I have ordered a single side…I have a single side assioma on my road bike never felt I needed a dual sided.
But for XC and Marathon it might be different.
2 Likes
I ordered dual side Assioma’s back in 2018 when I broke my hip as I wanted to know how/if my recovery had affected things. After I trusted the healed side, left and right pretty much balanced out. But it does still vary occasionally and I can only put it down to things like getting uncomfortable on long rides with the wrong shorts, or the ride pace being a bit fierce when I’m tired from a previous session, or if it’s wet out and I’m a bit tense about falling off. Never more than 55/45, often more like 48/52 or even 50/50. And not even the same side being lower than the other. Maybe thats a good argument to go dual side, if you’re especially worried about the data being as accurate as it can be.
Since then I have always gone for dual side or power meters that measure total power. Just because I got a few good deals on subsequent pm’s. Went for dual side on the Mx2, again cos it wasn’t that much more.
Do you coast with your left foot forward?
You might be always riding with the same foot forward every time you coast. Then when you start pedaling, or ratcheting your cranks to clear obstacles, or accelerate, you’re always applying that impulse to that forward foot.
1 Like
No, I normally always have my right foot forward when coasting. That would make sense, maybe when I start pedaling I use my left foot more?
I don’t know it’s not a dealbreaker at the moment. I’m really only curious why this would show up on the chart more often when compared to other power meter pedals I have used. Maybe it’s how garmin reads the power? No idea
here’s what mine looks like, MX on top, Rally on bottom. for me i believe this to be accurate as i am definitely left-legged and start every mount/dismount with the left foot clipped in first. i also clipped and unclipped a LOT this ride as i was getting used to the cleat engagement (although i would have been doing the same with the rallys…). also it was very muddy and i disengaged the right foot quite a bit the other day to stay upright. in fact from looking at this comparison i’m actually more surprised at the number of R=100% entries. that’s odd for me as you can see from the comparison. will see what it looks like tomorrow
Assioma Pro MX-2
Garmin Rally 200
That’s also a good point with what pedal you clip in first, that kind of depends on the situation for me.
My route today consisted of 5 fences to climb over, maybe that’s playing a role. It probably a non issue but good to share with others to see what they’re seeing. My only concern is that at certain points it’s reading left power only but doesn’t seem to be the case,AFAIK looking at power. I’ll also check after tomorrows ride.
It’d be interesting to throw the bike (or just pedals, via another bike) on a trainer and see what’s reported for L/R. That is, is this dropout of one pedal or just a quirk of real-world riding with lots of coasting and unclipping? Just riding them outdoors on a road bike would be informative; MTB is such a different game in terms of cadence, ratchet-pedaling, balance etc.
Just an observation - I have about the same number of 100% R and 100% L data points as in the graphs above but my average over the rise is either 50-50 or 51-49 depending on the ride. I was thinking that the 100% numbers come from starting to pedal after coasting. I am pretty sure that my first pedal stroke is always one leg or the other and that it doesn’t balance up until a few strokes. It doesn’t seem to affect my average. Also, the graph can’t be showing every single pedal stroke since, at 100rpm , you generate about 6000 revolutions per hour and 6000 data points. There must be some kind of averaging going on in generating the graph.
1 Like
heh well for me it’s more like 60rpm 
my trails are brutal in the northeast. rock and root capital of the world 
looks to be the same number of data points that the rallys had, so i’m not sure there’s any difference from what i’m seeing.
i’m pretty much always in the 52/48, 53/47 range but again this was my first ride on the pedals and i had to do a good bit of hunting for the proper right pedal engagement. left was strapped in fine but there were numerous times i was favoring the left foot while pedaling as i was trying to find the cleat-to-pedal click in point on the right side.
it’s a good point about starting from coasting. it’s possible i did a good number of starts with the right pedal after being strapped in. idk, hard to derive anything at this point. it was very much a feeling out session. as such, i can’t read much into the single data session here. another (longer) ride tomorrow, so i should have plenty more to pour over and compare and i’ll be more mindful of stuff like sitting/standing and clicking in was getting easier too. also maybe that fw update yesterday made some changes? idk. we shall see…
I’ve ordered the dual side because I want to see how the data compares to a single sided stages which I believe is WAY off and my Quarq which seems to be accurate based on efforts.
