| Forums » Quarq Discussion » 10-20 Watt discrepancies between the Cinqo and PT (4 posts) |
| 10-20 Watt discrepancies between the Cinqo and PT | |
|---|---|
Rick S1 year, 5 months ago |
I recently upgraded my Cinqo from the original version to the Saturn. My original Cinqo (on a standard S900 crank), seemed to read low compared to the PT (by about 10 Watts). After upgrading to the S975 compact crank with the Cinqo Saturn I found that the Quarq was running 10-20 watts higher than the PT. I used the Garmin 705 and the Garmin 310xt to run both power meters simultaneously. Has anyone experienced anything like this and what should I make of it? |
tman1001 year, 5 months ago |
I have a similar problem with my just bought SRAM S975 vs Cycleops Powerbeam Pro. When the The S975 reads 180W the Powerbeam reads 140W. I sent an email to Quarq today and am waiting on a response. Doing the manual zero offset is OK and I get a range of -133 to -138 Doing the field calibration test from the FAQ and hanging a 35Lb weight off the pedal gives a torque of ~36Nm vs what should be ~27Nm - a difference of 33% - the same difference between the Powerbeam and the Cycleops readings. My S975 was bought via retail rather than direct from Quarq. |
tman1001 year, 5 months ago |
I realised I made an error in my calcs on the Quarq. The Quarq is almost spot on with the field calibration test with both values at ~27NM It is the Powerbeam that is way off in it's calibration. +1 for the Quarq. Now how do you calibrate a Powertap/Powerbeam without another Powermeter?!! I like the Quarq even more now. |
endo1 year, 5 months ago |
I have had a similar problem but the numbers were off much more as compared to my powertap. Re-torquing the chain ring bolts seemed to help. Quarq recommends 10nm for steel and 8nm for aluminum. However I am seeing a discrepancy between large and small chain rings. When in the large chain ring, the Quarq is reporting about 2% higher. When in the small chain ring the Quarq is reporting 5-6% higher. Some of the difference can be explained by drive train losses. I haven't done a field calibration test but I plan on doing it. |
Sign in to post a reply or subscribe.