Edge 130

Garmin was busy updating their bicycle component line with updates to their Edge line with the new Edge 130, Edge 520Plus, and Varia system.

The Edge 130 is essentially an intro bike computer but with some additional features. It has a claimed mass of 33g and measures 40mm x 62mm x 17mm while featuring a15 hour battery life. It has a black and white screen with a screen resolution of 303×230 pixels (Edge 20 has 128×160) and works on GPS, GLONASS and Galileo satellites and a built-in barometer.

Despite its size, it hosts many of the newer features found in their higher-end series including turn-by-turn navigation, Live Track, Strava Live segments, SMS notifications and template SMS reply feature (Android only at this time), to go along with Ant+ and BTLE connectivity.

The Edge 130 will retail for $199, or $249 for the bundle package with a heart rate strap and speed/cadence sensors.

Edge 520 Plus

The Edge 500 series is arguably the most popular amongst triathletes, not only for its features, but also its size and compatibility with aerobar systems. The Edge 520 includes all the features found in their current Edge 520 “plus” it takes many of the new or updated features found in their recently released Edge 1030 and included it them in the 520 Plus while maintaining the size of the current Edge 520 model and claimed battery life of 15 hours.

The Edge 520 Plus comes with pre-loaded Garmin cycle maps capable of providing turn-by-turn assistance, back-to-start navigation, Group Track, rider-to-rider messaging, advanced power metrics with Vector 3 compatibility, along with preloaded IQ apps from Best Bike Split and TrainingPeaks. The 520 Plus also includes rider’s physiological data such as VO2 max and recovery time.

The Edge 520 Plus will retail for $280 or as part of a bundle for $380. We plan on getting our hands on one in the near future for testing.

Varia

With cycling safety becoming more and more prominent, the Varia line of products has grown quickly in terms of popularity. Their new Varia RTL510 rear view radar and light (solid or flashing light mode) along with being visible from a claimed distance of 1.6km, the system also sends visible and audible alerts to the rider via a compatible bike computer when vehicles approach from behind (150 yards detection distance). The Varia RTL510 is currently compatible with the Edge 130 and Edge 520 Plus. It has a battery life that varies from six hours to 15 hours depending on its mode and will retail for $200 or $300 as part of a bundle option that includes the RTLE510 rear view radar and display unit.

AeroCoach

AeroCoach Ltd is a UK company that provides a number of components specific to time trialing performance and is headed by Dr B Xavier Disley. The ARC solid chainring, and designed for 1X, is a non-circular carbon chainring designed for time trialing. It is available in a number of sizes, and can be custom made to fit your need as the above model was custom designed to fit the Pioneer power meter on a Shimano 9100 series.

They also produce Align Wing arm rests, a design that is becoming more popular amongst triathletes and TT specialists by keeping the arms more secure and stable in the arm rests. They are also compatible with nearly all aerobar systems and both the ARC chainrings and Align Wing arm rests ship to North America.

Sunglasses

There were two notable releases that may interest triathletes and cyclists with their release of the Oakley Flight Jacket and the SpeedCraft Air.

Oakley continued its move into the cycling foray with the release of the Flight Jacket. It features a small switch on the nose bridge that moves the sunglasses away from the face to promote airflow and reduce the fogging and sweat that impedes vision while cycling. It maintains their popular frameless design at the top which is ideal when in the aero position. It is retailing for $225 and shipping May 1, 2018.

A lesser-known brand which Peter Sagan has worn to victory is the SpeedCraft Air. It features a built-in nasal dilator via a patented AC Systems breathing technology and comes with 10 pairs of metal nose stickers to secure — and properly operate — the system. The nasal dilator is located a top of the nose bridge and can be adjusted (further open or close the nasal pathway) by rotating a small dial in the center of the lens. Also included are a clear lens, hard and soft carrying case, and 10 pre-application wipes.

The application process requires the use of a pre-application wipe to clean the nose and then apply the nasal strip via an included applicator below the nasal bone on each nostril and wait 5 minutes prior to wearing the glasses.

The theory behind the use of a nasal dilator (whether or not you ascribe to it) is that it allows the user to improve his or her nasal breathing and thereby better regulates the ratio of Nitric Oxide and Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen and nose breathing is more efficient at regulating the humidity and temperature of the air than mouth breathing. I can’t speak for the science behind the nasal dilator, but its adherents say it is effective in opening the nasal pathway. SpeedCraft Air is at least twice as effective than the over-the-counter nasal strips, goes the claim.

The sunglass itself features two large, interchangeable lenses that worked quite well in the aero position, but I did notice the plastic top part of the frame which is the reason behind the popularity of frameless sunglasses. The SpeedCraft Air lenses are scratch resistant and have a Hydroilo coating, which was effective at repelling sweat.

The TR90 frame design has a noticeable space between the lens via a foam spacer at the top of the frame meant to increase airflow and prevent fogging. The temple arms are finished with an ultra-grip rubber which held the glasses in place and felt quite comfortable. I actually enjoyed the sensation of the nasal dilator and an added benefit was the nasal dilator system kept the sunglasses in a secure position at all times as a result of the magnets.

Of note, their user’s manual specifically addresses the use of the SpeedCraft Air for triathletes and advise the nasal strips can be applied prior to the swim and my limited testing confirmed that the adhesive nasal strips remained after a swim-bike brick.

The SpeedCraft Air is retailing for $325 with additional nose strips retailing for $15 while the model without the nasal dilator retails for $175.

SLF Motion Hyper Speed Systems

For those how are not aware of SLF Motion, it started out as a passion hobby operated out of the house of Blake Young in Illinois. It launched in 2016 combining his love of cycling and his craft as a 3-D Industrial Engineer. SLF Motion focuses on producing high-end pulley system components, think Ceramic Speed but more affordable.

SLF began with their Hyper Pulley Wheels that are made with full ceramic Silicone Nitride (Si3N4) which use PTFE retainers and seals along with world renown CERBEC branded Grade 3 ceramic balls. They have been used, and are being used, by a number of professional’s triathletes. SLF Motion has now released a titanium oversize pulley wheel system, their Hyper Speed Systems. The Hyper Speed System uses a coated hybrid ceramic bearing and billet Titanium wheels and will be available for nearly all models of SRAM and Shimano systems with pricing starting at $445. For those of you who were on the fence of trying OSPW but dissuaded by the cost, SLF Motion may be the answer. We plan on testing the SRAP eTap version in the near future.

Zwift Academy Triathlon

Zwift announced their selections for their inaugural Specialized Zwift Academy Team made up of two male and two female amateur triathletes, stemming from the success of their Zwift Academy for cyclists. The team members: Rachael Norfleet, USA, Geert Janssens, Belgium, Golo Philippe Röhrken, Germany, and Bex Rimmington, United Kingdom, will be provided with Specialized S-Works equipment, Retul fitting, and time in the Specialized Win Tunnel, along with coaching and support from Tim Don, Lucy Charles, and Zwift will be covering associated expenses for the team throughout the season, including a $1500 USD budget contribution towards a qualifying event of the athlete’s choosing as well as entry fees, flights, and accommodations for the Kona IRONMAN World Championships in Kona, Hawaii

The post We Noticed: Garmin, Zwift, and more first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Wahoo first released its popular direct drive smart trainer in 2012, and the KICKR is now on its 3rd generation. This seemed a good time to talk about the updates, and how well or poorly it fares against other smart trainers.

This latest iteration has only a few differences from the 2016 model, but it has come a long way since the original KICKR was overviewed here. I spent a few months aboard the 2017 model and, unsurprisingly, it remains a class leader in the smart trainer market.

Technical Specifications

Like most of the top tier smart trainers on the market today, the KICKR has a claimed power accuracy of +/- 2%, a max power output of 2000 Watts, and climb gradient of 20 percent. It supports Ant+, Ant+-FE-C, and Bluetooth Smart connectivity.

It also is compatible with 8, 9, and 10 speed Shimano/SRAM drivetrains along with 11 speed Campagnolo/Shimano/SRAM drivetrains. The 2017 KICKR is compatible with a bunch of hubs, including the 12x142mm and 12x148mm thru axle along with its KICKR CLIMB. The added compatibility for thru axles and the KICKR CLIMB are one of the updates to the 2017 KICKR.

