SRAM Acquires PowerTap

[ORMojo]

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/04/sram-acquires-powertap-what-it-means-for-both-brands-and-consumers.html

[oldpotatoe]

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2019/04/sram-acquires-powertap-what-it-means-for-both-brands-and-consumers.html

And where does that leave Quark?

[batman1425]

I'm guessing Sram plans expand their power product portfolio and from the article it looks like they are going to roll the powertap stuff into the Quarq division. With how popular Quarq's are, I doubt those are going anywhere.

Saris lead the charge with the first widely consumer accessible (for an attainable price) power meters but hub based systems have lost a lot of popularity. Easy to switch between bikes but restricts your wheel options unless you have several of them. I think Saris has seen the writing on the wall with their market share as evidenced by by them putting a lot more emphasis on their rack and trainer development over the last several years.

They tried to stay current with the pedal and ring based meters, but I don't see much of their stuff out in the wild. As compared to 10 or 12 years ago when half of the power meters I saw were powertaps. Now a days they are getting swamped by quarq, SRM, Stages, etc. Their products are great and the support I've gotten from them over the years from products I've owned has been excellent. I think this is a good strategic move for them to free up resources to focus on the stuff they sell most.

[unterhausen]

And where does that leave Quark?

seems like it's the other way around, Powertap is basically gone when this goes through. It will be interesting to see if Quark can support powertap users effectively.

[oldpotatoe]

seems like it's the other way around, Powertap is basically gone when this goes through. It will be interesting to see if Quark can support powertap users effectively.

That's what I thought as well..buy the 'competition', then make it go away...:eek:

[Lewis Moon]

seems like it's the other way around, Powertap is basically gone when this goes through. It will be interesting to see if Quark can support powertap users effectively.

I've been seeing a lot of older PT hubs going for chump change. I just got one as part of a bike deal and, given the worth of the other components, it cost me basically nothing. PT has lost a lot of mojo over the last several years. I like being able to switch the hub between my bikes, even switching freehubs/cassettes when moving from Campy to SRAM.

[dem]

I hope their products live on, they always treated me well.

For "measuring all power" (not single sided) the Powertap hub is a great value if you consider it as part of a wheel build - I mean, you need a rear hub anyways.

But obviously that market is pretty narrow.

(currently riding oldpotatoe wheels on a powertap hub :)

[sitzmark]

I've been seeing a lot of older PT hubs going for chump change. I just got one as part of a bike deal and, given the worth of the other components, it cost me basically nothing. PT has lost a lot of mojo over the last several years. I like being able to switch the hub between my bikes, even switching freehubs/cassettes when moving from Campy to SRAM.

Have been using P1 pedals since they came out, but have a few PT hubs parked in the parts bin from GS hub clearance. Will likely swap GS (G3 SP) disc set into 303 tubeless for "gravel" to give me pedal choice. More drag/sealing than Zipp hubs, but always tradeoffs somewhere.

Go forward concern will be replacement parts if/when needed. GS hubs use DT internals (front rebranded DT) so there's that.

[kppolich]

Saris/Powertap customer service was second to none.

I've had OK interactions with SRAM, but I hope the Powertap Customer Service folks stick around.

[Lewis Moon]

Saris/Powertap customer service was second to none.

I've had OK interactions with SRAM, but I hope the Powertap Customer Service folks stick around.

I've had just the opposite experience, YMMV.

[mt2u77]

Seems like the right move for Saris, assuming they got more than a sack of used trainer tires for it. I feel like we hit peak power meter a long time ago, and the trend towards OEM integration is not favorable for the future. The declining state of road cycling and triathlon, and the ascent of indoor training and off-road/destination cycling, make it obvious which 2 of their 3 markets they need to focus on-- racks and trainers.

