Stages Power Meter

ginsterdrz

Ahhhhhhh!

Been pondering a power meter on and off for 12months but have come back to the reality that I'm not a pro and should be satisfied with the cheapest, reliable meter which will improve my training for racing.

So I settled on Stages accepting they've had a few early issues that are now apparently solved, reasonable money and reliable numbers.

Just about to purchase and then someone in my RR team buys one that drains 3 batteries in 3 days.

Solutions suggested to him include keeping the bike away from excess Bluetooth traffic and moving the bike inside the house to keep it warm and dry.

This would indicate that Stages are no further on than when they were first introduced???

I really want to invest but I'm put off by the randomness of issues as some people have no issues at all.

Any advice or real life experience with good units?

big_p

Mrs Big P has had a stages DA 9000 on her bike since august last year, She uses it at least 3 times a week and its still on the same battery, so far it's been faultless.

gaffer_slow

in a similar boat, pre-purchase though

i dont deserve more, but i might do without until i can afford power2max.

i am sure a stages would suit my needs just fine.

contact support and request replacement, let us know how you get on.

RChung

Ginsterdrz wrote:

Been pondering a power meter on and off for 12months but have come back to the reality that I'm not a pro and should be satisfied with the cheapest, reliable meter which will improve my training for racing. [...]

Any advice or real life experience with good units?

The cheapest reliable meter which will improve your training for racing is a bike computer that shows speed, time, and distance, combined with a regular training route, a pencil, and a notebook.

Fancier and easier (since you don't need a pencil and a notebook) is a GPS-enabled bike computer that you can download into something like Strava. A huge proportion of training benefit comes from keeping track of your data so the ability to download turns out to be a great time saver over a pencil and notebook.

In order to take advantage of things like QA analysis, or FRC, or drag estimation, or VO2Max testing, or similar tests and analyses, you'll need something that produces high data quality; higher data quality than can be provided by something like the Stages. You don't need especially high data quality in order to track NP or TSS (which the Stages will let you do) -- but you can train pretty effectively without knowing NP or TSS; people have been doing that for decades. You can't do QA, or FRC, or drag estimation, or VO2Max testing very easily at all without a power meter; people have been trying to do that for decades, without much success.

So the real question is: what do you want to do with the data? Training your threshold turns out to be one of the least demanding applications for a power meter -- so much so that you can (like thousands of others) train your threshold without a power meter at all. Doing more complex things requires high data quality but not everyone needs or wants to do that. If you're in the group that doesn't need or want to do those things you don't need a power meter at all. If you're in the group that does, you'll be happier with a higher quality power meter. At the moment, the cheapest high data quality power meter is competitively priced with the Stages though it has its own limitations -- it's the Power Tap. Not everyone will want to limit themselves to one rear wheel, though it's fine for training purposes.

Or, you can buy a Stages, just train with it, and get to talk watts just like the cool kids.

ginsterdrz

Mmmmm.

Food for thought indeed.

My issues are complex in that I travel and sometimes ride routes that I'll never ride again. I also have to train around work and my sessions aren't consistantly on a certain day or time. I'm also susceptible to upper respiratory tract infections which can vary my heart rate.

I want a 'fixed' value that a power meter will give me to see how I'm improving (or not) even if that means a once a month turbo test. It will also enable me to go straight to a zone to get the best bang for my buck during a short training ride.

Bragging rights about my power holds no interest for me and I realise that no power figures are comparable unless someone uses my equipment.

I just require a simple figure that shows my improvement without complexity.

RChung

You say your situation is complex but it's actually relatively common. If what you say is true and complete then a speed sensor on your rear wheel transmitting to a GPS-enabled head unit sounds like it would work. Consider:

1. you travel, so you want something that is portable and just works. I travel between the US and France and I used to bring my power meter with me and mount it to the bike I keep in each place. Now I leave my power meter at home and just travel with my GPS head unit.

2. on those occasions when you are willing to use a turbo for testing, as long as the turbo is of reasonably high quality it will be consistent in power for speed. Some turbo trainer companies even publicly post their speed-power equation so you can print it out, tape it to the wall, and base workouts on that. GPS head units can't measure speed on the turbo so you'll need a speed sensor for the rear wheel. When you travel, of course, you'll pick up speed from GPS.

3. since you're not worried about comparing to others, ignore how you "rank" in Strava and just use the power estimates it provides. They're not very accurate but it keeps track of your times on familiar routes which is the ultimate standard.

4. start paying attention to your RPE. That, plus your times, will be a good indicator of your improved training.