All of the KICKR models provide speed, power, and distance information along with cadence when used with the included RPM cadence pod. Its frame has been time tested as durable, proven by the number of first generation KICKRs still operational today, including mine. The 2016 and 2017 KICKR models also include a handle for easier transport and connectivity LED lights found on the rear of the metal frame that confirm connection to peripheral devices (e.g., Ant+ via a flashing red; BTLE via solid blue).

Finally, the footprint of the KICKR hasn't changed since its inception, measuring 21" x 28" with legs open and 21" x 9" wide making it one of the most compact when folded and widest when open, but not necessarily the most stable and I'll discuss that later.

Competitors

The KICKR 2017 has to compete against itself, in that it has to provide a convincing value narrative to owners of a perfectly functional prior edition KICKR. It also must overcome the value offered by stalwarts such as the CycleOps HAMMER, Tacx NEO, and Elite's Direto and Drivo.

The 2017 KICKR, along with its enhanced capacity to pair with thru axle bikes (think about your future bike purchases!) is also quieter, has an attached handle, improved power accuracy, improved responsiveness and feel, and LED connection lights.

Getting Started: How do I use it?

Like most smart trainers today, the KICKR is as close to plug-and-play as there is, and there haven't been any set-up changes since the original model. The KICKR does not require a riser block or cassette (unlike the NEO and Elite models), assuming you're riding a 700c wheel with standard road tires. For most standard road or tri bikes, it is just a matter of releasing the stabilizing legs by pushing the blue button where each leg attaches to the KICKR body, connecting the bike to the rear dropout, and tightening the QR skewer.

Those with disc brakes, a thru axle, or 10-speed will have to change the included adapters or add spacers which are all included in the box. Those not using the typical road/tri bike tires (700C) also have the option of adjusting the height for from 24-inch road tires up to 29-inch mountain bike tires. Finally, each stabilizing leg has a turn-adjustable foot-pod to ensure the bike is level with floor.

Once this is completed, it is simply a matter of plugging in the KICKR to a power source, pairing the KICKR to either a Wahoo ELEMNT bike computer (or most newer Garmin Edge bike computers) or the various mobile applications or indoor software platform (e.g. TrainerRoad, Zwift, Rouvy, etc.), perform an initial spindown calibration and begin riding.

Let's Take Zwift, As One Example

You can load Zwift's software onto an iOS device, Windows 7 or higher, or an OSX computer (10.8 or better). If you enable Bluetooth in your OSX (Mac) computer or on your iOS phone or tablet, then you're set: The computer and the KICKR will automatically pair. Windows does not support bluetooth pairing; you must use an ANT+ dongle on Wndow's machines.

If you don't have Bluetooth capability in your computer, no worries. What you need is an ANT+ dongle, these are tiny and they work. Here is one for $16.99 that our publisher successfully uses for his weekly Slowtwitch Zwift rides, use a USB extension cable if you need the dongle closer to the device. If you want to be all-Wahoo, this company makes its own USB Ant+ kit, with the dongle and the extension.

If you have both wireless protocols enabled (an ANT+ dongle in your USB port and you have Bluetooth enabled), you make the choice on OSX. When you get to Zwift's pairing screen, and you click on "power source" (or controllable trainer), your KICKR will show up twice, once with the Bluetooth icon and once with the ANT icon. You can pick how you want to connect.

Power, Sound, and Performance Testing

In order to be consistent in testing indoor trainers, I have a few dedicated workouts for trainers that focus on some common interval durations (e.g., 10 seconds, 30 seconds, and 2, 5, 10, 20, 30 minutes). I also test across some common power ranges (200, 250, 300 watts) and then toss in some micro intervals or easy efforts (100 watts) where variations are more noticeable. Also, I repeat sound testing of each trainer to reduce the effect of ambient noise or drivetrain noise that could vary between tests.

Power accuracy and sound were one of the areas where the second and third generation KICKRs were reported to have improved over the first-generation model, and testing confirmed exactly that. The accuracy was impressive when gauged to the Garmin Vector 3s and Pioneer dual-leg power meter.

Sound

I tested the noise made by the KICKR 2017 using the SPLnFFT mobile application placed on the non-drive side of the KICKR. I repeat the same test conditions for each trainer by riding at approximately 200 watts at a cadence of 75-80rpms on a freshly lubed drivetrain with a straight chainline. My testing had the KICKR 2017 very slightly louder (less than 2db difference) than the Tacx NEO, making it the second quietist smart trainer I have tested. I also conducted sound tests at higher power (400+ watts) and the sound deviation remained consistent between the NEO and KICKR, although at higher wattages the subjective perception is the KICKR was louder, which may be a function of tone differences rather that sound output.

Power

Wahoo thought outside the box when it modified its power algorithms for the 2017 KICKR. It eliminated the use of strain gauges and in essence doesn't have what most consider a "real" power meter, unlike its first-generation model. The 2016 and 2017 models derive power primarily from the amount of brake resistance applied, along with increasing the number of environmental sensors.

The result, according to Wahoo, was improved power accuracy, fewer calibration issues, and improved durability. In fact, although Wahoo claims the power accuracy to be +/- 2%, they state those numbers apply to outlier wattages such as fewer than 100 watts and more than 800 watts. Sweet spot wattages will be closer, they say and my testing demonstrated that, as can be seen in the images above and below, indicating a power accuracy on par with the Tacx NEO and Elite Direto.

Performance

Performance, or feel, can be difficult to objectively quantify when comparing trainers with similar technical specifications. There is some performance convergence among the models in the $1000+ category of smart trainers, as the important features are now identified and the companies have shorn up their weaknesses. Differences are often subjective and minute, as was the case with KICKR 2017.

The KICKR was on par, in road feel, with its competitors, with the only exception being downhill rides on ZWIFT where the Tacx NEO does a better job of simulating downhill grades. Also, the NEO's "road feel" feature is found only on the NEO. The upcoming release of the KICKR CLIMB may neutralize this difference. The above photo indicates the amount of vibration emitting from the KICKR at 200 watts and 80 rpms tested via a mobile application, the device placed directly on the KICKR. As can be seen above, the vibration is minimal, and shouldn't be an issue for neighbors who live below your pain cave.

During my testing, there were a few detectable performance differences I noted between the KICKR and Tacx NEO, some that arise from dropouts or power spikes. The NEO occasionally has resistance lock, or significant resistance increase, for no apparent reason and suddenly a 100-watt recovery interval will spike in power, as can be seen in the second interval above (where the resistance increased prior to the second 400-watt interval). This is not an isolated incident with the NEO and is something I have not experienced with the KICKR. I have seen the same complaint from other Tacx NEO owners online. Also, as can be observed in the first 4 intervals done on the NEO, the first few seconds of an interval the NEO overshoots the target power and then smooths out. This was also validated from power readings from the Vectors and Pioneer power meters. The KICKR 2017 is a bit slower to hit target power but much smoother in doing so than the NEO. However, this also means the KICKR 2017 has difficulty hitting target power, or measuring power, in micro intervals (fewer than 5 seconds) when compared to the NEO or a standard power meter.

Finally, although the footprint and weight dimensions of the NEO and the KICKR are similar, the design of the NEO makes it more stable at higher power outputs (1000 Watts+) or if a rider gets out of the saddle and rocks the bike. I believe this is a function of the NEO's design where the platform style legs of the NEO balance it on the floor whereas the KICKR relies only on the small adjustable foot pods (shown in above photo), with the trade-off being increased stability (NEO) versus ability to adjust for uneven surfaces (KICKR).

Software

Unlike most of the other smart trainer companies, Wahoo doesn't have software specifically for use with the KICKR. Why would it? Wahoo's apparent wager that software companies would fill that void has paid off.

Wahoo does have a very basic mobile application, Wahoo Fitness, that would allow a user to control level, resistance, target watts, and slope, along with allowing for software updates for the KICKR, but it is rather rudimentary compared to other applications. It does allow for power matching with an external power meter via "Control w/Ant+ Power Meter". In fact, the ELEMNT line of bike computers and most training platforms allow for calibration and resistance adjustment, rendering the mobile application redundant.

