@Aram Glad to see you join the forum and hope you are open to questions.
In the past we have seen issues with power meters once they get into real world condition (basically testing on the turbo trainer looks fine but out on the road the extra variables lead to inaccurate power.)
have you tested this against a know good power meter like a dual sided Favero? Or something like the quarq d zero?
If so can you share any of that data? If you use something like the dc rainmaker tool to show a few graphs like we see in his reviews I think it would be valuable to show the accuracy of your product.
Thanks for your comment! There is a lot of discussion around CycleClick, and I’m glad to answer any questions.
We’ve been testing CycleClick as extensively as possible, with beta testers riding in real-world conditions (you can see a real video of one of them on our Kickstarter page). That program is expanding gradually.
It’s not the ideal setup, but still informative. We are in the process of upgrading the test setup to include dual-sided pedal power measurement (since CycleClick is dual-sided) and possibly a crank-based power meter as well.
We also have a power-meter equipped trainer (Thinkrider X2 Max), but its data is not directly comparable to the Assioma Uno. The main reason we obtained that trainer was to measure the small amount of drag that CycleClick introduces. So far, we haven’t been able to build a fully reliable setup for drag measurement, but we are working on it.
To clarify: yes, CycleClick does introduce a little drag, but it is minimal. Our beta testers consistently report that they don’t feel it while riding. We are also collecting more video feedback from testers and will publish it soon.
Finally, I want to emphasize that we are a small, fully bootstrapped technology startup. We rely entirely on the support of each of you - our potential users and early believers. Seeing more than 900 of you supporting us already is extremely encouraging!
I’d like to clarify the difference between the design approach of existing power meters and CycleClick.
Current power meters on the market embed their measuring sensors into force-transmitting components such as pedals, cranks, or spiders. The challenge is that these components must be extremely strong to withstand riding forces, which means their deflection is very small. Measuring such small deflections requires highly sensitive setups, where signal-to-noise ratio quickly becomes a limiting factor.
Another challenge is that manufacturers must design or source these pedals, cranks, or spiders and then embed sensors, electronics, and batteries inside. This adds complexity, reduces margins, and ultimately increases the final price.
CycleClick takes a different approach: we clip the sensor directly onto the chain. This gives us full control over the rigidity of the sensor itself, resulting in a better signal-to-noise ratio and improved measurement capability. Moreover, since we don’t need to design or source a pedal or crank first, we can deliver CycleClick at a more affordable price.
Thanks for your comment! Yes, I’m aware of the Polar power meter. The difference is that Polar tried to measure power using the principle of a guitar string and a pickup. To make that work, you need to know a lot of details about the string - in this case, the chain.
Our approach is different: we measure the chain tension directly.
In our device the chain passes through a metal channel. As it moves, only the top and bottom of the chain rollers make contact with the ridges inside the channel, rolling along them. The channel does not touch the chain’s side plates. Since the rollers roll rather than slide, friction remains minimal - rolling friction is 10-1000 times lower than sliding friction. This allows for precise measurements with very small added resistance. The mechanism functions much like a bearing, where rolling contact ensures smooth, low-friction operation.
This is good but in my opinion very lacking to show that the accuracy is the 1% as claimed. The video is comparing a dual sided power meter to a single sided one and is inside on a turbo trainer which is about the best case scenario you could have, it also is very steady state and at low power.
You see this setup show little/no issues quite commonly in testing but once someone attempts to sprint or any other quick change in power issues arise
How have you determined that it is +/-1% if this is the testing you have done so far?
I would expect at this point in the development (taking peoples money) that you would be able to show very good evidence that the power meter works as advertised.
Our beta testers have been testing the device and comparing it to existing power meters. I expect to have enough videos and data to publish soon.
In addition, we carry out other types of testing and calibration. For example, static weight tests show strong evidence that we are well within ±1%. The current limitation is that calibration is still done by hand, but we are building an automated calibration station that will be used in production.
Of course, I would love to already have an extensively tested product with thousands of testers and multiple color options - but if that were the case, we would be going straight to retail and online distribution.
Instead, we chose Kickstarter because this is a new project with a novel approach, and we are asking for the support of early adopters: people who believe in us and in the product, because we provide real evidence of testing and development.
There are no shortcuts in this process. Product development and manufacturing is difficult and requires painstaking work and belief - belief in ourselves, in our manufacturing partners, and in the vision. (I think I mentioned earlier, this is not our first product; we also developed an e-bike conversion kit, which you can see on our website.)
We are proud and grateful to already have over 900 backers who believe in CycleClick and in us. CycleClick is real and it works.
It’s good that you have beta testers using the product, can you show us some of their rides (ideally outdoors) in comparison to your power meter?
Oh come on, that’s not remotely what I am asking for. You don’t need thousands of users or colour options to go test against a known good power meter and show us that data.
Great but I will be very sceptical until there is something to show us that.
I did, please see the video. You’re asking for an additional data in different conditions-we will publish as soon as we have more videos, as I said before.
And you should be skeptical. My guess is that you also don’t usually support projects on crowdfunding platforms - and that’s perfectly fine. It just means you’re not what’s typically called an “early adopter.” But your skepticism doesn’t mean that a novel product has no right to exist.
To be clear once again: we’re already showing quite a lot. You’re asking for more, and in different conditions - and as I mentioned, we are working on that, including third-party reviews.
As I said already this is lacking to show the claimed accuracy. Please update us when you have that data to show.
