I don’t think anyone is fighting you. I think everyone is more curious why this metric is SO important to you.
3 Likes
Do you set your weight somewhere in the app? Is it possible yours is set incorrectly?
I personally don’t GAF about this metric, but you seem prone to self-harm over this so trying to be helpful.
I’m quoting this because the reply to it didn’t give an actual answer as to what the data would inform or aid with respect to training & racing.
I could maybe see it used for tracking efficiency improvements when out of the saddle?
But yeah seems to be a very minor thing to get this worked up over when it’s just a difference in how garmin/Favero detect seated/standing.
I wonder if this is isolated to the new Mx pedals or also is present on the Assioma duos? Maybe they just need to tweak their algorithm slightly.
1 Like
if you look back at the discussion, i wasn’t the one who even brought it up originally. someone else mentioned that the data was way off. my first response was actually to defend the data. then i started digging and the story got worse and worse. so clearly it’s important to others, not just me. regardless of importance, the data is so terribly wrong that it’s obvious, hence my digging. but again, i won’t bring it up further.
weight is set properly, crank length set properly but thank you for at least trying to help
i’d love to know how this is relevant? if the data is wrong, would you not want to know why it’s wrong regardless of whether you personally deem it valuable? garmin has metrics like “grit” and “flow”. i don’t use them at all, but if they were so radically incorrect as to stand out i’d want to know why. is it an algorithm issue? a hardware issue? just a different way of calculating it (but tip for favero: your way is wrong lol)? i want to dig in and understand the reasoning in a … discussion forum… the fact that i have to defend discussing this issue in the trainerroad forum, the platform i consider to be the most science based of all, is disappointing. even more than the wrong data if i’m honest
to play along, though, and actually answer why it’s relevant to me (applies only to me): i ride the same MTB trails all the time, year after year. in the beginning of the season or when i’ve taken a break and am out of shape, the data (limited to the one season i had the garmin rallys) pretty clearly showed that i was out of the saddle a lot more than later in the year when i was in great shape and just flew through the trails totally in the saddle. it went gradually from 1-2 minutes of standing time per ride to 5 seconds at the end of the season. this applied to hammering up the hills to barreling down the very sketchy descents when i just let the FS do its thing and absorb everything for me and i just concentrated on picking great lines. in fact, the more out of the saddle i was, the “sloppier” i was as a rider it seemed. if it was really hot out i was out of the saddle more. i have no idea what you road guys would use this data for, but to me it was pretty relevant at the time. i was looking forward to using the metric again after 2 years of no cycling dynamics data, but it’s unusable here. mildly disappointing, but it’s ok at the end of the day. i just came here to see if we could come together as a community and figure out what the issue was, but i was wrong on that point.
1 Like
- It’s relevant since I was curious how it could be used for something more than an interesting data set. Nothing more or less.
- If I don’t plan to use the data, I don’t care if it’s right or wrong WRT that Stand/Sit info.
- As long as the other data (pure power in my personal use case) is correct I would ignore that just like I do for L/R data or other PCO metrics I don’t use.
- Perhaps this oddity could be an indicator of larger problems with more reach, but from all the other reviews and such it seems the core power data is trustworthy.
- Again, no need to defend IMO, we were interested in the use case to learn how and why the data could prove useful.
-
Thanks for the info. It directly answers my question for a use case I had not considered. Back to back comparison makes sense to me in a general concept and potentially valuable in adjusting training around more or less time in either position.
-
Seems this is a worthwhile issue to report to Favero so they can review and potentially improve whatever they are using to derive these estimates. It’s unfortunate that there’s seems so off compared to your prior data from Garmin. But that at least sheds light that there is a path to better data if they choose to pursue it.
1 Like
It’s interesting that you bring up grit and flow because I always found those Garmin mtb metrics to be terrible. The first time it told me I jumped higher on a little bump than a big table top, I found it mildly amusing. After a couple rides of it, I decided it was worthless, didn’t really add any value, and turned those alerts off and never looked at them again.
Thanks for sharing your use case in response to Chad’s question. Understanding how you use the data, it makes a lot more sense why you’ve been so tenacious on this.
3 Likes
It appears a lot of Garmin stuff is useless. I just started seeing sleep coach. Is there any use for something that just tells me daily to get an amount of sleep I haven’t been capable of without chemical sedation in 20+ years?
I think the Favero pedals are alright, nothing spectacular compared to my garmins. The Favero have more play in them, my foot moves around a lot more compared to garmin. I’ve tightened the cleats clamps down 4 notches and it helped a little bit.
Unlike others, I find the garmin pedals robust and have put them through the wringer. I wish I could compare power readings; pedal vs pedal and not pedal vs trainer like all reviewers do, and that’s not possible.
If you want to spend less money Faveros are worth it but theyre no better or worse than Garmins in my opinion.
2 Likes
I complained about sitting/standing errors to Favero support. Not because I care about the metric but just that I noticed it was weird. 36 hours later they sent me a firmware update that made the problem way better. As in, it pretty much agreed with my Rally’s. They are going to tweak it a bit more and then release a general update. Just to clarify- I did a test alternating about a minute of standing and sitting and sent them a .fit file. They were also able to check that the pedals were working otherwise correctly remotely when connected to the app.
8 Likes
the rallys were great. just for me the issue was cost and stack height. is there more play with the assiomas? idk because i don’t remember from the rallys and i’ve been riding eggbeater 11s for like 15 years before and since the rallys, and those are basically designed for your cleats to fly all over the place. compared to those it feels like i’m bolted to the assiomas, no play whatsoever, but my perspective is very different
as for data yeah it’s remarkably similar to the rallys. really hard to compare based on similar rides from 2 years ago but everything seems to line up within a couple of points of each other on every metric except of course for that one thing i won’t mention 
idk man garmin got a lot right with the rallys. i just think for me the stack height is huge. only one bash on a rock so far on the MX-2s after like 4 rides and it was 100% user error. i’m also really coming around to the fully sealed rechargeable batteries rather than having to mess with a battery cap every couple of months.
2 Likes
aha thanks man. this is great news
Favero has the ability to activate firmware updates on a serial number basis. If you are interested you could email Favero support and they’d probably turn the update on for you. It would get them more data.
4 Likes
Grrr, I’ve been contacted by FedEx for £79 tax… and my link works 
My import fees were just shy of £100 to the UK. Plus FedEx handling fee on top the total was £112.44
same…but doesn’t say when it’s due lol …
Got mine, install and setup was incredibly easy and straightforward.
For some completely non scientific comparative numbers I used three different power meters Quarq, Stages, Favero on the same segment using RPE.
Quarq: 296w
Stages: 251w
Favero: 304
Anecdotally, the Quarq and Faveros numbers feel similar to numbers I would see using a Powertap hub years ago
This is re assuring (to me) because I was absolutely convinced the stages was wildly wrong based on how many workouts I had been failing because the numbers just felt impossible to hit.
3 Likes
Is the Stages significantly different than your left only power? I always wondered why my Stages GRX power meter was so different from my Kickr, then I got Assiomas and found I have a 55L/45R balance typically.
I haven’t played around enough to figure out how to view single sided power, but I can see my L/R is 46%/54%
I was halfway expecting a greater imbalance based on the significant difference in watts.
1 Like