At long last, the iBike Newton!

[Zoltan]

But alas you cannot name them due to legal reasons, can you?

I can immagine the over-pressure in you.

Sidenote: what was strange that I got a direct feedback from a Newton user that he did not have any problem with reading Newton's display wearing his ploarized sunglasses. So I made a research and I found out that there are both vertically and horizontally polarized sunglasses. If I remember well the majority are horizontally polarized and there are just some vertically polarized for fishers struggling with different kind of glare caused by the surface of water. And cleverly the LCD monitors are polarized not vertically, nor horizontally, but at 45 degrees.

So maybe it should be a general rule. Sunglasses and other tools worn by peopleshould be | or _ , while the objects which are seen should be \ or/. I hope it was clear.

[Velocomp]

Most sunglasses made for cycling (Oakley etc.) are not polarized.

[Zoltan]

I am not familiar with the situation in US, but looked for it and the first hit was http://www.brookseye.com/Content/eyegla ... rized.aspx

I have Hoya polarized lenses promoted for cycling and driving and previously had Essilor polarized lenses promoted for cycling and driving

[dtrousdale]

on Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:22 am
Polarized screens are on the way. We have a supplier who needed three tries to get right what they did ten thousand times with the gen iii.

Is there an update on this? As you might imagine, it is still really inconvenient that with my Newton+ I have to bend way over to the side and view the screen from an angle to see anything. I could see the screen of my old but trusty iAero perfectly well with my current sun glasses and without dramatically changing my position on the bike. Also my sunglasses are prescription Oakleys made specifically for cycling.

[Velocomp]

on Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:22 am
Polarized screens are on the way. We have a supplier who needed three tries to get right what they did ten thousand times with the gen iii.

Is there an update on this? As you might imagine, it is still really inconvenient that with my Newton+ I have to bend way over to the side and view the screen from an angle to see anything. I could see the screen of my old but trusty iAero perfectly well with my current sun glasses and without dramatically changing my position on the bike. Also my sunglasses are prescription Oakleys made specifically for cycling.

Please email Tom Gore at tgore@velocomp.com

[ScottChapman]

So the right one's are available now? I don't want to send it in only to discover that I get back the same polarization...

Thanks in advance!

[dtrousdale]

So the right one's are available now? I don't want to send it in only to discover that I get back the same polarization...

Thanks in advance!

I exchanged mine a few months ago. All fixed! Looks great now. I'm a very, very happy camper!

[djconnel]

It would be interesting to compare iBike Newton to Stages for accuracy. My money's on the iBike.

[Velocomp]

It would be interesting to compare iBike Newton to Stages for accuracy. My money's on the iBike.

Three comments:

1) The Stages product (one crank arm only) is 50% of a real power meter; that is, it measures power 1/2 as often as a DFPM, and even less often when compared to the Newton. Does anyone believe that a power meter that measures only half of the cyclist's pedal stroke does not sacrifice measurement accuracy?

2) I spoke today with a VERY prominent cyclist, who has the Newton, Quarq, and PowerTap meters on his bike. His comment was, "You guys have nailed it. The Newton is dead-on; in fact, I think my [x] DFPM has accuracy issues." (You can guess the DFPM he stated; no need for me to repeat it). This person knows power, he knows cycling, he knows our products, both present and past, and he knows all the competitors' products, too. It was great to hear his assessment.

3) Thought experiment: If a power meter technology sacrifices performance because it measures only 1/2 of a cycling stoke, what might a different power meter technology be able to do, if it could measure power 10x more often than a DFPM?

[heith]

I've done multiple test using PT's, Ergo Trainers, Newtons, and SRM. Every PM company claims to have accuracy to 2% or less accept Stages. Stages is probably the only half honest one.
Here is some of the things I've learned and is known.
1. I can run a SRM or PTG3(2%accuracy claim) with 2 separate head units(G500 & Joule GPS)and get 3-4% difference on the same freaking ride. Same thing with the Newton and G500. But, the Newton and the JouleGPS usually read the same or within 1% for some reason. I've heard of others getting similar results from a PC7/G500 too. I don't have a PC7, so I can't prove that. Your choice of head unit seems to matter more than the PM.
2. I believe the Powertap G3's and Newtons are more accurate in crit style racing than a SRM(Bold statement) I had my SRM for 3 weeks before selling it to a friend. I can match my newton to a G3 within 2% during a crit. Couldn't do it with a SRM.
3. Newton might be the most accurate under very short sprint conditions.
4. On a 3-4 hour even paced ride the Newton, SRM, and/or PT, while using a Joule or Newton head unit, the 3 will be within 4% of the respective differences. Meaning they are all consistently about 5-10 watts off from each other to begin with.
5. Don't expect these comparative results with a Newton without being able to calibrate it with a DFPM. Do expect it to be consistent with what ever your method.
6. $ for $ the Newton is without a doubt; worthy.