[Clean39T]

Jim says that they’ll not only continue to make the PowerTap products, but plan to continue investing in those product lines for new models down the road, saying they “want to invest in the pedal family”. The product names will stay as-is, and Quarq sees those simply as model names, just like ‘DZero’ is a model name – the PowerTap P2 pedal is a model now for Quarq. They said that once they’ve had time to sort out understanding the engineering on the P2 pedal, they’ll look at next steps for what would presumably be called a P3 pedal.


Reading the article helps.. ;)

Looks like only the chainring powermeter is going away.

And thankfully Saris and Cyclops are untouched here.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[chiasticon]

Saris/Powertap customer service was second to none.

I've had OK interactions with SRAM, but I hope the Powertap Customer Service folks stick around.fwiw, I've had excellent customer service interactions with Quarq. whether they keep the PT folks or not, I'd imagine that will continue.

[unterhausen]

Splitting the IP from the engineers definitely downgrades that support at some level. So the unanswered question is what info are they passing along to Quark to make this work. Right now it seems that a lot of their answers are send it in and we'll fix it for just a tiny bit less than it costs to get a stages.

[Alaska Mike]

I have three Quarqs, going back to the first S975 model I bought (which is still going strong on the trainer bike). I did prefer the support prior to the SRAM acquisition, mainly because they stopped supporting older models as new ones were introduced. If your older power meter died, oh well, sucks for you. I moved on to SRM, which still supports the old stuff.

I think the PowerTap hubs will be slowly phased out. The writing was on the wall when Quarq came in, and the glut of crank and pedal-based offerings in the last few years has made them a hard sell for much of the market. Pedals are really the only value this acquisition has for SRAM/Quarq.

If they can make a durable, easy to install pedal-based power meter at the right price-point, they'll own that segment.

I agree with mt2u77, the power meter gold rush is pretty much over as smart trainers have moved to the forefront. Saris made a smart move here, if they can really get the trainer division rolling and give Tacx and Wahoo a run for their money.

[Geekonbike]

Picked up a set of the Powertap P1s pedals and have been happy. Easier to swap between bikes than Quarq and Stages. Probably a good move on both companies part.

[chiasticon]

I did prefer the support prior to the SRAM acquisition, mainly because they stopped supporting older models as new ones were introduced. If your older power meter died, oh well, sucks for you.last year, well-past Sram acquisition, I sent them in a unit that I'd bought used and obviously had no receipt, etc for. it was their previous gen and the battery cover had been over-tightened (by the previous owner, not me) to the point where trying to remove it broke the whole thing off. they said this particular damage couldn't be repaired, but that I could have a brand new (current gen) one for half-off. to me, that's far from "oh well, sucks to be you."

I think the PowerTap hubs will be slowly phased out. The writing was on the wall when Quarq came in, and the glut of crank and pedal-based offerings in the last few years has made them a hard sell for much of the market. Pedals are really the only value this acquisition has for SRAM/Quarq.

If they can make a durable, easy to install pedal-based power meter at the right price-point, they'll own that segment.totally agree with this, but I hope it's wrong. only because I'd like the hub option to stick around.

[dddd]

I did read that the patent for PT's hub-based power meter expired this week, so there's that.

And I see hub-based power measurement as having a different use than pedal or crank-based measurement.

Hub-based power readings reflect losses from different cog selection, possibly helping the rider know how/when best to shift front and rear derailers and to compare/select drivetrain components for best net output (i.e. efficiency).

Pedal/crank-based power measurement focuses on the riders effort/output, so might be better purely for training/conditioning purposes in conjunction with HR data.

And did I read somewhere that Quarq will change from being a company brand to being a "first name" for a group of products within the bigger brand portfolio?

Also that the production operations would remain independent for now, and that servicing services would be consolidated?

[dddd]

Picked up a set of the Powertap P1s pedals and have been happy. Easier to swap between bikes than Quarq and Stages. Probably a good move on both companies part.

Pedals, to the extent that they give good data, make changes from one bike to another so much easier.

Changing a wheel or crankset OTOH can involve changes/choices of gearing, tire type/width, rim width and brake pad material, and both can involve cable/derailer adjustments.

