Quarq and Powertap Data

The chart above, from one of my rides with the Quarq and the Powertap, shows me coasting between Seconds 53–57 (zero cadence values), pedalling from Seconds 58–71 and coasting again from Seconds 72–75. Notice that when I wasn’t pedalling, the Quarq wasn’t transmitting data (as shown by the zero values in the Quarq Transmission column. Recall that the Quarq is an event-synchronous power meter. It only sends data when it’s spinning. The Powertap, except for a few dropped signals, transmitted even when the pedals weren’t in motion. Both power meters dropped a few signals while I was pedalling. For averages and other data, let’s look at an 855-second (almost 15-minute) trainer ride I did. What’s important about this session is that I was pedalling the whole time so both power meters would transmit data throughout.

After comparing these figures with other sessions, I’m confident that these numbers tell an accurate story. The Quarq tended to record higher power averages for my rides and have fewer missed signals.

Pioneer and Powertap Data When my Quarq rides were done, I had the Pioneer meter put on my Giant. As I did before, I added the Powertap pedals and went for a variety of rides. One ride, 50 minutes with a lot of hard efforts on short climbs, tells the story of these two meters the best. The Pioneer tended to record lower average power throughout a session when compared with the Powertap. What’s stunning is that in 3,093 seconds, or 3,093 signal checks on the Pioneer meter, there were only five missed or dropped signals. The Pioneer can definitely beam data.