Practical Considerations

The flawless and simple integration between the KICKR and Wahoo's bike computer line is definitely something to consider when purchasing either a KICKR or the ELEMENT bike computers. Its ability to control the KICKR for resistance-controlled workouts, pull structured workouts from various sites (e.g. TrainingPeaks, Today's Plan) or .GPX routes for route simulations are all features I use daily.

A more difficult consideration is whether one should upgrade from Wahoo's version 1 or 2 of the KICKR to the 2017 model. The improved sound, accuracy, and feel between their first model and the 2017 KICKR is substantial enough to consider upgrading However, unless one foresees purchasing the KICKR CLIMB, there really isn't a strong argument to upgrade from the second generation KICKR. Further, until I test the KICKR CLIMB I can offer no guidance on it. That established, Slowtwitch should be testing the product shortly and Wahoo has confirmed that public release is now set for April 2018.

Final Thoughts

Wahoo has almost closed the gap between the KICKR and the Tacx NEO, heretofore arguably the top smart trainer (and priced accordingly) in terms of power accuracy, feel, sound and compatibility. Among similarly priced competitors (such as CycleOps' formidable HAMMER), the KICKR is a formidable competitor. Wahoo clearly improved upon its original model, and the remaining question is whether the integration with the KICKR CLIMB will push the KICKR 2017 to the front of the smart trainer market.

The post How Does the Latest KICKR Compare? first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Third party applications (like Zwift and Trainerroad) control the resistance on smart trainers. Traditional turbo trainers (aka dumb trainers) don’t work like that. You, the rider, need to make the bike harder or easier to pedal if you want to match the effort requirements of these third party software products. Usually (but not always!) that’s done just by changing the gears on your bike.

Some dumb trainers also have additional features such as Ant+ or BTLE transmissions and manual resistance control, but this category really focusses on the types of resistance used: wind, magnets, fluid, rollers.

Types of Turbo Trainers

Within the turbo trainer category, there are different types of turbo trainers, each with advantages. The trade-offs are price, sound, maximum wattages, and feel.

Now, before we go further, remember, there are a couple of ways to make your dumb trainer compatible with these new, cool, smart and relatively inexpensive software platforms. One is for your bike to be equipped with methods of measuring the requisite metrics (power, speed, cadence). Lacking these, there is a very inexpensive method described in our first primer on Zwift. An Ant+ dongle, a Wahoo Speed and Cadence sensor, and you’re up and running for under $100 (not counting the cost of your dumb trainer). I’ll finish this up with a little more on the specifics of this (Virtual Power), but let’s just get right into trainers.

Wind/Air

An air, or wind, resistance turbo trainer relies on an external fan within a flywheel that utilizes air to provide the resistance. The harder one pedals, the greater the resistance, and the greater the noise! These trainers are deficient in road feel but do allow riders to hit higher wattages than some other dumb trainers. Air or wind resistance trainers are often considered an entry level trainer with costs starting at $100. The CycleOps Wind Trainer ($169) is one of the most popular in this category and is compatible with many of the various virtual training apps.

Magnetic

Magnetic turbo trainers are the mid-level dumb trainer and work in a similar fashion to air resistance trainers however the flywheel relies on magnets within the unit to create a magnetic field of resistance as opposed to air resistance. The resistance provided by magnetic trainers is linear when compared to speed, that is the resistance gets progressively harder.

Smart Trainers that rely on this type of resistance use an electric current to create an electromagnetic field of resistance. Unlike smart trainers, the resistance level for magnetic trainers often is limited to the range of 700-1000 Watts and must be controlled manually via a lever that can attach to the handlebars.

Magnetic trainers provide improved resistance, are quieter, and offer better road feel versus wind trainers, with only a slight increase in price ($200+), making them a popular choice as long as the max wattage is not a deciding factor.

This category has been relatively stagnant in terms of development until recently with the release of the STAC Zero (below).

This trainer relies on magnets attached to the rear wheel that interact with the trainer to create an eddy current (magnetic resistance) which allows for greater resistance than traditional turbo trainers. STAC claims that riders can generate up to 2000 watts under certain conditions. Also, because there is no flywheel and the bike’s tire doesn’t touch the trainer, the only sound heard is from the bike’s drivetrain, hence the name STAC Zero for zero sound. There are two models of the STAC Zero – Basic and Power meter – with the pricing starting at $439 Canadian. Slowtwitch plans to do some hands-on testing in the near future with the Stac Zero.

Fluid

Fluid trainers may be the most popular trainer type on the market. These have a more realistic feel than wind and magnetic trainers, they are quieter, and allow riders to produce more power. Like air and magnetic resistance trainers they operate via a flywheel but use fluid within the self-contained flywheel as the means of creating resistance. The resistance is more gradual and lifelike.

Early models tended to suffer from fluid leaks but this is now the exception. They are prone to generating a great deal of heat, which can make the flywheel a bit of a hazard if you have young children. With pricing starting around $350, fluid trainers are a popular choice among indoor riders not using smart trainers. The CycleOps Fluid2 ($350+) is one of the more popular trainers in this this category.

Within the fluid trainers, there is one model that is unique, the Kurt Kinetic Rock and Roll ($449 to $549). This model sits on a pivot that allows the bike frame to tilt left to right while pedaling to create a bit more realism, and possibly less stress on the frame. It is a nice feature that is really noticeable during brief, hard efforts, or anytime you get out of the saddle.

Also, the Kurt Kinetic range of trainers allow for the addition of a smart control power unit which is their response to the growth of the smart trainer market. The Rock and Roll Smart has its own built-in sensors, which preclude the need to buy the sensors mentioned above and are fully compliant with Zwift, Trainerroad and the other apps you’ll want to use.

Rollers

Among triathletes, rollers appear to be the least common type of indoor trainer used but among pure cyclists, rollers are quite popular. Rollers consists of either metal or plastic drums and some rails to keep the rollers in place. Simple design, simple concept, pedal or fall over as the bike is not secured to the rollers as is the case with all the other types of indoor trainers. Rollers have a number of advantages over traditional trainers such as improving balance and core strength, pedaling technique and they best simulate outdoor riding. Rollers also tend to be quiet, inexpensive, and are easily stowed away under a bed or in a closet. Most of the well-known bike trainer companies such as Tacx, CycleOps, Kurt Kinetic produce rollers at a retail cost starting at around $300.

Slowtwitch has written just about rollers in the past, and there are plenty of threads on our reader forum about rollers including one just this past week. Note one obvious reason rollers are less popular among triathletes than roadies: It’s harder to ride the rollers in the aero position than it is to ride rollers only on a road bike.

Some brands provide more features, such as smart rollers. One such example is the Omnium Trainer which is a basic roller with a front fork that acts like training-wheels for riders new to rollers. Other brands such as Tacx offer similar options. Here’s a recent discussion of this trainer on our reader forum.

What is Virtual Power

As noted above, most training platforms will accept a good guess of the power you generate while riding a dumb trainer or rollers. This opens the door to many of the benefits of virtual training without the resistance control features found in smart trainers.

Virtual Power is a cost-efficient means of training with power, without owning a power meter or a smart trainer. A trainer’s resistance can be linear (resistance changes proportional to speed), or the most road-like feel being progressive (resistance changes as one changes gears or pedals harder). Based on the trainer’s known power curve, which is basically the power (watts) to maintain a certain speed, and the speed reading from the rear tire or flywheel on a trainer, a power value (virtual power) can be calculated based on this relationship. It is important to note that each turbo trainer has its own specific power curve. Here is an example of the power curves for turbo trainers.

Dumb Trainers and Virtual Training

Just because you don’t have a smart trainer does not mean you cannot use some of the virtual training and racing platforms on the market. Some of the virtual training platforms will function using virtual power, minus the resistance control feature.

For example, Zwift only requires a speed sensor on your rear wheel and a supported trainer which Zwift can use its power curve to establish virtual power (or zPower in Zwift). To use virtual power with Zwift, pair a speed sensor and “classic trainer” and Zwift will calculate a virtual power for the ride. (Described in vivid detail on our intro-to-Zwift series, installment-1.)

TrainerRoad has a similar process. Under the device screen in TrainerRoad, simply “Enable Virtual Power” and then pair your bike trainer from the drop-down menu and then pair a speed and cadence sensor. TrainerRoad has a nice description on setting up virtual power with its software.