5. when I travel with just the head unit, I download the data after each ride and make a note of my RPE for the entirety of my ride (plus some notes about unusual things, like if I had slept poorly or drunk too many glasses of wine the previous night).

Of course, I have a power meter when I get home. But that just means I save drag estimation and performance testing for then -- I train pretty effectively when I'm in France. Or, rather, I *can* train pretty effectively when I'm in France. Sometimes I don't but I don't think I've ever been surprised when I got back home and tested.

stueys

The above is all fine and good but I can't help thinking taking a power meter with you so you have a consistent, repeatable training measurement would make more sense? And be a lot easier....

timdb

Ok, so it looks like you want a powermeter whether you need one or not.
In that case, you'll want it to work reliably. IME Stages is not that.

Ignoring all the arguments about left side only measurement.. If you get a good one, great. But if you don't then you never know whether it'll work when you come to get on the bike. If it doesn't it means faffing about trying to get it to wake up and pair, then realising in the end that the battery is gone (again), replacing it and trying to get it to pair again.
When they work they're great (like any other powermeter), when they don't they are extremely frustrating and cost training/riding time.

I've been through 3 before giving up, getting a refund and replacing it with a Quarq for around £100 more. To me that's £100 well spent.
The Quarq and my Powertap just work, reliably - the Stages was always an uncertainty, especially once the weather turned colder.

petegraaf

Just as a counterpoint I found Stages to be very good for what I use it for. Very simple, maintenance free (for me), unobtrusive and gives precise results. When I heard about potential issues with water I just put a bit of tape over the battery door and and have not had any issues.

I understand that I am not doing a great deal with the data over and above FTP calculation and zones for training but it has proved invaluable for me to help with pacing on TTs, longer rides & races (particularly in the mountains).
Not sure if this is just a personal failing of mine but I tend to vastly underestimate the power I am putting out when relying on RPE at the beginning of a ride. Having that power number on my Garmin has meant that I am able to back things off to sustainable levels and therefore pacing far more successfully.

This could obviously be achieved with any power meter but Stages fulfils it for me with a low cost and minimal downsides. I'll probably get another for my next bike or the 4iiii Precision meter if that survives its launch.

ginsterdrz

Many thanks for all the advice.

A power meter will definitely be purchased!

Had a look at Quarq, looks solid but (controversially?) I don't do SRAM/FSA, can't bring myself to torque cranks onto axles. I'm sticking with Shimano fitment/compatability.

4iiii is looking good but they have a large backlog and semi-unproven record with the power meter although their other products are sound and the team is very experienced.

Maybe Stages will update with a Mk 2 version???

RChung

Stueys wrote:

The above is all fine and good but I can't help thinking taking a power meter with you so you have a consistent, repeatable training measurement would make more sense? And be a lot easier....

Oh, having a power meter in each place is definitely easier but for training purposes where all you're interested in is your threshold, they're absolutely nice and handy to have but they're not essential. Threshold training really doesn't demand much in terms of consistent repeatable accurate measurement. There are things that do, but threshold training isn't one of them.

But I can understand that sometimes one wants to buy something even though it may not be essential. It helps the economy and you get to talk watts with the cool kids. Nothing wrong with that.

stueys

RChung wrote:

Stueys wrote:

The above is all fine and good but I can't help thinking taking a power meter with you so you have a consistent, repeatable training measurement would make more sense? And be a lot easier....

Oh, having a power meter in each place is definitely easier but for training purposes where all you're interested in is your threshold, they're absolutely nice and handy to have but they're not essential. Threshold training really doesn't demand much in terms of consistent repeatable accurate measurement. There are things that do, but threshold training isn't one of them.

But I can understand that sometimes one wants to buy something even though it may not be essential. It helps the economy and you get to talk watts with the cool kids. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm not sure its about being cool and talking watts. Personally I use a power meter for a mainly threshold and sweet spot training, either intervals on the turbo or intervals when out on a long ride. I tend to track my stress scores and adjust my training accordingly. I used heart rate/RPE for years before but since delving into power last year I think my training is both more precise and getting better results now. It could be that I'm a poor judge of RPE but I find a tough day at work, etc, etc, all hit my ability to assess output and, to a less extent, heart rate.

I'm time poot so maximising training return is important to me. A power meter has helped me get better gains than my training experience to date. Is it absolutely essential, no, but its a significant benefit IMHO

gaffer_slow

RChung wrote:

Threshold training really doesn't demand much in terms of consistent repeatable accurate measurement. There are things that do, but threshold training isn't one of them.