1 Like
I went for the dual sided MX-2s and I found exactly that, my single-sided Stages is quite far off compared to the MX-2s. The MX-2s agree quite well with my Kickr and my Power2max. When I get a bit of spare time I’ll post some comparison plots.
2 Likes
I’ve also ordered the MX-2’s. From my use of the Assioma Duo’s I’ve learned that my L-R balance changes dependant on my power output. At zone 2 intensities I’m generally around 53/47 but at threshold and above it’s more like 48/52! Kind of highlights the limitations of single sided power meters. My zones based on Left power only would be way out
1 Like
Me too!
second ride in the books and i’m really happy and impressed with these pedals. zero rock/root strikes, which is remarkable considering that when i had my rallys i had probably 20 after the second ride. data all looks great, EXCEPT…
…there’s definitely something off about how they’re calculating sitting vs standing rider position. now i’m not sure if this is favero’s fault and the experts can chime in to correct me here but as with all things “cycling dynamics”, there’s no industry standard. what i think favero is doing is basically ANYTHING off from what they consider to be the nominal seated weight on the pedal is counted as “standing”. so if you weigh 200lbs and when you’re fully seated you have let’s say 50lbs on the pedals, if you put 52lbs on them, you’re standing. that may be an exaggeration, but i don’t think it’s far off:
as promised i did some fooling around with seated/standing on my ride today. the very first 20 minutes is quite interesting:
cool, right? except what if i told you that during that entire time i wasn’t fully standing on my pedals even once? it was all variations of shifting weight off of the saddle, to the back, to the front/nose, just floating over the saddle with knees bent, etc. and according to the pedals these were all “standing”. not once in that entire 20 min segment did i have my full weight on the pedals, but there’s a lot of green there.
now is this a problem? no, i don’t think so. as long as it’s consistent and in the absence of a standard, i’m ok with this assessment. just be mindful if you’re using these pedals for mountain biking, we do a LOT of shifting of weight over and around trail obstacles, and most of this stuff is going to be counted as “standing” it seems. at least it is for me
2 Likes
What am I missing here?
Is the power figure accurate or not? Or is it just the extra data that it (tries to) captures so far as seating Vs standing?? Should I be paying more attention to this data?
Has nothing to do with power, which as far as I can tell from comparing with the rallys is quite accurate. It’s the seated vs standing metric within cycling dynamics. And maybe it is accurate and I just have a different definition of when I’m standing
Yeah, this is what I was getting at above too. “Standing” doesn’t just mean what roadies think of as standing.
On a side note, I’m surprised so many people care about this or L/R balance. I’ve never seen anything actionable discussed with these metrics, but I have heard coaches say it’s not worth the attention, they’re just “neat” to look at.
2 Likes
Thanks yeah I don’t think it’s all that useful at all. It’s just interesting when you have access to the data and see maybe 2-3 minutes of standing on a 2.5hr ride w Garmin rallys suddenly balloon to 35 minutes on the same trails with the assiomas. I’ve never in my life stood that long on a ride on a full suspension trail bike. Maybe when I was a kid on my rigid bikes, but not now. Garmin and favero are clearly taking different approaches to calculating this and favero is WAY over calculating lol
Aha look what I found. Same route. Top is 2021 on the Garmin Rally 200. Bottom is today on Assiomas. Yeah I’d say there’s an issue with how they calculate seated vs standing:
You know I agree with you in principle, but the more I’m looking into this insignificant data point and comparing it to my rides with the rallys, the more this little man is creeping into my thoughts and saying “if they can’t get this very basic metric right, how can I have confidence in more sophisticated metrics like torque effectiveness or pedal smoothness or PCO or balance”?
They clearly have power nailed down as everyone can attest, but idk man I’m beginning to have my doubts about the cycling dynamics suite here if they can’t figure out that a mountain biker on a 140mm trail bike isn’t too keen on standing on his pedals very often…
Edit: an entire summer of riding with the Garmin rallys in 2021 and this was the ride with the most standing time, which is accurate:
If favero says I’m standing for 35 minutes x2 so far then well they’re just making it up. Pure fantasy