Each virtual training platform offers tips and compatible trainers on their website for training with virtual power so I recommend following their directions when using their software platforms.

The post Turbo Trainers and Rollers first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Technical Specifications

The Elite Direto delivers on the required imperatives for compatibility. It supports Ant+ and FE-C, and BTLE 4.0, and is compatible with nearly every bike frame on the market, including those with thru axles, and with dropout widths of 130mm, 135mm, 142 x 12mm, and supports 9/10/11 speed cassettes by SRAM, Shimano, and Campagnolo (with adapter).

The Direto uses a 5-foot power cord with a thin cable housing that plugs into the front of the trainer. The cord is noticeably short when compared to the 9.5-foot power cord that is standard with the Neo and Kickr and I have read of a couple cable cords being accidentally damaged that might not have been with a sturdier power cord. Without power, the Direto will deliver 200 watts of resistance.

The body of the Direto is constructed mostly of hard plastic, with an integrated handle, while the legs are hollowed steel and held in place via a nut-bolt system, instead of a spring based system found in most other direct drive smart trainers. The result is a trainer that weighs about 33 lbs, or 15lbs lighter than the Kickr or Neo.

The Direto does not come with a riser block; when attached to a TT style bike, the front end will have a drop of about 1.5 inches. You must provide your own cassette. The flywheel and cassette sit about 15mm from each other, and I didn’t have any clearance issues with rear derailleurs.

The Direto uses an Optical Torque Sensor power meter with a claimed accuracy of +/- 2.5% and can provide L/R power balance and other advanced pedaling metrics with the use of its external cadence sensor and Elite software. The Direto can simulate slopes up to 14 percent; a maximum power output at 40km/hr of 1400 Watts; and uses a 9.2lb flywheel. With the exception of the power metrics, the Direto specifications are considerably less when compared to the KICKR, Neo, or Hammer which boast 20% slopes, 2000 Watts, and 20lb flywheels.

Though the Direto comes up a bit short of its competitors, its decision to omit the gaudiest of überspecs may be a strategic win at the cash register. While a lighter flywheel may not deliver a ride quality the equal to flywheels considerably heavier, are you worried that you might max out a trainer with a 1400 watt upper limit? Or will ride a simulated route with inclines greater than 14 percent?

Getting Started

The Direto required very little assembly: Install the three legs with the supplied bolts and Allen key wrench, and slide on a cassette. As mentioned, the legs are not spring activated so they require tightening a bolt for the desired position. The three legs are not individually length adjustable, so this trainer is not optimized for use on uneven surfaces.

Once the Direto is powered-up there are three LED lights on the unit that indicate its status. At the initial start-up there are green- and blue-blinking LED’s: Blinking green means it’s awaiting a connection to Ant+ sensor; blinking blue means it’s looking for a BTLE to pair with. The red LED just means the unit is powered.

Once powered, I’d recommend pairing Elite’s free mobile training applications available in both iOS and Android. Although one should be able to do a spin down via other means (e.g. bike computer, Zwift), I found some early software glitches made this difficult and the best means was via their own application.

Software Testing

The Elite Direto is compatible with a bunch of training platforms and bike computers. I tested the Direto on TrainerRoad, Rouvy, Zwift, and its mobile application and it performed quite well. I did notice that the Direto is slower to react to changes in power or grade versus some of the other smart trainers and there is a hill on Zwift that is beyond its 14% maximum grade. To be fair, a user who is not testing on various other smart trainers on a regular basis probably wouldn’t even notice the difference in feel or smoothness but it is there nonetheless.

I did not have any problems recording data using Garmin devices (Fenix 5x and 520/1030) and Wahoo devices (Elemnt and Bolt). The Direto broadcasts power, cadence, and speed. There are some software glitches (see above) in speed and cadence recording for some bike computers (Elite says its working on these) but this does not appear to be affecting virtual racing platforms like Zwift.

Power, Sound, & Vibration Testing

In order to be consistent in testing indoor trainers, I have a dedicated workout for trainers. I test across a spectrum of wattages and intervals, trying to focus on the most common intervals (200, 250, 300 watts) and then throw in some hard efforts (1200 watts) and easy efforts (100 watts) where differences can be extreme.

In this test, I tested against the PowerTap P1’s and the Pioneer power meter which have been the most consistent and are generally within a couple of watts of each other (Note: Pioneer averages 3-5 fewer watts than the P1 pedals at the same power output).

After a 20-minute warm up, I ran a spindown test on the Elite and zero offset for both the Pioneer and P1. The correlation of the results was extremely impressive, minus some cadence issues. In fact, although the Direto has a claimed accuracy at +/- 2.5%, I’d say that it is closer to +/- 1%.

I also tested the sound made by the Elite Direto using the SPLnFFT application. I repeat the same test conditions for each trainer by riding at approximately 200 watts at a cadence of 75-80rpm on a freshly lubed drivetrain. The Elite tested 4db louder than the Tacx Neo, the same as the Wahoo Kickr, and 1db quieter than the CycleOps Hammer. However, under higher wattages (300+ watts), the Direto suddenly becomes the loudest of the group which is likely due to its open flywheel design.

Vibration testing using produced similar results compared to other direct drive smart trainers with the same caveat for the Elite at higher wattages. The image above shows vibration at 200 watts using the Tacx Neo while the second image below is 200 watts using the Elite, both on a hardwood floors.

Final Thoughts

The Elite Direto may be the most practical direct trainer on the market. At a retail cost of $899, about $300 below the Kickr or Hammer, it provides equal or better power accuracy with the same bike and software compatibility. If you are not riding over 1400 watts and can settle for inclines of less than 14 percent, the Direto may be a financial win over the Kickr and Hammer.

The post Elite Direto first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

Technical Specifications

The Hammer is in the same class of the direct drive smart trainers as the Wahoo Kickr, Tacx Neo, and few others. Its specs and design are on par with others in this cohort. It sports a 20lb flywheel, uses electromagnetic resistance, and is rated for up to 2000 Watts, 20 percent climbing grade, and a claimed power accuracy of +/- 3% with internal temperature control.

It may well have the widest compatibility of all the trainers on the market, supporting dual BTLE 4.0 and Ant+FE-C, along with being compatible with the growing number of thru-axle frames. The Hammer works with fork widths of 130mm, 135mm, 142 x 12mm, and 148mm x 12mm, with included adapters. Thru axle adapters are aftermarket purchases for both the Tacx Neo and Wahoo Kickr. The distance between the cassette and the body of the trainer measures about 7mm and is approximately 13.25 inches from the ground to the QR skewer.

Size? It is a beast weighing in at 48.3 lbs on my scale with a cassette, and has an extended footprint of 48cm in height, it’s 49cm long, and is 78cm with legs extended (21cm folded). This makes it the widest in its class and may be the most stable. It comes with an integrated handle but this trainer (like the Tacx NEO) will not be the choice for a travel trainer.

Getting Started

The CycleOps Hammer is nearly ready to go out of the box, with the exception of a user needing to supply their own cassette and QR skewer which are not being included. Once the cassette is installed, the legs on the Hammer are easily opened by pushing upon small yellow levers on each side of the Hammer and pulling the legs forward from underneath. The Hammer legs also have adjustable legs for any uneven surfaces.

Underneath the trainer, hidden with the legs, is a front wheel tray. I loved the idea of the integrated storage for the tray however it is not needed for the and since it is made of thin plastic with no rubber backing, it moved a bit to freely for my liking during use.

Once the Hammer is powered-up, there are LED lights located on the left side of the unit that change color based on its status. At the initial start-up, the LED’s are blinking green and once connected to an Ant device they change to white in color while BTLE devices will show as a blue LED. There is a red light that indicates an issue with the system but I’m happy to say I have not witnessed it.

