Thank you for purchasing through links and ads on this site.
OWC / MacSales.com...
diglloyd Deal Finder...
Buy other stuff at Amazon.com...
Up to 1527MB/s sustained performance
Handpicked deals...
$2499 $1399
SAVE $1100

$390 $270
SAVE $120

$1798 $1598
SAVE $200

$3297 $2797
SAVE $500

$3397 $2797
SAVE $600

$150 $90
SAVE $60

$1398 $898
SAVE $500

$3698 $2998
SAVE $700

$2998 $2498
SAVE $500

$1799 $1329
SAVE $470

$1999 $1199
SAVE $800

$2299 $1599
SAVE $700

$2399 $2049
SAVE $350

$2799 $2399
SAVE $400

$2799 $1899
SAVE $900

$1199 $920
SAVE $279

$997 $897
SAVE $100

$2099 $1699
SAVE $400

$1999 $1369
SAVE $630

$1999 $1599
SAVE $400

$1349 $949
SAVE $400

$4499 $3099
SAVE $1400

$4499 $3999
SAVE $500

$329 $329
SAVE $0

$1499 $1029
SAVE $470

$1499 $1289
SAVE $210

$2199 $1999
SAVE $200

$3399 $2199
SAVE $1200

SRM Power Meter Accuracy

Last updated 2011-05-16 - Send Feedback
Related: bicycle power meter, Road Bikes, SRM, training

SRM claims accuracy to within 2%.

Computing watts

Nominal power output can be computed with the following simplified formula, which does not take air resistance or drive-train losses or other power losses into account.

Watts = 9.8 * WeightInKg * AscentInMeters / seconds
or
Watts = 1.3549 * WeightInPounds * AscentInFeet / seconds

Naturally weight must be the total riding weight: rider + clothing, water, bike, etc.

Testing the accuracy

Consider the following efforts up my favorite Old La Honda climb. Ascents 1 and 2 were back to back on the same day, ascent 3 was the next day.

Total riding weight is approximate to within 1-2%. Nominal watts is computed as per the formula above. The SRM reading is about 16% higher than nominal computed watts, which seems reasonable when accounting for frictional and other forces.

Ascent Time mm:ss Seconds SRM watts Nominal watts Delta
1 23:39 1419 287.7 247.8 +16.1%
2 22:40 1360 299.1 258.6 +15.7%
3 24:54 1494 267.1 237.7 +12.4%

Analysis: assuming the SRM power figure for Ascent 1 is accurate, Ascent 2 shows a reading that is 3.96% higher wattage, so we can expect a reduction to a time of 1365 seconds, which is within 5 seconds of the actual measured time, or within 0.3%.

On the next day, the power reading from Ascent 2 predicts a time of 1479 seconds versus a clocked time of 1494 seconds, or about a 1% difference. Being within 1% is still quite accurate, and this could be accounted for by inaccuracy in the total riding weight figure (I don’t have a scale available at the bottom of the hill).

128GB Memory in iMac 5K

Up to 128GB for 2019 iMac 5K!
Up to 64GB for 2015/2017 iMac 5K

Save nearly 50% over Apple pricing

Testing accuracy on a more gentle climb

This example is a 470-foot ascent taking just under 13 minutes in 2.04 miles.

Show below are two groups of ascents less than 24 hours apart. Deviation is calculated as the percent difference of the seconds/watts ratio versus the average seconds/average watts ratio.

As can be seen, the variation is at most 1.4%, well within the SRM claimed accuracy of 2%, and of course a bit of wind and fluid loss cannot be ruled out as at least minor factors.


MacPerformanceGuide.com
View all handpicked deals...

Samsung 2TB T5 Portable Solid-State Drive (Black)
$390 $270
SAVE $120

diglloyd.com | Terms of Use | PRIVACY POLICY
Contact | About Lloyd Chambers | Consulting | Photo Tours
Mailing Lists | RSS Feeds | Twitter
Copyright © 2019 diglloyd Inc, all rights reserved.
Display info: __RETINA_INFO_STATUS__