I find that interesting as one of the reason that i find a PM attractive is that whilst a HRM is absolutely fine for top of Zone 2 long endurance rides, once I start doing Zone 3 or Zone 4 intervals or trying @ threshold (my understanding of threshold is the border of Friel's z4 and z5) for 15-20 minute climbs, the lag of HRM often leads to mild (and probably unimportant) frustration - often overegging effort and then trying to lower HR without significantly reducing effort.

I absolutely do not need a PM, but i would likely buy a stages and *might* stump up for a P2M for the luxury of tracking improvement and more enjoyable intervals. I certainly think that for people like myself a PM is a much better needless purchase than anything carbon - other than perhaps frame.

And time for specific routes for me mean nothing with the winds around here.

RChung

Stueys wrote:

I'm not sure its about being cool and talking watts. Personally I use a power meter for a mainly threshold and sweet spot training, either intervals on the turbo or intervals when out on a long ride. I tend to track my stress scores and adjust my training accordingly. I used heart rate/RPE for years before but since delving into power last year I think my training is both more precise and getting better results now. It could be that I'm a poor judge of RPE but I find a tough day at work, etc, etc, all hit my ability to assess output and, to a less extent, heart rate.

I'm time poot so maximising training return is important to me. A power meter has helped me get better gains than my training experience to date. Is it absolutely essential, no, but its a significant benefit IMHO

Oh, I completely understand. I made big gains in terms of time efficiency when I first got a PM -- but not particularly in terms of absolute training gains. I had just changed jobs, moved, and my wife was pregnant with our daughter so riding was going to take a back seat. I *had* to get more efficient. In the end, I was able to maintain my fitness while going from 12 hours a week down to 7. But I don't think my watts/kg increased. With 20/20 hindsight I *could* have done the same thing by training in a more structured way, and that doesn't really require a power meter. OTOH, there are other things I've done with a power meter that have made me faster even at the same watts/kg (which is a different way of achieving improved efficiency). But the OP says he's only interested in using a PM for training. Training is one of the least demanding uses for a PM. You don't really need a PM at all for training.

gaffer_slow wrote:

And time for specific routes for me mean nothing with the winds around here.

I absolutely agree that the average speed over an entire route can and does vary quite a bit; but if I focus on a particular hill or a particular loop of a longer route I find the times are pretty reasonable proxies for power. I think I've shown a plot of speed vs. power for a particular hill on my regular training route. The correlation of time (or average speed) vs. average power is quite good. For the entire route it may not be, of course.

gaffer_slow wrote:

the lag of HRM often leads to mild (and probably unimportant) frustration - often overegging effort and then trying to lower HR without significantly reducing effort.

Yes, that's easier to monitor with a PM. However, if you have a GPS-enabled head unit with an altimeter you can often see the mismatch in speed for slope, which shows that you may be over-reaching (or taking it too easy). Once again, it's easier with a PM -- however, it is possible without one, and it's good to learn how to pace on variable terrain (and under variable wind conditions). One of the interesting findings from looking at power files from good TT'ers is that they pace extremely well under variable conditions and they learned to do this even before they used PMs.

BTW, bilateral asymmetry can vary with fatigue and power so if learning or executing proper pacing is one of your "needs" (rather than one of your "wants") then you may not be able to achieve that with a one-sided PM.

charlie_potatoes

RChung wrote:

...........and you get to talk watts with the cool kids. Nothing wrong with that.

RChung wrote:

Or, you can buy a Stages, just train with it, and get to talk watts just like the cool kids.

Just for the sake of clarity are you referring to cyclist's here?

PhunkyPhil

I have a Power2Max on my main bike and have recently added a DA900 Stages to the bike I use for group rides and I haven't had any issues with the battery and it's fine for what I wanted which was a cheap power meter to keep track of TSS and to do some pacing.

If you are also considering getting a Power2Max I would wait and get that as it is probably more accurate although accuracy isn't as important as consistency.

Did you friend buy his brand new or second hand as he may have gotten an old model?

RChung

Charlie Potatoes wrote:

Just for the sake of clarity are you referring to cyclist's here?

Good point.

nibby

Thinking of a P2M or Stages myself and the p2m comes in with various extra bits I need to 1260 euro compared to the Stages at 720 euro, so a fair price difference.

Is the p2m really worth the extra?

It's to go on my current bike with Ultegra 6800

I'm thinking that the P2M would give me the option of putting it on another bike if needed in the future without having to have the same groupset. if say I bought the Stages I would need to make sure the new bike had Ultegra 6800 ? Is that right?

Cheers

PhunkyPhil wrote:

I have a Power2Max on my main bike and have recently added a DA900 Stages to the bike I use for group rides and I haven't had any issues with the battery and it's fine for what I wanted which was a cheap power meter to keep track of TSS and to do some pacing.