Once powered, I’d recommend pairing the Hammer to the free iOS PowerTap mobile application for firmware updates or their mobile training app, Rouvy (formally VirtualTraining) which can function as a training tool, and allow for firmware updates, perform a zero-offset, and calibrate the trainer. The Rouvy app, available in both iOS and Android, is free for basic use but a subscription is required for some of the more advanced features. There is also the option to update the firmware via their online software (Rouvy) platform on a desktop PC.
Software

As with its competitors, the Hammer worked smoothly across numerous training platforms and devices. I tested the Hammer on TrainerRoad, Rouvy, Zwift, along with some others and it performed on par with other direct-drive smart trainers. Using Erg mode, I found the power fluctuated a little more with the Hammer than with the Neo and Kickr but the average wattage for an interval was in-line with the set wattage, albeit elevated. Also, the Hammer was excellent at releasing and re-acquiring a set wattage or slope during an interval, or virtual racing on Zwift, after stopping. Instead of trying to push 400 watts, or on a 15 percent incline Zwift hill, from a dead stop, the Hammer lets the user gradually build up effort before returning to full erg mode.

I also did not have problems recording data via Garmin devices (Fenix 5x and 520) and Wahoo devices (Elemnt and Bolt). The Hammer broadcasts both power and speed, however it does not broadcast cadence.

Of note, the recent update to Zwift allowing for calibrations of power meters does not yet seem to work with the Hammer while it worked successfully with the Rouvy and TrainerRoad.

Power, Sound, & Vibration Testing

After a 20-minute warmup and zero offsets I compared the claimed power accuracy of the Hammer (+/- 3%) versus the PowerTap P1s (+/- 1.5% claimed) and the Pioneer 9100 series power meter (+/- 2% claimed) at a number of intervals including 1000+ watts, 300 watt efforts and recovery at 150 watts. Such comparisons are not necessarily apples to apples but they can provide some clues towards tendencies.

At extreme wattages, either high or low as shown in the above two graphs, the Hammer measured noticeably, and constantly, higher than both the Pioneer and P1s power meters.

The good news, at more realistic power outputs and steady state efforts, these differences became smaller. The above two graphs are 200 watt intervals on TrainerRoad, the top graph using the Hammer and the bottom one using the Neo. The Hammer, although steady, showed elevated watts (15 watt interval average) versus the Neo (4 watts) compared to both the P1s and the Pioneer power meter.

Now, these power differences may also be moot with many training platforms offering the ability to match your power meter to your trainer.

I also tested the noise made by the Hammer versus the Tacx NEO and Kickr 2.0 under the test conditions of riding at approximately 200 Watts for one minute at 75-80 rpm, a freshly lubed drivetrain, a straight chain line, and on a bike trainer mat. The ambient room noise was 41db in the room. The Hammer averaged 64db, the Tacx NEO averaged 59db, and the Kickr 2.0 averaged 63db.

An important caveat for this testing is that I was required to remove the bike from the trainer for each test so that comparing the numerical results may not be entirely accurate when there is only a 1db difference between the Kickr 2.0 and the Hammer and subjectively the difference between the Kickr 2.0 and the Hammer was not noticeable but the Neo did remain King on these tests.

Vibration is a topic often mentioned as influencing the sound made by indoor trainers, particularly for individuals who live in apartments. The above image shows vibration at 200 watts using the Tacx Neo while the below image is 200 watts using the Hammer, both on a hardwood floors. Although the Neo is quieter, it was the Hammer that appears to produce less floor vibration, both in terms of the data and feel on the bike. This was measured using a mobile application.

Finally, the Hammer does require an electric current to be used. Without power, the Hammer tops out at about 50 watts, similar to the Kickr, whereas the Neo can reach about 220 watts without power.

Final Thoughts

The Hammer is one of the most stable and sturdy trainers on the market. At a cost of $1199, it is on par with its main competitors and compatible with nearly every bike on the market. Although it’s power accuracy was lower than some other direct-drive smart trainers, which may not even be a consideration if the bike you ride on your trainer has its own power meter, its smooth road feel made up for this shortfall.

Read more about The Hammer.

[Note: If you look closely you’ll see on the graphs above the watermark of our estimable colleague DC Rainmaker. We are not, as it might seem, using his work. These are our numbers analyzed on a piece of software we purchased. This company developed the software in concert with DCR, hence it bearing his watermark.]

The post CycleOps Hammer: Long Term Review first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

New helmets were displayed, with new aero helmets from Rudy Project, Kask, and others.

First teased at this year’s Tour de France, Giro has released a new aero road helmet, the Vanquish MIPS helmet. Designed with a magnetic wrap-around Zeiss visor and sunglass arm grippers, the Vanquish is claimed to test faster than Giro's Air Attack and the Specialized Evade. The Vanquish will be available this fall retailing at $275 and Slowtwitch expects to get hands-on with one for testing in the coming months.

Giro also released an updated cycling footwear line called Xnetic Knit which features a sneaker-like material used for the outer construction. The material is aimed at improved comfort, fit, breathability, and some would argue style. The Xnetic line will be available in the Fall with pricing ranging from $140 to $250, model dependant.

The Drag2Zero (D2Z) Aeroswitch helmet with visor may be the least conventional, but the most practical (except for its price), of all the helmets displayed at Eurobike. The helmet can be used as a TT helmet, or an aero road helmet, after removing the rear tail portion. D2Z reports that its testing shows the Aeroswitch Helmet is faster than the aero helmets of six leading brands. The Aeroswitch will be available in Spring 2018 at a cost near $390. D2Z also won a Eurobike award for their Encapsulator Suit, part of their new aero range aimed at TT specialists and triathletes.

Oakley also entered the cycling helmet market with the release of three road helmets with the ARO7 aimed at triathletes. The ARO7 features a magnetic buckle, BOA closure, and two Oakley visors utilizing their Prizm lenses. The Oakley helmets should be available in 2018 for $500.

Zipp updated its NSW and Firecrest carbon clincher line for use with disc brakes and tubeless compatible. It also widened the internal width of the 404 and 808, optimizing them for 25mm tires. The new NSW disc wheelsets now have their patented dimples extending the rim edge, including the portion brake track area. It also released a 303 Firecrest 650b disc brake clincher to cater to smaller sized bikes (Canyon is making its smaller-sized road bikes using 650b) and off-road bikes (Cannondale’s Slate uses a 650b disc brake wheel). The updated wheels will be available in September 2017 with pricing varying based on wheel depth.

The Shimano PRO line also announced the release of its tri-spoke clincher, optimized for use with 25mm tires. It uses an Ultegra 6800 hub, reported to weigh 1040g, and includes a wheel-bag. It should be available in January 2018 for $1,999.

Notio Konect stole the show in the electronics category with the release of its real-time CdA sensor prototype. The device can measure wind speed, humidity, air pressure, air density, temperature and integrate with other sensors such as power, GPS and speed data, to calculate drag coefficient.

The Konect, which operates via Ant+ and BTLE, can currently display CdA data on Garmin bike computers through the use of Connect IQ app, although they are also working with other vendors at this time. Users will also have the ability to conduct a post ride analysis in Golden Cheetah or their own proprietary software platform.

The Notio Konect will be available to mount to both road and TT bikes through an array of mounting options that will be available.

There will be three models available: Pro, Competitive, and Enthusiast. The Pro model, aimed at aero coaches, features a comprehensive analysis tool with additional data components, such as biomechanical sensors, for standard fit systems (it hasn't released hard data on margin of error or degree of sensitivity of their sensor). In speaking with the CEO of Notio Technologies, Marc Granville, the Competitive model would be ideal choice for most Slowtwitch readers, providing most of the same information as the Pro minus biomechanical data with the use of a power meter. And finally, the Enthusiast model, which does not provide aerodynamic data, is geared for those beginning to train with data and who do not own a power meter. It is expected to be available for purchase in March 2018 and although pricing hasn’t been finalized, the mid-range model will likely be in the $1000-$1500 range.

Stages showed its Power LR, promising independent left-right power. Known for its single-leg power meter, its entry into the dual-leg market is not a huge surprise with Team Sky using a dual-leg Stages power meter the past two years at the Tour de France.

The Stages Power LR will work seamlessly with the Dash computer head unit and Stages Link automated training system, in essence creating its own performance ecosystem. At first glance, the technical specifications appear to be competitive with other dual-leg power meters on the market (e.g. Pioneer, PowerTap P1) featuring dual band transmission (i.e., Ant+, BTLE), claimed +/- 2% combined accuracy, temperature compensation, IPX7 water resistance with a battery life of 175+ hours via a user-replaceable CR2032 battery, and only 35grams without the need for a magnet.