I don't personally think the Stages is a bad investment. Though, the Newton is probably better for outdoor riding and the money. If your left leg is getting stronger than most likely so is the right. Else we would be pedaling in circles.J/K

[Velocomp]

2. I believe the Powertap G3's and Newtons are more accurate in crit style racing than a SRM(Bold statement) I had my SRM for 3 weeks before selling it to a friend. I can match my newton to a G3 within 2% during a crit. Couldn't do it with a SRM.

Heith: your observation about SRM accuracy issues in crits is dead on. In crits, where there is a lot of hard pedaling and cadence start/stops, crank-based power meters (including, we strongly suspect, the Stages) can run in to significant accuracy issues, due to their power reporting methods. Here is the "Wattergate" thread that covers this topic:

http://www.ibikeforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2578

We modified the Newton firmware so that, in the lucky event a crank power meter is reporting its power to the Newton, the Newton firmware gets rid of the false watts a crank-meter reports.

3. Newton might be the most accurate under very short sprint conditions.

Sprints are all about acceleration, and the Newton's accelerometer responds to changes much more quickly than a strain gauge. When we released OS2 last fall, we unleashed the fast response of our accelerometer. So we agree with this observation, too.

[rruff]

I believe the Powertap G3's and Newtons are more accurate in crit style racing than a SRM(Bold statement) I had my SRM for 3 weeks before selling it to a friend. I can match my newton to a G3 within 2% during a crit. Couldn't do it with a SRM.

Can you post real-time plots of the comparison (Newton vs whatever) in a variety of conditions?

[heith]

I posted a few files on this thread earlier when OS2 was released. I've been running the iBike solo lately when I use it. So I have no recent comparisons. No point in running two.

[heith]

I just looked in the Os2 thread and couldn't find them to provide a link. I remember posting graphs and ride data but can't find it on here anymore. Maybe I posted it on another thread or someone cleaned up the old threads that were deemed irrelevant. All my files are in WKO now. I'm not sure if I can export them back to Issac and get a comparison. I'll make some new files soon, it's time I test it again anyways to make sure its calibrations aren't changing for any reasons like seasons, weather, or time.
Plus, I just received one of those PowerCal HR things and I want to see how well it does also.

[KenS]

I just looked in the Os2 thread and couldn't find them to provide a link. I remember posting graphs and ride data but can't find it on here anymore. Maybe I posted it on another thread or someone cleaned up the old threads that were deemed irrelevant. All my files are in WKO now. I'm not sure if I can export them back to Issac and get a comparison. I'll make some new files soon, it's time I test it again anyways to make sure its calibrations aren't changing for any reasons like seasons, weather, or time.
Plus, I just received one of those PowerCal HR things and I want to see how well it does also.

Is this what you were looking for ? It's over in the Frequently Asked Questions as Newton vs DFPM
http://www.ibikeforum.com/viewtopic.php ... 818#p14818

[heith]

I rode a roughly 48 mile loop last Tuesday(DFPM) and This Tuesday(Newton). I started both rides with a 20 min TT pace(perceived effort) after that I pretty much L2 with a few L3 efforts for the rest of the loop. I didn't really look at the PM's. Went on perceived effort. Just doing base miles and staying consistent. At the end of the ride I sprint. The same ride, the same goal ,and you can see the same results. This is why I can use my Newton and Powertap interchangeably without worrying about a drastic change in TSS or breakthroughs that didn't occur.
*NOTE: interval 1 has a 30sec diff and slightly diff IF. At the end of the DFPM interval I sprinted to catch a light to and on the Newton, I caught the light. So no sprint and 30sec short.

DFPM 1:
Duration: 19:59
Work: 302 kJ
TSS: 33.2 (intensity factor 0.998)
Norm Power: 255
Power: 0 983 253 watts

Newton 1:
Duration: 19:33
Work: 298 kJ
TSS: 29.4 (intensity factor 0.95)
Norm Power: 257
Power: 0 466 254


Newton workout (181 watts):
Duration: 2:40:14
Work: 1742 kJ
TSS: 166.8 (intensity factor 0.791)
Norm Power: 214
Power: 0 1464 181

DFPM workout (181 watts):
Duration: 2:45:36
Work: 1793 kJ
TSS: 183 (intensity factor 0.82)
Norm Power: 209
Power: 0 1160 181 watts