Pioneer ust announced on their Instagram that they will not be in cycling and cyling equipment including power meters any more.
Shimano is taking over all the cycling related products from Pioneer.
3 Likes
finally shimano might have a working power meter !
5 Likes
Pioneer was no better. This wasnāt a move to acquire any power meter tech. Thereās no magic in glueing a strain gauge to the outside of a crank. Everyone has been doing itā¦ all with the same successes (LEFT) and failures (RIGHT).
This is a quick āoutā for Pioneer. Nobody was using their head units. Their software was clunky. They relied 100% on Shimano. Shimano at any point could make a slight mod to their cranksets (left and right) to put them out of the game anyway. Same goes for 4iiii and Stages, although both have other crank offerings.
While this news is interesting, itās not a big deal. The industry is small thoughā¦ and not much is happeningā¦ other than a few amusing updates from IQSquared every few weeksā¦ so this is the ābiggestā news in a while.
7 Likes
Always interested in this line of thinking. Just an anecdotal n=1, but my right side Stages Dura Ace has been flawless, so itās obviously not impossible to pull off.
There is a big difference between getting consistent power reported (my guess on your results), vs getting ACCURATE reported power (what Shane is talking about).
1 Like
No, I know exactly what he is talking about. My two Stages L units, Tacx Neo, and R Stages are all within a percent and a half.
2 Likes
Itās data, not a line of thinking. Last count was 15 (or 16ā¦ maybe 17ā¦ I gave up āreviewingā them) of these cranksets failing my test protocol, all in the same way. While other power meter types/designs pass it. I need power meters I can trust/rely on to test/compare other meters and smart trainers with. None of these can be used for what I need.
5 Likes
Iām not disputing what you found, Iām just saying itās obviously possible to make them work, mine does with no issues and I know several others who are the same. Iām more curious as to why a lot fail tbh.
Watch the video by Keith Wakeham on it. His name is on the design patent. The guy knows his sh*t, far beyond my level of expertise.
Itās not a case of why some fail. They all do. It just depends to what level theyāre tested. Not everyone is doing 50/50 balanced steady-state ERG on them while hooked onto a reliable/accurate trainer along with a pair of trusted power pedals. Riding outside thereās enough randomness for the numbers to almost line up. In a ālabā environment things fall apart. Does that matter? For some people, not at all. For me, absolutely.
2 Likes
This is actually what I was referring to with the line of thinking bit. You obviously can define it how you want for your purposes, but if an item works within its usage profile for its user, it hasnāt āfailedā. Outside of that envelope is pretty irrelevant for someone who doesnāt need it. I understand for your purposes it you donāt feel it does but that clearly is a different proposition than it doesnāt work for anyone, which is what is bandied about all the time and I think is a ridiculous assertion.
As I mentioned, Iāve run mine with a L Stages and a Tacx Neo simultaneously and they have all tracked within 1.5%, which is good enough for me. Ray Maker has also had similar experiences while noting some people have issues. But some people arenāt able to get that obviously, which piques my interest.
Iāve seen the video by Keith, certainly informative but it still doesnāt really explain the inconsistency of manufacture.
Keithās video outlines the issues with measuring power with the right side due to the design, itās not a manufacturing inconsistency.
Iāll leave it here. If people want to ride these meters, awesome. I canāt.
5 Likes
The argument isnāt about inconsistencies when manufacturing power meters, but that power meters canāt be as accurate with this asymmetric crank arm design. On symmetric crank arms certain forces cancel (or are the same, which means their difference is zero) just by symmetry. Thus, offset and slope of the strain-to-force curve are more accurate on symmetric crank arm designs.
With Shimanoās asymmetric design, these forces do not automatically cancel, and playing with the curve worsens the accuracy of the offset and vice versa.
I think Shimano has its manufacturing down, and whatever tolerances you have can be taken into account during factory calibration ā if Shimano had a good design.
The problem is a reminder why power meters will most likely be something that, for the most part, only groupset manufacturers will offer: to get an accurate crank-based power meter, crank design matters a great degree. (I think pedal-based power meters will have their place, too.)
1 Like
I have been using Pioneer power meter for 2-3 years and their headset for a year or so and I am quite happy with both.
i think they have a fantastic head unit. If you read the manual carefully, you will find out lots of good training screens. And I believe it has better screen layout than Garmin or Wahoo.
And yes, they have a chunky web site but when you play with it, it basically gives yo allt he information you need, surprisingly in very good way.
But lets see what Shimano will bring.
E
Thatās really weird. The Neo notoriously reports low compared to other power meters. Consitently 15-25w based on the gear compared to my s-works power crank.
Other users have shared a similar experience on another thread with the assiomas and vector pedals.
Iām not going to get into it anymore as itās not really germane to the thread but to say Iām a mechanical engineer by training (I ended up a yachtie and construction company owner by trade which is a whole different story) and I know the concepts used in strain gauges. Measuring on a asymmetric crank is not an impossibility.
When I talk about manufacturing, my WAG is that the metallurgy variation is probably a significant factor.
Any rate, its a thread for Pioneer being sold, so everyone carry on.
The issue is that the right crank geometry is very far from a straight beam, and thus the deformation-vs-relevant load relationship is both non-linear and load application dependent. The designer ends up making assumptions on the load application, and anything off those assumptions throws the measurements off.
This said, while there is certainly an imprecision in the measure, the real question is how relevant that becomes in real life. Is a +/- 2% power measurement detrimental to training and race performance compared to a +/- 1% measurement? At which point does the lack of precision translate into performance-significant impacts?
3 Likes
My Pioneer L/R (gen 1?) had as many signal drops as my gen 1 Stages. Accuracy was good compared to my Drivo when thereās signal. So much happier with my Assioma Duo.
Iāve said it before. I love my single sided Pioneer PM. Got it brand new two years ago for like $360 and itās had ZERO issues. Iām not surprised to read this though, Pioneer never seemed to gather a strong following or reputation in the PM world.
2 Likes
Indeed, but this is more a function of inconsistent flexion across units, regardless of the load at the pedal axle (within reasonable parameters, no one is standing on the very edge of the pedal). Aluminum crank arms are the biggest wildcard in this, carbon could be built with much more precise deformation properties.