If you are also considering getting a Power2Max I would wait and get that as it is probably more accurate although accuracy isn't as important as consistency.

Did you friend buy his brand new or second hand as he may have gotten an old model?

gaffer_slow

nibby wrote:

if say I bought the Stages I would need to make sure the new bike had Ultegra 6800 ? Is that right?

not ultegra 6800, but yes Shimano cranks.

I am in exactly the same position. The Rotor 3D 24 is the P2M option considered best suited for us type.

It *is* a fair chuck of change more - and i have yet to make any descision - but will see if their are any offers / price reductions mid summer.

Currently my thinking is:

For my purposes Stages is likely totally suitable.
i *do* tend to be pretty right side dominant though.
Power Meter value will depreciate as the tech becomes more common, and with stages their is less to lose.

If money was no object i would go P2M

nibby

same here, favouring the p2m myself but it might have to come down to cost.

lochindaal

I spent a while deciding what to go for and getting people's opinions on another thread I started.

Eventually I bought the Stages. Why?
1) In all honesty cost, got 36 months at 0% so made it a low cost decision
2) The reliability issue appear to have been fixed on the latest models
3) From all reviews I found the accuracy seems to be good and tracks well even compared against other meters
4) The single leg doesn't seem to be an issue as even if you have the data no one yet knows what to do with it. It's not a matter of make the weak leg stronger.

So far I have been really pleased with it. Swap it between bikes in a couple of minutes.

Alpina007

lochindaal wrote:

I spent a while deciding what to go for and getting people's opinions on another thread I started.

Eventually I bought the Stages. Why?
1) In all honesty cost, got 36 months at 0% so made it a low cost decision
2) The reliability issue appear to have been fixed on the latest models
3) From all reviews I found the accuracy seems to be good and tracks well even compared against other meters
4) The single leg doesn't seem to be an issue as even if you have the data no one yet knows what to do with it. It's not a matter of make the weak leg stronger.

So far I have been really pleased with it. Swap it between bikes in a couple of minutes.

Arghhhh why did you post this? One on the way to me now!!

thomasmorris

lochindaal wrote:

4) The single leg doesn't seem to be an issue as even if you have the data no one yet knows what to do with it. It's not a matter of make the weak leg stronger.

This issue with single leg measurement isn't that you're missing out on getting independent reading for both legs (estimated or actual), as you're correct very few people seem to have a clear idea what to do with the data.

The real issue is that stages measures only one leg and assumes it's estimates for double legged power stays the same for different efforts, cadences and levels of fatigue, yet many people show variation.

I.e. you could be doing intervals at the end of s session and think you're struggling to hit the usual numbers, where in fact your just becoming more right leg dominant.

lochindaal

The real issue is that stages measures only one leg and assumes it's estimates for double legged power stays the same for different efforts, cadences and levels of fatigue, yet many people show variation.

I.e. you could be doing intervals at the end of s session and think you're struggling to hit the usual numbers, where in fact your just becoming more right leg dominant.

Don't disagree with anything you have said but you do mention about hitting the usual numbers. As long as I have consistency from one session to the next then to me that is OK. I would see a change in my usual numbers.

Even where most people have a variance it is typically very small so this is a risk I am prepared to take versus the cost of a double sided system.

nibby

Ok, forget what type for the moment the big question is do they help to improve your riding/training over using just HR or is it just a load of numbers

since using them have you improved your times

RChung

nibby wrote:

Ok, forget what type for the moment the big question is do they help to improve your riding/training over using just HR or is it just a load of numbers

There are things you can do with a PM you can't do with a HRM but training ain't one of them. That's because training is one of the least demanding things you can do with a PM. If you're using a PM to train in the same way that you use a HRM to train (and that's what most, though not all, do) then it shouldn't be surprising that the results from training from one look almost exactly like training from the other.

The advantages of a PM over a HRM show up when you go beyond training (or when you start training in a way that you can't with a HRM).

nibby

interesting article, noticed it was published in 2011 so I wonder if they have found anything further.

Can you expand a little on the "pm over hrm show up when you go beyond training (or when you start training in a way that you can't with a HRM) please??
cheers

RChung

Compared to power, heart rate "lags" so you get a delayed response to changes in effort (both increased and decreased effort). However, even if you ignore the lag, heart rate has another characteristic: it may be "consistent" or "repeatable" in the sense that increased/decreased effort consistently and repeatably leads to increased/decreased HR but it's not particularly "accurate." For training purposes where you're training your threshold these aren't particularly critical issues. But there are times when you might want to do something that does require that you get an accurate response over the entire range of your output. For example, if you're interested in sprinting, or in ramp tests (where each step of the ramp should be the same size), or if you're trying to pace a TT on varying terrain, or if you're trying to field test your position or equipment for drag. Those are situations where "consistency" or "repeatability" aren't sufficient, and you actually need accuracy across the entire range of power -- not just at "threshold."

