AeroPod, PowerPod and Newton

I currently use my Gen3 on my road bike for training and racing.
I am taking my TT'ing a little more seriously this year and was considering putting the gen3 on the TT bike with the RWS. However, I am not overly keen on 24 inches of tubing catching the wind. I'd mount it on the stem, so right between the extension bars and I'd imagine my hands would affect the airflow.
I was considering waiting until we see what the next announcement for Velocomp holds but do fancy having a power based measurement to fine tune pacing when racing.

Anyone used it without the RWS on a full on TT bike, and is the power massively over reported owing to blocking the wind?

search the forum a bit for pics of Boyd's set-up, which involves placing a mount on a section of steer-tube above your stem and routing the rws along-side one of the aero-extensions.

Boyd's method was great for me for two reasons: 1. I had a handle-bar wireless mount, so mounting that on the steerer section, and gluing and clamping (with metal auto hose clamp-bands) that on top of my stem saved me swapping out mounts, and 2. I require a ridiculously short stem, so the ibike wouldn't have fit on it anyway.

I did that and probably have less than 10" of tubing involved. The sensor end is exposed well below my hands at the base of the s-bend on my extension.

The wind-scaling numbers (and overall efficiency of my profile) improved dramatically with RWS.

Before (with the iaero mounted on an extender below the aero-bars) wind-scaling was in the 1.8 to 2.2 range with a variety of profile runs.

After (and I did the most recent cal. runs both pre- and post-rws with a powertap), wind scaling @ 1.005.

And . . . the set-up is considerably cleaner than using the drop-down extensions.

Thanks - I'll see if I can see it. I have found the pdf for rws install which suggests the tube can be cut down quite a lot.
My only other doubt is that is has taken me a good amount of tweaking with Boyds help to get a good profile on my road bike and I fear that I won't get a comparable profile on TT bike meaning that what I now see as 300W on the road bike might be say 260W or 330W on the TT bike and if I can't get the measurement the same for the same effort on either set up, it's not much good.

try this thread:

http://www.ibikeforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1062

I hear you about consistency between bikes. Apparently this is a topic of some debate in quarters beyond iBike-land--since for many riders, the power they can produce on the tt bike is not equal to what they can produce on the road bike.

So . . . independently of the ibike there exists the possibility that one rider can have separate FTP results based upon differing power outputs in differing riding positions.

If you observe an obvious discrepancy between power output (and whether that discrepancy is caused by how the unit is capturing data and calculating power, or by your adaptation to the tt position), the solution would be to edit your FTP# in the relevant profiles. As soon as you do that, the interval targets adjust accordingly.

This still leaves the uncomfortable process of determining what sorts of FTP #s are feasible in the tt position . . . but you'll know pretty quickly.

(I did my initial cal runs, as I mention above, using a ptap . . . so that let me observe what was going on with the various profile parameters. My experience has been that wind scaling is the most important detail to get right, followed by wind offset.)