High watt measurements

Post Reply
vktr
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:05 am

High watt measurements

Post by vktr »

Hello! Yesterday I did a easy ride with two sprints, and the maximum wattage according to the unit was 1467 watt but when I look at the ride file it says max watt was 1326 watt. I figured this is because the maximum watt calculated by the Isaac software is a 5 second interval while in the newton unit it is just one peak measurement of 1467 watt. But when I used 0 smoothing in Isaac and marked the region where I did the sprint, I got a maximum value of 1482 watt. The difference is not big but why is there a difference in the maximum value in the unit and in the software? Do the Isaac software and my unit use different profiles?
Attachments
iBike_04_20_2014_1513_55_km.ibr
(387.34 KiB) Downloaded 262 times
Pete
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:09 am
Location: Melburn, AUS

Re: High watt measurements

Post by Pete »

Did you have hi-res recording on?
vktr
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:05 am

Re: High watt measurements

Post by vktr »

Pete wrote:Did you have hi-res recording on?
I have fast rec on.
Velocomp
Velocomp CEO
Posts: 7804
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:43 am

Re: High watt measurements

Post by Velocomp »

Yes, Isaac uses max 5 sec, whereas Newton uses absolute peak number. I don't why the two max numbers are different, though as you point out they are less than 1%.

Isaac and your Newton use the same profile.
John Hamann
User avatar
Russ
Posts: 370
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:08 pm

Re: High watt measurements

Post by Russ »

Seems really odd to second guess John but here goes :-)

Since the data file uploaded to Isaac from Newton (remember ibr format is proprietary) has a standard format, I expect not too much different from the csv file but with more data. Perhaps it has more than one per second data points, but not likely that the data in the file which Isaac sees would exactly match the data feed into Newtons firmware from the sensors. So even though Isaac post processing can improve the resulting picture, Newton still has first dibs on the 'real' data. And that difference <1% John said, well a LOT less :-)

Sorry John, can't resist a little reverse engineering speculation from time to time!

Regards,
Russ
Post Reply