I have never said anything about whether this product should exist or not, all my initial question and follow ups have asked for is to show us that it works as claimed on the kickstarter. I don’t think that is too much to ask.
The fact that you use a new, unproven way to measure power (which is a mature market by now) while not being significantly cheaper makes it a not-so-great idea in my book. Getting things right on scale is hard even with proven ways to measure power. Look at how much indoor trainer companies are struggling with power measurement and their stability over time. My Elite Suito was spot-on when I first got it. Now its power numbers are essentially useless for training. A few other issues that spring to mind:
The device also seems to depend on a front derailleur (which it touches with this antenna thing). FDs seem to be on the way out, which would make mounting this thing hard.
How would this work offroad where you have lots of chain movement and chain slap? Or is this meant for gentle road riding only? (I live in an area with cobbles, for instance.)
The device seems exposed and there could be e. g. heel strikes.
Will I need frequent firmware updates and tell the device what kind of chain I am using? Shimano chains and SRAM flat top chains have different specs, for instance.
Nothing personal here. I think it is cool for people to try new things. But I don’t think this is a good idea, a new entrant should be either much cheaper or much better. Power meters have come down in price significantly. Even OGs like Quarq’s power meter are — if you own a compatible crank already — relatively inexpensive.
To convince skeptics like me, you should post more data than you put on your Kickstarter page. GPLama and @dcrainmaker have a test protocol, and they are public about most of it. You can even use @dcrainmaker ‘s power comparison tool and see how your power meter stacks up with industry-accepted good power meters (e. g. Quarq DZero or Favero power meter pedals). Give comparison indoors, outdoors, include sprints, sharp changes in effort, riding equivalent gears in the big and small chain rings, various road surfaces, offroad riding (at the very least gravel).
To be very clear, all I am asking for is a comparison, ideally in real world conditions, between your dual sided power meter and another meter that is well regarded and also dual sided.
You can’t compare single to dual sided and claim accuracy between the two as they are not measuring the same thing. Similarly comparing vs a turbo trainer also introduces drivetrain inefficiency into the mix but could show a consistent offset.
It’s not something extremely complex, I do it every time I get a new power meter and it is a quick test on the turbo trainer with a few sprints and some steady state at different powers.
You don’t have to provide any of this data, but seeing as it’s a new product from a company that has not made a power meter before I think it would be helpful to provide it.
Unproven in the cycling market. However, this method has been used in aerospace engineering for a very long time and is well proven across many engineering applications. In this case, we have a different application and a novel implementation - I agree.
The device has also been tested on gravel bikes. One important point to keep in mind is that when the chain is slapping, it indicates there is very little or no force in the chain - which means there is nothing to measure. The device is equipped with locks that prevent it from coming off the chain during a ride. Additionally, the chain is more rigid in the left–right direction (relative to the rider) and less rigid in the orthogonal direction. Finally, the device’s sensing direction is primarily vertical, so other disturbances play only a minor role.
It does not work with flat-top chains. What matters is the chain roller diameter, and you can enter and store multiple roller diameter values in the device’s memory, then switch between them as needed.
We also offer other mounting options - for example, for 1x setups.
I’m not going to argue here, but it has already been proven that a significant number of riders - including casual riders - want a different type of power meter: one that’s easy to use, requires no tools to install, and can be switched easily between bikes. I’m talking about a market segment that is currently under-served.
In the early days of the Apple Watch, there were probably debates about who would need ECG measurement in a watch. It turned out that a significant number of users did. I look at this from the perspective of a product designer interested in market response and validation, not just my personal opinions (though I have those too). That perspective is often very different from my personal opinions.
I believe I mentioned this before, but just in case - I may have forgotten: we are in the process of upgrading our test setup to a dual-sided benchmark. As soon as we have more data, we will publish it. But even now, we publish data that can be taken into consideration when evaluating whether the device works or not.
That seems like a major restriction to me. It would mean that I couldn’t use it on my road bike.
I was mostly thinking of the device disintegrating by the added abuse due to repeated hits and e. g. heel strikes. It adds mass to the top of the chain and fix a portion of the chain. On my 1x drive trains, this might negatively impact shifting at larger chain angles.
Sure, riders would love a cheap power meter, and perhaps one that you can safely move between bikes. But above all, power measurements needs to be reliable under many circumstances.
My mountain bike has a Shimano drivetrain, my road bike SRAM. Since you wrote that it doesn’t work with FlatTop chains, I wouldn’t be able to change it on bikes.
If you dig deeper in that analogy, you’ll see the difference: smart watch ECGs are helpful to suggest to wearers that they should go and see a medical professional. But it isn’t a replacement for a “real” multi-lead ECG. Other Apple Watch sensors such as body temperature are not able to measure the absolute body temperature with accuracy, just differences.
With a power meter you are interested in absolute numbers under various circumstances.
I’m not sure if this directly answers your question (it is very late and I’m pretty tired right now), but CycleClick uses a ball-and-socket connection with a degree of restriction that keeps it movable in almost all directions except front - back. This design allows shifting without any problem.
That’s all correct.
I’m not going to go any deeper than what I’ve already said about the under-served market segment.
It’s quite late at night now. I’ll make every effort to reply to any questions you may have, though it may take some time.
Thank you all for your comments.
One of the most important things I’ve discovered is how engaged the cycling community is. I truly appreciate all feedback, constructive or otherwise.