In other words, depending on one's choices of gear, changing the pedals might be the only type that one would be comfortable changing out on race day or day of a ride, though cleat type could conceivably complicate matters.

[Mark McM]

Hub-based power readings reflect losses from different cog selection, possibly helping the rider know how/when best to shift front and rear derailers and to compare/select drivetrain components for best net output (i.e. efficiency).

Consumer hub, cranks and pedal based power meters might not be up for the task. Typical power meters are spec.ed for accuracies of only +/-2%. That's not much less than the difference between the most and least efficient gears. A recent article in Velonews measured the efficiencies of all the gear combinations on a Shimano 2x11 drivetrain, and found that the variation between the least to greatest power losses varied from 3 - 7%. A power meter with an accuracy of 2% won't have the accuracy/resolution necessary to delineate the difference in efficiency between adjacent gears.

[Rusty Luggs]

Consumer hub, cranks and pedal based power meters might not be up for the task. Typical power meters are spec.ed for accuracies of only +/-2%. That's not much less than the difference between the most and least efficient gears. A recent article in Velonews measured the efficiencies of all the gear combinations on a Shimano 2x11 drivetrain, and found that the variation between the least to greatest power losses varied from 3 - 7%. A power meter with an accuracy of 2% won't have the accuracy/resolution necessary to delineate the difference in efficiency between adjacent gears.

Accuracy is not the same as precision. For gear efficiency comparison, you are looking at minute to minute precision or repeatability of measurement, not an overall accuracy to a true value of power.

[Mark McM]

Accuracy is not the same as precision. For gear efficiency comparison, you are looking at minute to minute precision or repeatability of measurement, not an overall accuracy to a true value of power.

And accuracy and precision are not the same as resolution - and resolution is where you run into problems. Power meters typically display in a whole number of Watts - which is fine, because even 1 Watt is typically a fraction of the total accuracy. According to the data in the Velonews report, the difference in losses between, for example, a 53x34, 53x21 and a 39x19 is less than one Watt. So you may not even see differences in power, let alone know if they values are accurate.

(By the way, I used to work in the laboratory balance industry, so I know the differences between accuracy, resolution precision, linearity, drift, etc.)

[dddd]

And accuracy and precision are not the same as resolution - and resolution is where you run into problems. Power meters typically display in a whole number of Watts - which is fine, because even 1 Watt is typically a fraction of the total accuracy. According to the data in the Velonews report, the difference in losses between, for example, a 53x34, 53x21 and a 39x19 is less than one Watt. So you may not even see differences in power, let alone know if they values are accurate.

(By the way, I used to work in the laboratory balance industry, so I know the differences between accuracy, resolution precision, linearity, drift, etc.)

Did you mean those gearing numbers to represent different positions on the cassette and hence different chainline angles, or did you mean that it was just different sprocket sizes tested at the same chainline angle?

I often crest a hill in the big-big, if only for a short time, less than a minute. It would be good to know approximately how much wattage is lost versus shifting the chainring a couple of times going over the hill.

I'm guessing that hysteresis would cause a similar loss of both accuracy and precision, so if hysteresis is the problem then it affects comparative measurements as well as absolute measurements.
But is it a calibration issue, a hysteresis issue, I have no idea.

At least my legs and my sense of speed give me some feedback, maybe all I need.

[Mark McM]

Did you mean those gearing numbers to represent different positions on the cassette and hence different chainline angles, or did you mean that it was just different sprocket sizes tested at the same chainline angle?

The Velonews article compared power losses in an SRAM 1x drivetrain (48 chainring + 10/42 cassette vs. a Shimano 2x drivetrain (53/39 chainrings + 11/34 cassette), so each gear combination was tested with its naturally occurring chainline. Losses were thus due to a combination of chain articulation angles and chainline offsets. The largest variation in losses occurred in the smallest sprockets (largest chain articulation angles combined with largest chainline offsets). There was less varation in losses in the middle sprockets, and also in the largest sprockets (where increases due to chainline offset were largely cancelled by decreases due to smaller articulation angles).

