Things of Note, but Not Rated

There are some extra features/issues in some of the systems that are worth mentioning, though they don’t have a whole lot to do with the fundamental measurement of power.  First, the PT hub is only available with a Shimano freehub – there is no Campy hub available.  The Polar system has a built in altimeter, which is useful in documenting course profiles.  It would be nice if the SRM and the PT unit incorporated this feature in future products.

Additionally, during a couple of early morning rides, the LCD on both the Polar and PT darkened and made reading the display more difficult.  The PT CPU display also had to be occasionally tilted in bright sunlight in order to make the data more visible – the contrast could be improved for the PT.

One of the good things about using a power meter is its real time feedback during a time trial for pacing purposes.  This brings up the fact that there are some things to consider when choosing between systems if one wants to have dual bike capabilities.  The cheapest solution to the two bike problem is to move the whole system between bikes.  This is not too painful for the PT and SRM units (with the PT system being slightly more convenient), but would be a considerable aggravation with the Polar unit – I would recommend installing a completely separate unit on the second bike, but this quickly gets expensive.  The second CPU harness system for the PT and SRM is more affordable and is worth the extra cost if one plans to have two bike setups.

Another thing to consider is the use of aero equipment.  With the Polar and SRM units, one can use a disk wheel for TT’s, but with the PT system the only option for a solid rear wheel would be a wheel cover; but the question still remains - can wheel covers possibly be as fast as a disk?

Though not important at all in terms of functionality, fit and finish of the systems varies widely.  The PT unit is not particularly well finished.  The CPU, harness, and receiver could benefit from a healthy dose of industrial design – these lackluster features are balanced by a relatively clean installation (minimal wiring) though.  On the other hand, the Polar CPU looks like a work of art; however, the mounting harness is blocky in appearance and the many wires take away from the aesthetics of the final installation.  The SRM takes the “Jack of all trades, but master of none” route in terms of appearances.  With careful wire placement, the system can be very well hidden – except for the big rectangular block that houses the CPU.

Finally, the SRM unit does come with a rechargeable CPU battery and wall charger, but no heart rate strap (it will display HR though).  PT and Polar both come supplied with a HR strap.

In Summary

If anyone is still awake after all that, I will sum up everything with a few bullet items for each system below.  It should be noted though, that all the systems seem to function as described – simply put, THEY WORK!

SRM – Best Performance

Costs the most with little to be gained in the data quality department relative to the PT
Better software/data analysis techniques than the PT and in the same ballpark as Polar
Fairly easy installation
Three models available
Amateur ($1500, 2 strain gages, +/- 5% accuracy)
Pro ($2300, 4 strain gages, +/- 2% accuracy) < This one was used for the review
Science ($4600, 8 strain gages, +/- 0.5% accuracy)

PT - Best Performance Value

Lower price with good data quality
Easiest installation
Below average software package
Potential durability issues – rotating seals, wiring harness design
Not campy Compatible
Aero wheel issues during competitions
Two Models
Standard ($699, +/- 1.5% accuracy)
PT- Pro ($899 and not available yet – hard-wired cadence, faster downloads and more memory)

Polar – Best Value

Least expensive at $680 (~$300 if already the owner of the S710 HRM)
Potential data quality issues (especially on trainer and capturing of max wattage)
Difficult installation
Good software package
Lots of additional features (altimeter, pedal balance, etc.)

click on image above for higher resolution in a new window

click on image above for higher resolution in a new window

The author would like to personally thank Robert Chung, and Charles Howe for their feedback and guidance during this project.