But most riders don't do those things; even most riders who have power meters don't appear to do those things. Most power meter users just use them like HRMs, as I said above. However, if you happen to be interested in doing (at least one of) those things you'll need a PM that produces high quality data. PMs that produce high quality data can be just as inexpensive as PMs that produce "HRM quality" data -- but that doesn't mean I'm against buying "HRM quality" PMs. They can be a great learning experience and a good gateway drug.

gaffer_slow

even at the basic level using power is the only way to monitor HR decoupling (other than by feel) surely? never mind that monitoring improvements is pretty impossible (other than "feel" / sense) without power.

RChung - you are downplaying how much "the same" training with power vs training with HR is - and i don't even train with power, only HR - but i recognise where even the basic limitations of HR only are - never mind HR lag issues trying to hold narrow bands of effort for intervals or pacing a climb. Top of zone 2 endurance rides - HR is great - other than knowing decoupling point(s) - anything more intense and varied and HR becomes a little frustrating - but what price you place on solving that frustration?

hopefully the prices will fall soon and the sacredness/deserving/underserving nonsense will go away.

Nobody needs to know their speed, and it is data with no real value. but because it is cheap (and interesting data) no one thinks twice about it. Sometime the same will be for power (except it can be more than fun data)

Alex_Simmons/RST

gaffer_slow wrote:

even at the basic level using power is the only way to monitor HR decoupling

That wouldn't even make my list of reasons for using a power meter. And it's a pretty long list, although it can be summarised into two primary categories, being the many and varied measurements of energy supply and of energy demand. HR doesn't fall into either.

RChung

gaffer_slow wrote:

even at the basic level using power is the only way to monitor HR decoupling (other than by feel) surely? never mind that monitoring improvements is pretty impossible (other than "feel" / sense) without power.

Hmmm. Well, I'm not sure "decoupling" is that critical to training threshold.

RChung - you are downplaying how much "the same" training with power vs training with HR is [snip] but i recognise where even the basic limitations of HR only are - never mind HR lag issues trying to hold narrow bands of effort for intervals or pacing a climb. Top of zone 2 endurance rides - HR is great - other than knowing decoupling point(s) - anything more intense and varied and HR becomes a little frustrating - but what price you place on solving that frustration?

I think I specifically mentioned pacing as one area where a PM can be handier than a HRM -- but you'd be mistaken if you thought that prior to the advent of PMs no one knew how to pace well. One of the interesting validations of pacing models is that riders who are good at TTs turn out to be good at pacing even when they don't use a PM for explicit pacing -- surprise, eh?

But the original question I was addressing wasn't about race pacing -- it was about training, and whether there is any evidence that training with a PM produces superior results to training with a HRM. In the narrow context of training threshold, it doesn't appear so. That's because training (threshold) isn't a very demanding data task. There are other tasks that do demand high quality data but threshold training isn't one of them.

hopefully the prices will fall soon and the sacredness/deserving/underserving nonsense will go away.

Nonsense is hard to dispel.

Nobody needs to know their speed, and it is data with no real value. but because it is cheap (and interesting data) no one thinks twice about it. Sometime the same will be for power (except it can be more than fun data)

Hmmm. I sorta agree that speed, in isolation, doesn't tell you much. However, speed in context can tell you quite a bit. On a regular training route, if you keep track of conditions, elapsed time is a pretty good indicator of fitness if viewed judiciously. That's how people trained for a long time, and it worked pretty well.

- and i don't even train with power, only HR -

I've been using a PM for a pretty long time. I like it a lot, and when my bike and power meter were recently stolen I replaced the power meter even before I replaced the bike. I put the power meter on an old scrounged up bike because for my purposes a high quality PM on an old scrounged up bike was more important than a new fancy bike without power data. People who know me can probably attest that I'm pretty familiar with how to use PMs and what the data can be used for. There are certain things you can do with a PM you absolutely cannot do with a HRM (or, a regular training route, a wristwatch, a pencil, and a notebook). Threshold training isn't one of them.

[Edited to add:] There are training protocols that improve threshold that would be difficult to do with just a HRM or just a wristwatch -- for example, Tabata intervals. That is, it is possible to train your threshold with just a wristwatch, or just a HRM, even if there are specific training protocols that you can't do with them.