The Stages Power LR for Shimano 9100 ($1300) will be shipping this fall with the Ultegra R8000 ($1000) following shortly and Slowtwitch plans to test and review the Stages ecosystem this winter.

Garmin announced a couple of product updates, most notably the release of the Garmin Vector 3 ($999) and 3S ($599), the single-pedal version. The new release eliminated the major complaint with the previous version, the external pods that housed the battery. The batteries are now located within the pedal. Other notable updates are the addition of BTLE compatibility which allows the Vector 3 to update via mobile devices and work with all devices and training platforms (e.g. Zwift) using BTLE, a decrease in weight (179g down to 162g), easier install procedure, and movement to its own pedal system from the previous Exustar pedals. The Vector 3 now offers all the features that made the PowerTap P1 popular, while weighing less, better battery life, additional cycling metrics within the Garmin platform, and slightly better power accuracy at +/- 1.0%. PowerTap quickly noticed and reduced the cost of its P1 to match the new Vector 3.

Along with the Vector 3, Garmin also updated its Edge 1000 line with the Edge 1030 ($599). The 1030 adds features including: the navigation feature “Trendline” which maps the most popular routes for cyclists; alters for upcoming sharp turns; capability to reply to SMS with prewritten messages; built-in incident detection to alert emergency contacts; extended battery life to 20 hours with a battery pack option for an additional 24 hours; and enhancements to integration with Strava, BestBike Split, and workout functions. Slowtwitch will be reviewing both the Edge 1030 and Vector 3s in the coming months.

Wahoo stole the show at Eurobike 2014 with the announcement of its KICKR trainer and they did it again this year with the KICKR CLIMB, Wahoo’s newest revolution to the indoor training experience.

The CLIMB automatically adjusts the front-end height of the bike to simulate ascents of up to 20% and declines of –10% via information it receives from a virtual course (e.g. Zwift), or training platform (e.g. TrainerRoad), or via input from their bike computers, the Wahoo ELEMNT or BOLT.

The CLIMB pairs to its updated Wahoo KICKR or SNAP, via proximity pairing, and then work in unison to simulate the incline or decline. There is also a remote control that can attach to the bike to manually control the CLIMB for those without a Wahoo bike computer. The CLIMB will work with all standard QR hubs and supports 12mm x 100mm, 15mm x 100mm, and 15mmx110mm thru axle hubs.

In order to prevent damage to the dropouts of the bike while using the CLIMB, Wahoo updated the KICKR and KICKR SNAP with a new axle adapter system. Instead of the bike being locked into the trainer, the new system will rotate to accommodate the upward motion of the CLIMB thereby preventing damage to the rear dropouts, which is the reason it is currently not compatible with previous KICKR models or other trainers. Along with this update, the updated KICKR now also supports thru axle bikes and has increased clearance for disc brake bikes. The pricing remains the same for the updated Wahoo KICKR ($1199) and KICKR SNAP ($599) which will be available August 30th and the CLIMB will begin shipping this fall at a retail of $599 and Slowtwitch will be reviewing shortly thereafter.

Zwift also made its presence known with the announcement of its planned beta release for Android in the Spring 2018. They are also anticipating a beta release this year for AppleTV (4th generation) and some new roads and routes in Watopia, as well as a group workout function that will synthesize group events (such as races, rides, etc.) and individual workouts into one game environment.

The post Eurobike Recap first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

This is the first of a couple of products I intend to review on the subject of aero testing without any… er… aero testing. If CFD is a poor man’s wind tunnel, what I’m reviewing is a poorer man’s CFD. (Actually, CFD – Computational Fluid Dynamics, software that models expected aero performance – is a part of the process.) The other product is VelogicFit’s Aero 3D and I hope to have a review or at least an overview of it upcoming. Our publisher is in the middle of a review of VelogicFit’s 2D motion capture, same company, overlapping technology, but the application is bike fit without specific attention given to aero optimization.

Back to STAC Performance.

How Does It Work?

I met with Andrew Buckrell from this new Canadian company, and he ran me through his Virtual Wind Tunnel (VWT), such demo taking place in my garage. Using an IPad with an off-the-shelf attached depth scanner, Andrew took a full video of my static position from all angles, a process that took fewer than 60 seconds. The video produces what's called a point cloud, an image that is based on depths instead of colors and the video can be overlaid to give a full 3D model of my position.

One of the great things about the process is how it can be done with only minor training and relatively inexpensive equipment (IPad and scanner) and done nearly anywhere, making it incredibly versatile. Although we learned during our test that outdoors in the bright sun did not work quite as well. It could easily be used by coaches, LBS, or Tri Teams, upload the data scan, then it is remotely processed by STAC.

By the way, the technology used here was described at least 4 years ago and is current in use with gaming consoles.

I learned the actual VWT analysis is quite computationally intensive, so although a scan only takes a minute, the model is actually done after the fact to ensure the highest level of accuracy of the scan. For the purposes of this article, we did a number of scans in different positions and three different helmets: Specialized Evade, S-Works TT, and Giro Aerohead. Of note, which I didn’t disclose to Andrew prior to the test, I knew I tested 10 secs faster with the S-Works TT versus the Evade, and we both agreed that the S-Works TT visually appeared to be the fastest.

Once each scan is complete and saved to Dropbox, the STAC team begins its work. They reconstruct a 3D model and trim out the excess detail and background noise from the model, and then isolate the rider. Next, STAC takes this processed model and inputs it into its CFD program. Typically, they apply their model for a 0-degree yaw case (riding through still air), but it can easily apply crosswinds or other conditions of interest. Also, because they are working with a digital model, there are some modifications that they are able to do in post processing, such as moving/removing hydration or nutrition storage, or replacing wheels.

There have already been a number of professional and elite athletes who have begun working with STAC Performance, including Cody Beals, who is known for being meticulous when it comes to his product selection. STAC claimed that they were able to replicate Cody's previous wind tunnel results to within 2% of his measurements using their VWT. I had the chance to discuss STAC Performance with Cody who was initially drawn to STAC more as a would-be investor than a potential sponsorship.

Why did you decide to partner with STAC Performance?

"STAC caught my attention early on due to its groundbreaking technology and proximity to my home in southern Ontario. My background in physics, fascination with aerodynamics and fondness for indoor cycling made both the Virtual Wind Tunnel and STAC Zero trainer very intriguing. On top of innovative tech, I was impressed by the enthusiasm, vision and obvious brilliance of the people behind STAC. The STAC Zero trainer and the VWT are just the tip of the iceberg for this young company. I recently visited the STAC headquarters and couldn't believe all the concepts, prototypes and wild ideas casually strewn about the shop or floated in conversation."

I asked how he’s used the tech.

"I've done Virtual Wind Tunnel scanning sessions on three occasions over the past year. I've used the results to inform equipment choices such as helmets and hydration. We've also worked on fine tuning my position and we've even explored specific areas such as descending positions. STAC has also been using my scans in a fascinating series of experiments looking at draft zones and lead vehicle effects."

"I had the opportunity to visit the FASTER wind tunnel twice with Ventum, my bike sponsor,” Beals continued. "STAC has used that data to validate the VWT and demonstrate its impressive accuracy.”

Accuracy and Limitations

STAC Performance is in the processing of publishing a journal paper on this very topic, but they say that their own scale model wind tunnel testing has seen less than 1-2% uncertainty with the simulation results, tested over a range of air velocities and that they're within 2-4% of full scale wind tunnel results.

STAC also pointed out that at this stage, there are several features that the scanners won't pick up, or the simulations aren't capable of differentiating. The details include spokes or cables, visors, and fabrics or other surface finish modifications.

STAC Performance admitted they don’t see the VWT as a replacement to other testing methods either. They recognized it is best used in conjunction with wind tunnel or velodrome (Alphamantis) testing, in the same fashion that helmets, bikes, and planes are designed and tested with CFD and then other methods may be used to corroborate CFD data.

Results

At the conclusion of the scanning process, STAC begins the analysis of our various test poses. Generally, they will have the final report done within 24-48 hours. My report was nearly 29 pages long as we did some fun poses, more out of curiosity than performance. Their report is divided in sections such as: Summary of Results, Conclusions and Recommendations, Detailed Results, and Analysis where they breakdown how each pose will affect your speed for your next race.

