong end of the range from which to make this critical measurement, since the chain will be much farther
away than 30 mm even in the small chainring-large cog combo. I run a pretty “normal” gear setup (53/39,
12-25 cogs), and if I try to run the 39 x13 (which I don’t because of the cross-chaining), the chain actually
rubs on the sensor.
4. there is no mention of making sure the chain passes over the sensor in all gear combinations, a significant
omission.
Finally, to protect the sensor module, I first tried some mylar, but that didn’t last long. The best thing to do is to
grab a couple of black zip ties and wrap them around the module right over the top of the magnetic frequency
sensor (that’s where the chain will be pulled down). This way, the chain will rub on the “sacrificial” zip ties
instead of the top of the module.
Q: I’ve had problems with the cadence magnet that came with my Polar power kit. It just doesn’t want to
stay in place on the crank arm.
A: (David Bilenkey and Tom Anhalt) The magnets supplied with the kit work poorly, if at all – don’t bother with
them. Instead, get a 1/2 or 3/8” diameter “rare earth” magnet, such as from Radio Shack, Lee Valley Tools, or
National Imports.
These are small disks, 1/8” – 1/16” thick, and should cost less than $2. If your pedal spindles have any ferrous
content (“stainless steel” may or may not), just drop one on the backside of the spindle. Align the magnet in the
best location to make the little cadence light blink. No tape required; it’s strong enough not to fall off, but not
strong enough to pull the chain over against the crank.
To remove the magnet, remove the pedal and slide the magnet sideways to get a grip on it and peel it off. If
your pedals have titanium spindles, or non-ferrous stainless steel, simply place a piece of electrical tape across
over the magnets so they won’t fall off during bumps.
You might also try gluing the rare earth magnet to the center of one side of a ½” diameter ceramic magnet
(making sure you match a south pole to north, or vice versa) and then glue this “stack” to the backside of your
pedal spindle. This should eliminate any problems with chain interference.
Q: As an aside, how does the Polar power module ‘know’ the free length of the chain?
A: (Jean-Joseph Cote) Since cadence, wheel speed, and chain speed are measured, there’s enough information to
calculate the number of chainring and sprocket teeth, and from there, the diagonal length of the vibrating section
of the chain can be obtained (this is in the patent). Polar chose not to display the gear numbers, presumably due
to limitations of the display size.
Q: Is it true that downloading drains the battery in the PowerTap Standard computer?
A: It will if you leave it in the download cradle. Remove it after downloading, replace it in the handlebar mount, and
let it “fall asleep.” Then, remove it and do a “clr all.” It is now in its most efficient mode. When the battery
starts to get low, HR function seems be the first thing to go, becoming unreliable, with many “data drops.”
Q: I'm running XP Pro on a Pentium 4 CPU, and when trying to install the PowerTap Link software (vers.
1.02), I get the same crash.
In the “Quick Access” Screen, whenever I click on rider management, I get the following run-time error
Runtime Error
'-2147024769(8007007f)'
Method '~' of object '~' failed
A: (Rick Sladkey) It sounds like your data access components did not get properly updated by the link installer.
You might try manually installing the latest Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) 2.8:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=6c050fe3-c795-4b7d-b037-
185d0506396c&DisplayLang=en
Q: I need a converter so I can download the PowerTap to a USB port, rather than a serial port for which it
was designed.
A: Try item the adapter Keyspan High Speed USB-Serial Adapter USA-19HS (recommended by PowerTap;
formerly USA-19QW), at http://keyspan.com/products/usb/usa19hs/, item GUC 232A from iogear at
http://www.iogear.com/products/product.php?Item=GUC232A, or Belkin item USB-A/DB9M at
http://www.officedepot.com/shop/catalog/sku.asp?ID=913114&LEVEL=SK. There are also
http://sewelldirect.com/USBtoSerial.asp?kid=-691449310&match_type=search and
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?EdpNo=542934&sku=B131-5002
Q: Help! My PowerTap Standard stops downloading after only 250 records!
A: (David Easter) First, some background: during a download, the firmware in the PowerTap CPU transmits data
in blocks of 256 records. Each record contains data from a single sample (once every 1.26 seconds or longer,
depending on the recording interval). Each block is terminated with a calculated “checksum,” i.e., a consistency
value designed to detect any errors that might be introduced on the serial link between the PowerTap and the
PC. As the PC receives each block of data, it calculates the check value from the received data and compares
it with the value transmitted by the PowerTap. If it matches, the download continues, if not, you get the
download error.
For reasons nobody seems to understand, the PowerTap sometimes generates bad check sequences. That’s
why the download goes to ~250 every time and quits. The data isn’t being corrupted on the serial line but the
PC thinks it has, and bails out after the first block. I’ve had this problem most recently after fighting with what
turned out to be a bad receiver. Once I got a good one, did a “clr all,” went for a ride, and then got a “250”
download error. Curiously, it got to 250 records, thought it had succeeded, but generated a file containing only
the header record. The next day, I removed and reinserted the battery in the PowerTap CPU, and all has been
well since. I’ve also seen variants of the problem with a CPU that stopped receiving power data and also
started showing screwy data while in magnet mode.