[Rusty Luggs]

And accuracy and precision are not the same as resolution - and resolution is where you run into problems. Power meters typically display in a whole number of Watts - which is fine, because even 1 Watt is typically a fraction of the total accuracy. According to the data in the Velonews report, the difference in losses between, for example, a 53x34, 53x21 and a 39x19 is less than one Watt. So you may not even see differences in power, let alone know if they values are accurate.

(By the way, I used to work in the laboratory balance industry, so I know the differences between accuracy, resolution precision, linearity, drift, etc.)

You used the word accuracy and quoted the +/- accuracy claimed for power meters as the thrust of your post, just responding to what you wrote.

[echappist]

The Velonews article compared power losses in an SRAM 1x drivetrain (48 chainring + 10/42 cassette vs. a Shimano 2x drivetrain (53/39 chainrings + 11/34 cassette), so each gear combination was tested with its naturally occurring chainline. Losses were thus due to a combination of chain articulation angles and chainline offsets. The largest variation in losses occurred in the smallest sprockets (largest chain articulation angles combined with largest chainline offsets). There was less varation in losses in the middle sprockets, and also in the largest sprockets (where increases due to chainline offset were largely cancelled by decreases due to smaller articulation angles).

do you have a link to this article?

[dddd]

Thanks for the info summary!

[earlfoss]

I wonder if the owner of Saris/Cycleops, Chris Fortune, is staging things for an eventual sale of what's left. He's near retirement age, and I speculate that he may be playing a long game here to eventually sell the works and move on.

[asindc]

I switched from Quarq to Garmin Vector last year. Having made the switch, I can’t imagine choosing a spider-based PM over a pedal-based one, even if I only had one bike.

[gospastic]

I switched from Quarq to Garmin Vector last year. Having made the switch, I can’t imagine choosing a spider-based PM over a pedal-based one, even if I only had one bike.

Pedal based power meters don't work too well with MTB shoes/gravel bikes.

[asindc]

Pedal based power meters don't work too well with MTB shoes/gravel bikes.

Good point.

[Mark McM]

do you have a link to this article?

I don't think its available online. It appears in the latest issue of Velonews (vol. 48, no. 3), which is subtitled "2019 Gear Issue"). It is also mentioned in a recent "Technical FAQ" on the Velonews web site (https://www.velonews.com/2019/04/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq-2-6-vs-2-8-tires-1x-vs-2x-drivetrain-friction_491967), which includes a link to purchase this issue.

[echappist]

I don't think its available online. It appears in the latest issue of Velonews (vol. 48, no. 3), which is subtitled "2019 Gear Issue"). It is also mentioned in a recent "Technical FAQ" on the Velonews web site (https://www.velonews.com/2019/04/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq-2-6-vs-2-8-tires-1x-vs-2x-drivetrain-friction_491967), which includes a link to purchase this issue.

thanks; i'll go out and get a copy of it

[Mark McM]

I don't think its available online. It appears in the latest issue of Velonews (vol. 48, no. 3), which is subtitled "2019 Gear Issue"). It is also mentioned in a recent "Technical FAQ" on the Velonews web site (https://www.velonews.com/2019/04/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq-2-6-vs-2-8-tires-1x-vs-2x-drivetrain-friction_491967), which includes a link to purchase this issue.

In a related subject, Jason Smith, who did this latest test, had previously done a test examining the best shifting strategies on a 2x drivetrain, taking into account losses due to chainring & sprocket sizes, and cross chaining losses. A report about this study appeared on the Bike Rader web page (https://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/gear/article/friction-facts-free-speed-from-proper-shifting-44016/) (including photos, graphs, and charts of the raw data). The most recent study reported in Velonews adds to this earlier study, by comparing the 2x drivetrain to a 1x drivetrain.

[tbmurd]

SRAM is wanting some world domination?