A bit to our surprise, based solely on our visual assessment, the Giro Aerohead tested the fastest with a CdA improvement of .006 over the S-Works TT. Further, the CdA difference between my Specialized Evade and S-Works TT (.0026) correlated to results obtained during wind tunnel testing. Also, we did a well-known time savings pose, keeping a horizontal crank for descent, and this shaved CdA .005 from my fastest baseline pose.

Final Thoughts

Seeing how easy and portable the VWT was really a WOW moment for me in terms of recognizing the potential benefits that such a system could present. The ability to have objective, individualized data to improve aerodynamics or aid in product selection whether it be bikes, helmets, etc., is significant. At a cost ranging from $100-$300 for packages, along with a la carte pricing scheme so that people can easily get a checkup scan makes it equally affordable as it could be available. You can get up-to-date information on where they are available at their website along with information on their STAC Zero trainers.

The post STAC Performance Virtual Wind Tunnel first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

In my earlier article I promised an in-depth review after I’d spent more time with Halo Sport and here it is.

Technical Specifications

The Halo Sport includes an adjustable headset with a set of 3 primers, a recharge kit that includes two packages of solution and a cleaning tray, spray bottle, 2 sets of ear pads (open and closed), an audio and USB charging cable, and a carry case. The carry case is the perfect size to carry all the essential components to a workout as shown in the pic.

The inclusion of the closed ear pads are meant to reduce outside noise but, to be clear, they are not sound isolating headphones, nor are they meant to be. The Halo Sport requires the use of a mobile application to perform neuropriming sessions. The associated application is supported for iPhones 6 and up and Android devices operating with Android 5.0 and using BTLE 4.0 or newer.

One item of note: Although the headphones have bluetooth, they still require an audio cable for sound transmission. I spoke to the company about this feature, since the technology is within the device, and Halo Neuroscience stated they recognize that it is a wanted feature, but its adoption is down the road; they remain focused on the performance-improving component of their product.

Science and tDCS

If you are considering the Halo Sport, this is probably the section that will make or break the decision. Halo Sport uses a form of brain stimulation called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Through the use of electrical fields to the part of the brain that controls movement (motor cortex), Halo Sport claims it can create a state of hyper learning where athletes will benefit from faster gains in strength, muscle memory, and endurance. What does the science say? The Halo team did a nice job on its website spelling out the science behind the headset and tDCS, however I relied on an independent look using PubMed and other resources.

The growth of scientific interest in tDCS, as it pertains to movement and medical rehabilitation, has escalated dramatically in recent years with 40 studies published in 2010 and over 200 studies in each of the past two years (using search terms tDCS motor). A review of select studies provides credence to the use of tDCS as a plausible performance enhancer, even in trained subjects, with the optimal amplitude being 2mA over 1.5mA. Once such review study can be found here and here is a recent abstract on tDCS in trained athletes.

The potential use of tDCS for "brain doping" also garnered the attention of well-known writer Alex Hutchinson of Sweat Science, who wrote, "Frankly, I'd like to see anti-doping authorities get ahead of the curve and weigh in right now to restrict the use of electric brain stimulation for athletic enhancement." Now, although there are comparatively still few studies on the use of tDCS for sports performance, it is clearly beginning to garner attention of the scientific community, and now the sports world.

Getting Started

The Halo Sport works in a similar fashion to a pair of BTLE headphones. The headset is turned on via a silver power button located on the right earpiece and once activated, a flashing green light illuminates near the power button. Next, the user pairs the headset to the mobile app, which will locate Halo Sport and confirm the pairing. Once paired, the app will prompt you to choose your type of neuropriming session (i.e. Hands and Fingers or Legs, Core, and Arms). Endurance athletes will primarily use the Legs, Core, and Arms session as the other is meant primarily for fine motor movements, which I did not test.

Next step is to uniformly soak the 3 primers with water until they are dark gray, a step that is required prior to each use. Once soaked, the primers are then easily installed to the headset via a small hinge and magnetic closure. Now the device is ready to be worn, only slightly tighter than a traditional pair of headphones. A screen will then display on the app indicating if the connection between the primers and the user’s skull is sufficient for neuropriming or requires tightening/adjustment. The headset then emits an audio cue indicating it is ready to begin a neuropriming session and the application will display the start screen and an amplitude level at the default level 5 with the ability to increase it to level 10. All but one person whom I tested the device on was able to use it at level 10.

The level on the mobile app changes the amplitude of the tDCS from a low of 1mA to a max of 2.2mA with the default level 5 being at 1.8mA. As discussed in the science component, the Halo Sport, even at the default level, uses an amplitude that has demonstrated the greatest potential for performance improvement.

If the start screen does not display, a user will likely receive a "poor contact" error on the mobile app along with a visual of the strength of the connection via a 3 bar display indicating the strength of the connection with 3 bars indicating a need for major adjustments. Anytime I encountered the poor contact error I found it could be corrected via the following troubleshooting, in order: tighten/wiggle the headphones; add more water to the primers; clean the primers. If the poor contact error was the result of the primers requiring cleaning, it was still possible to use the device but it required significant tightening of the headset to a point that it was a bit uncomfortable.

During my testing I also noted that those with longer or thicker hair received more poor contact errors than other users, regardless of head size. A trick I found that even improved connection for those with shorter hair was to wet and slick-back hair prior to wearing the Halo Sport and this trick nearly eliminated any connection errors. This also helps alleviate hair products accumulating on the primers which I believe affected the connection strength, and possibly the lifespan of the primers.

The primers need to be cleaned and air-dried after each use, especially if you wear hair products, and the primers may need to be recharged via a solution provided by Halo Neuroscience. This helps clean the primers and restore their ability to absorb water for use. Finally, if the solution/cleanse was unsuccessful in correcting the connection problems, it may be time to replace the primers. Halo Neuroscience does not provide a definitive lifespan for the primers and I have yet to reach the point where they required replacement. However I would guestimate, based on the state of my primers, the lifespan to be six to twelve months under normal use.

Neuropriming Session

Halo Sport recommends using its device during warm-up once a day and only for intense training sessions (i.e., 3 to 4 days a week). The rationale is based on scientific studies that show the physiological benefits of a neuropriming sessions lasts for up to 60 minutes at the conclusion of a session and it continues during a consolidation phase that happens while at rest, hence the once-per-day use. The company also agreed that many triathletes may benefit further by waiting to use the headset until later in a prolonged workout for two main reasons: the skill/focus of the workout is often beyond 60 minutes; and it will allow users to improve their neural drive for endurance and maintain strong biomechanics or technique for an entire race. Like any athlete, I tried the more-is-better with neuropriming (i.e. 7 days a week) and I didn’t notice a difference compared to 3 to 4 days a week.

The neuropriming session lasts 20 minutes and there is a countdown timer on the app along with an audio cue to advise when the session is complete. It was not necessary to keep the app open in the foreground during a neuropriming session. Music or other audio files can also be played during a session. I found the audio quality to be acceptable considering the headphones' primary use was not music.

I had no issues wearing the headphones during active warmups, from sprints to plyometrics, and the tingling sensation on the skull becomes unnoticeable after a couple minutes for most people. Once the neuropriming session is over, a user can continue to wear the headset for audio but I highly recommend removing the primers as I found they could cause a headache if worn for extended period of time (greater than 45 minutes).

The sensation of a neuropriming session can best be described as similar to testing a 9V battery with your tongue: low voltage, slight tingling and high voltage equated to higher tingling. The same can be said of the difference between amplitude level 5 and 10 for the Halo Sport.

My testing indicates that the headset will work for seven to eight priming sessions per charge and it takes around two hours for a complete charge. The mobile app will indicate that the headset requires a charge, however only the Android app has a battery indicator at this time. So, while using my Apple device, on more than one occasion I attempted to begin a Neuropriming session only to learn there was insufficient battery strength to do so. Halo Sport did confirm that the battery status indicator for the mobile app should be released to iOS users in the near future.

Did it work?

During the 3 months of testing, I had no issues with the headphones, the primers, or the mobile application. In fact, there was only one minor update released during this period, which is a good indicator that Halo Neuroscience has things in order in terms of software and firmware. But what about some of the claims that their device can result in a 3.5% to 10% performance improvement?