One theory is that the CPU doesn’t do proper range checking on data coming from the receiver, and allows
noisy data from interference, or a bad receiver, to corrupt the internal memory in such a way as to break the
download protocol, however, data in the CPU still seems to be good. The trick is to get it out. A download
program that simply ignores the check values might work in some cases, though I haven’t tried it, but in other
cases, some of the data has obviously been corrupted and the CPU probably can’t generate the normal
download stream anyway, regardless of what the PC would do with the check value.
I have created a web site at http://www.david256.com/power/ptrescue/ to rescue data trapped by this problem.
Note: this recovery process works only with a (grey) PowerTap Standard CPU; the newer PowerTap Pro
CPU (yellow) is different, and this process won’t work with it.
Q: I’m having problems importing a PowerTap file that was e-mailed to me. I’m getting a message, “error
with .csv file.”
A: (Brian McLaughlin, Craig Upton, & Robert Chung) The workaround is to have the sender compress the files.
Have the sender WinZip or StuffIt the file. These compression softwares will “protect” the file, so that when
the receiver’s MS Outlook handles it, nothing is done to the file that is enclosed in its compression shell. When
you receive it, download the attachment, put it on your desktop, un-Zip or un-StuffIt. It should work fine. This
also happens with Entourage e-mail software, as well as Hotmail, which apparently uses some compression of
its own to alter the file.
Comma separated value (.csv) files are actually plain text files where the fields are separated by commas. For
reasons unknown the PowerTap software requires not only that the values be separated by commas but also
that the spacing be exact, which sort of defeats the philosophy of CSV.
For odd historical reasons, e-mail programs were often allowed to treat text mail differently than other kinds of
data streams. The foregoing CSV problem is akin to the CR/LF annoyances that used to occur when sending
text mail to and from Unix systems. In some sense, the blame is equally shared: e-mail programs for modifying
files, and the PT software, for marrying the inefficiency of text files with the inflexibility of binary files.
Q: I forgot to make sure I had zeroed out the torque on my PowerTap before my last ride, and so all the
values for power are off. How do I now go back through the file and correct the error?
A: (Rick Sladkey and Rick Moll) You need to subtract the unzeroed torque value recorded when you were
coasting from each value of measured torque, and then recalculate power from torque and speed. Find a section
where you know you were coasting and actual torque was zero (i.e., when power and cadence were zero) and
pick a representative torque value, then compute actual torque:
(1) torque actual = torquemeasured - torquecoasting , then re-compute power as
(2) poweractual (Watts) = 1746 × torqueactual (N-m) × speed (km/h)/wheel circumference (mm)
where wheel circumference is the same as in setup (about 2093 for a 700C × 23 mm tire). Chris Mayhew has
posted a spreadsheet at http://users.icubed.com/~mayhew/mayhew.xls to perform these calculations.
Alternatively, equation 2 can be divided by
(3) powermeasured = 1746 × torque measured × speed/wheel circumference
and both sides multiplied by powermeasured to give
(4) poweractual = powermeasured × (torqueactual / torquemeasured )
which, if used in a spreadsheet, must be protected against division by zero.
Since torqueactual / torquemeasured is not a constant, neither is poweractual / powermeasured , however, equation
4 demonstrates that power is proportional to torque.
Q: What should smoothing percentage be set at?
A: (Andrew Coggan and Rick Sladkey) It depends on what you’re looking for. There are times when you might
wish to apply really gross smoothing, e.g., to better detect any overall downward trend in power during a very
long ride. On the other hand, there are times when you don’t want to smooth the data at all, such as when trying
to capture the details of a 500 meter race on the track. The same logic applies to data recording frequency . . .
during very long rides it is probably sufficient to record data relatively infrequently, whereas on the track, even 1
second intervals may not be frequent enough. Properly designed hardware and software should give the user
maximum flexibility with regards to these issues.
To calculate the equivalent rolling average for a given smoothing level, multiply the duration of the ride or interval
in seconds by the selected smoothing percentage. For instance, 1% smoothing for a 1 hour ride would be
calculated as 3600 seconds × 0.01 = 36 seconds, however, if the ride (or an interval within a ride) was 30
minutes (0.5 hours) long, then smoothing to 1% would be equivalent only to an 18 second rolling average,
whereas 2 hours 1% smoothed would be the equivalent of a 72 second average.
It should be noted that the smoothing which the PowerTap Link software (versions 1.04 and lower) gives is
nothing like a true rolling average, rather, it smoothes a curve by taking fewer points and then simply connecting
them with sinusoidal curves. This is so poor both mathematically and visually that 1% and 2% are the only
useful settings.
Q: My PowerTap keeps ‘cutting out’ – both power and heart rate will plummet, then come back up. This
shows up as a lot of zeroes in the downloaded file. I have checked the location and orientation of the
receiver on the chainstay, and both the hub batteries as well as the CPU batteries are fine. What next?
A: This is commonly known as a case of the “data drops,” and you have taken the first steps to correct it, but if
they don’t work, perhaps the firmware in the PowerTap CPU needs upgrading. You can download the latest
from http://velo-fit.com/articles/power%20tap_200.zip, or contact
Jesse Bartholomew, PowerTap Product Manager