Evaluating whether Halo Sport had an effect, or if the effect could be attributed to the neuro-priming, can be difficult in a non-laboratory setting. Unlike aero helmets or other equipment which can be tested in a wind tunnel and quantified objectively, performance improvements resulting from the use of the Halo headset could also be attributed to a number of subjective/outside factors that cannot be controlled (overcoming a plateau through time and training, having a good day, placebo). In fact, if one was not intrigued, or convinced, by the scientific literature behind tDCS, he will most likely attribute any benefit of neuropriming to something else.

During my testing, and sharing the device with an experienced runner and a fitness athlete, each of us noticed improved performance metrics (increased FTP, maximum reps, 10k pace) from 2.5% to 7% and a decreased perceived exertion particularly in extended workouts. In fact, one of the tested athletes and I subsequently purchased a Halo headset. It was tough to argue with the results. It is difficult to say at what point will users will see diminished gains or if cycling the use of tDCS may be more beneficial than continued use. Only time will tell.

Let's be clear, the Halo Sport will not immediately make someone a podium finisher nor do I see it improving seasoned athletes' FTP or threshold running pace by 10% after a month, but in a sport that thrives on marginal gains, the use of tDCS and Halo Sport does appears to provide athletes an edge in training that could translate to improved performance.

The Halo headset is available and retails for $749 and has a 30 day risk free trial. The Primer Pack replacement cost is $39 and includes 3 primers and a recharge kit.

The post Brain Doping with Halo Sport first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

The EMFIT QS is a non-intrusive device that allows users to collect and analyze several trends in established markers of recovery such as heart rate variability (HRV). Briefly, HRV is the variation in time between heartbeats. Research indicates that lower HRV values are correlated with the central nervous system still in a state of recovery from a stress (i.e., exercise). HRV trends may neatly predict overtraining or lack of recovery, key markers for endurance athletes.

The EMFIT QS measures full night HRV, heart rate and breathing rate, movement during sleep, along with some derivative metrics such as phases of sleep, autonomic nervous system balance, sleep score, and HRV recovery. The EMFIT operating system lets users analyze the various metrics via their web interface in several data increments including: 7, 14, 30, 60, and 90 days, or custom ranges.

The feature that distinguishes the EMFIT QS from other devices measuring HRV or recovery metrics is that it obtains all this data unobtrusively, while sleeping. No more wearing a heart rate strap to bed.

The EMFIT QS obtains the data using ballistocardiography via a hub and belt that is placed underneath the user’s side of the mattress, or mattress pad/protector, and then plugged into a power outlet. The device is then paired to the user’s wireless network via a unique device ID and it is ready allowing the hub to transmit data wirelessly to EMFIT servers. The set-up process took about 10 minutes, however if using WPS network, or 5Ghz WiFi, it might take longer. Once the hub is connected, there are indicator lights to show the system is active, and when it is in an operating mode.

Most recovery oriented devices on the market today require users to either put on a heart rate strap, or measure optically, upon awakening each morning, or require the wearing of a monitor throughout the day or night. Requiring a person to wear a device, or to take a measurement daily, often results in user non-compliance, or irregular testing, which can lead to faulty deductions when attempting to analyze data trends. This is a non-issue with the EMFIT QS.

The associated web interface is simple to use and provides many options to analyze the various metrics but is not yet capable of exporting data to platforms such as Trainingpeaks or SportsTracks.

The EMFIT QS is available for $299.

My plan is to produce a longer term review in the coming months, where I hope to compare this device to some of the lesser expensive means of measuring HRV, such as HRV4Training, and whether the data is reliable, consistent, and if the convenience of passive measurements makes it a worthy and helpful choice for measuring recovery metrics.

The post First look at the EMFIT QS first appeared on Slowtwitch News.

The BOLT operates on the same Wahoo companion app and operating system as the ELEMNT thereby making the initial set-up and pairing process to 3rd party operating systems and sensors identical as covered in the ELEMNT article or quickly described as simple and flawless.

What's the same

It was a great move by Wahoo not to water down the BOLT's features and technical specifications. They maintained nearly every feature found on the ELEMNT while only decreasing the size of the BOLT. A list of some of the key features found in both the ELEMNT and BOLT are:

• 3rd party Ant+ & BTLE Sensor support
• Wi-Fi connectivity and smartphone customization
• IPX7 water resistance, preloaded maps, and rechargeable battery via USB
• KICKR Control (Erg Mode, Resistance, Level and past Routes)
• Electronic Gear Shifting profile
• BSX & Moxy sensor support
• 3rd party integration with TrainingPeaks, SportsTracks, BestBike Split, DropBox, etc.
• Route creation via previous rides, Strava, Ride with GPS, or .GPX files
• Phone and SMS notification features

What's Different

It may be more accurate to discuss what is better, than different, when comparing the BOLT to the ELEMENT. The BOLT's primary differences will likely make it more appealing amongst triathletes due to its smaller size. When compared to the ELEMNT, the major differences are as follows:

• BOLT displays 9 fields versus 11 fields and the BOLT lacks LED's along the side
• BOLT weighs 2.2 oz. versus 3.5 oz.
• BOLT has a 2.2" diagonal display versus 2.7"
• BOLT battery life is listed at 15hrs, two hours less than the ELEMNT
• BOLT has tactile buttons
• Integrated Stem, Aerodynamic design, and 6 degree tilt *
• BOLT does not include an aerobar mount
• BOLT retails for $249 versus $329 for the ELEMNT

The differences listed above are pretty self-explanatory but Wahoo's work to develop an aerodynamic bike computer deserves a bit more attention.

Aerodynamics

Normally, aerodynamics would be the leading story when talking about the development of the Wahoo BOLT computer, especially amongst the Slowtwitch readership. However, nearly all the aero benefits gained using Wahoo's BOLT integrated system are voided when the bike computer and mount are shielded by a rider's hands or between-the-arm water bottle in a typical TT set-up. That being said, it is still quite interesting to examine Wahoo's mindset behind its development and what they accomplished.

Wahoo partnered with Dimitris Katsanis who was part of the design team for Bradley Wiggins World Hour Record Bike and the 2005 & 2016 Team Sky bikes, amongst many other credits. They tested numerous generic forms for optical gains using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and learned that designing a bike computer and mount as a single entity, rather than in silos, could optimize aerodynamics. The testing led to the BOLT having tapered sides, a smooth bottom and mount integration, with an inherent 6-degree tilt. Why the tilt? Wahoo and Katsanis found most riders tilt their bike computers up 6 degrees for an optimal viewing angle, exposing an even greater amount of surface area creating more drag. The result of the new design: Wahoo says that CFD testing by Katsanis claims the BOLT exhibits 50-percent less drag than Garmin, about 1.5 watts savings, or 12.6 seconds when riding 21mph over 40km.

Lionel Sanders on the BOLT

I also had a chance to speak to Lionel Sanders and get some photos of his setup prior to his Oceanside 70.3 win this weekend. Sanders began using the Wahoo BOLT two weeks prior after switching from a Garmin 510 due to connectivity issues he was having during races with his P1 pedals and Garmin.

"The first thing I really like about the Wahoo Bolt is that it pairs with the pedals, saves them as a device, and then does not search for any other power meter unless you tell it to. The moment I turn it on, it is searching for my pedals. I've tested it a couple times now, where I turn it on, and then go away for a couple hours, then immediately hop on my bike and start riding, and within five seconds I am seeing numbers.

"Moving from the Garmin, the companion app took some getting used to, but it is quite intuitive now that I have some experience with it. There are a lot of great metrics on it too. I usually just use NP, AP, Lap AP and Lap Time, but I am now tempted to integrate some new metrics into my repertoire. Long story short, I can't think of a single downside to the Bolt. I am definitely a convert."

So said Lionel.

The ELEMNT was one of the easiest bike computers to use with any device or third party platform. The BOLT maintained all the positives of the ELEMNT and arguably improved its design to better meet customer demand at a lower cost. After using the Wahoo BOLT for nearly a month, I have to agree with Lionel Sanders assessment, I can't think of any downside to using the BOLT.

Read more about Wahoo's ELEMNT BOLT.

The post Hands on the ELEMNT BOLT first appeared on Slowtwitch News.