jesse@cycleops.com; 1-800-783-7257, ext. 159
Q: How can I open a PowerTap database file in Microsoft Access?
A: You need to know the password, which is “link.”

FAQ For Training With Power

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FAQ For Training With Power

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/23/2010 FAQ for training with power

FAQ for power-based training (version 12.04)

56.5 W are required to raise a 20 lb dumbbell 25 in. overhead in one second.

Q: Why is power-based training so important all of a sudden?

Q: Why should I train by power?

PowerTap (a torque-measuring hub that you build into a wheel): http://www.power-tap.com/

Q: How do power-measuring devices work?

Q: Where can I buy a power-measuring system?

Q: Which model is best?

FEATURE RECORDING RATE

Q: What in the heck is this ‘CDA’ you refer to?

Q: How can I test my progress when training by power?

Q: How does altitude affect power output?

ELEVATION AVAILABLE AEROBIC POWER

Bassett et al.1 Peronnet et al.2

Q: Where can I get more information on training by power?

Q: What about power-based training indoors?

Power requirements of numerous bike-stand models have been charted at

Q: What does accuracy matter anyway, so long as a unit’s readout is consistent?

A: (Andrew Coggan) Accuracy is important if:

Q: Can a power meter be used as an aid in dieting?

Q: How do I calibrate my power meter?

Q: Can I race with a power meter?

Q: How does the PowerTap calculate cadence without a sensor?

Q: Can I use the PowerTap just as a computer, without the hub?

Q: What can I do to improve the waterproofness of my PowerTap hub?

OLD PowerTap Hub (130 mm over-locknut distance)

Center-to-flange width, left side: 36.2 mm

Q: What about a PowerTap hub with 135 mm over-locknut distance?

Center-to-flange width, left side = 32.7 mm - 2.5 mm = 30.2 mm

Q: How can build up a Power Tap hub as a fixed-gear wheel?

A: Check out this article: http://www.smartcyclinginc.com/helparticle.html

Q: How can I mount the PowerTap harness on my stem?

An off-the-shelf mount can be purchased at http://www.cingcycling.com.

Q: Which of the two types of PowerTap pickups should I use?

Some comments on the Polar installation video:

Q: Help! My PowerTap Standard stops downloading after only 250 records!

(1) torque actual = torquemeasured - torquecoasting , then re-compute power as

(3) powermeasured = 1746 × torque measured × speed/wheel circumference

and both sides multiplied by powermeasured to give

(4) poweractual = powermeasured × (torqueactual / torquemeasured )

which, if used in a spreadsheet, must be protected against division by zero.

Q: What should smoothing percentage be set at?

Jesse Bartholomew, PowerTap Product Manager

Q: How can I open a PowerTap database file in Microsoft Access?

A: You need to know the password, which is “link.”

You might also like