Previously, in 074 (with me!), The set power was achieved in seconds: 2 - 3 seconds around and up to 10 in total tightening to the set one. It could be. And now?
Blue color - Power2Max, fillet color - Direto XR.
Yes, I know - thin, but I can't press harder because the spine has not fully healed and when pressed, the rotation can be clearly felt on the lumbar vertebrae. Well, let's look at what is. It was supposed to be 4x30s (200W / 100W). 1s, 10s, 5s, 1s averaging is enabled in sequence. And? Crap. The lower threshold of 100W is practically insufficient, and quite a lot. The treble also, at least for those 30 seconds, actually 20 seconds of tightening in this case. Yes, it is smoother, but I find it very hard to accept.
Previously, power averaging had no effect on braking power. Ie. it did, but only to correct the power, because the tightening itself was just as fast in each averaging. Now it has an impact, and a lot of it. Let's compare 1s, 5s and 10s.
1s:
5s:
10s:
The influence of averaging on the slow increase in braking power is clearly visible - especially in the last one, but it is also visible in the 5s of averaging. Too bad, but let's say that it might be the case if the higher averaging was omitted and only the lower one, e.g. 1 - 3s, was left.
But what does it look like in firmware 074 and 078?
074 (3s):
and 078 (5s):
Yes, in the first 3, in the second 5, but these are the ones I have to compare. And what? Smaller fluctuations, but the VERY slow adjustment to the set power will not be liked by everyone (if someone at all). I don't like it and I think I will ask Elite to provide me with the previous FW. As far as they can ... They should give the opportunity to choose FW for people who do not like what they introduced.
Drops are loss of ANT + connectivity of the recording device (or transmitter?)
On the positive side, as I mentioned, the adaptation to the given load takes a long time, but then the trainer holds the given braking power nicely. Actually, for my purposes it is quite useful when I use longer rides in the lower power zones, watching movies etc and prefer to do intervals in either resistance or incline mode anyway. But for the ERG supporters, it is not very comforting, although I guess they have eliminated the problem that was a pain in some people, i.e. firing the power at the beginning of the interval. But at too high cost - 20 seconds and more of tightening to the set power to "slight" exaggeration ...
As a reminder, what the braking power curve looked like in the FW 074 (this time the purple P2M, blue - Direto XR):
Apart from the lag from the start of the LAP signal (approx. 3s), it is clearly visible that the resistance on the crank is changed normally, only the reported is smoothed. Let's look at a single interval (1):
In the P2M measurement, you can clearly see that the resistance increases in 2 seconds. It should be remembered that P2M has averaging, so the target resistance can be obtained even faster. The Direto measurement report is stretched because it is averaged to 10s. hence the longer rise time (approx. 10 seconds) as well as the fall of the reported power.
With smoothing 10s, it resulted in a definitely stable hold of the power, without any significant delays in reaching it. Note the data of the P2M power meter, the averaging of the internal measurement of the Direto XR did not affect the speed of reaching the set braking power (despite Direto reporting the average power), currently using averaging causes crying due to the slow reaching of the target values. Anyway, it is definitely too slow without averaging.
Comparing the interval with the power compensation parameter "1" and the data recorded by P2M, it resulted in a definitely stable hold of the power, without any significant delays in reaching it.:
And the power was as it should be: 200W / 100W. Now about 30W less at the target of 100W, and about 40W less at the beginning of each interval. So what if it reaches the target power at the end? 30s for braking power setting? It's a mockery!
You can see that the measurements with their mileage practically do not differ (I did not calibrate P2M, hence a slight downward difference, when I calibrate P2M, the measurements are very similar), and if we compare the last two graphs, you can see a slight difference in stabilization in favor of the first (second) plot, where the braking power is stabilized by a large power averaging, but this is not such a difference as can be seen from the waveform of the power data itself reported from the Direto XR meter.
And I want it back! The FW 078 is a breakdown of a quite well-functioning (for me!) Trainer.
How it works now is, to say the least, unsatisfactory. I VERY dislike it. And I don't think I'm the only one disappointed about it. At the expense of eliminating the initial leap of resistance experienced by some (not mine!), They gave everyone a VERY slow trainer, which is practically unsuitable for intervals in ERG mode. Maybe to maintain power over long intervals, minimum a few minutes, e.g. 5 minutes and longer. But shorter intervals of 30s or even 1-3 minutes? Forget it.
If someone has not updated their trainer, I advise you to think about whether it is worth doing it at all, because you may be unpleasantly surprised. Especially if he is satisfied with the previous action. However, in the event that he has problems with the old FW, he can possibly try a new FW.
ELITE request: give the option to choose FW!
ELITE suggestion: leave the resistance control as in 074, add the possibility of averaging the data separately for setting the Direto XR brake (but to make it work as in 074 - i.e. only to reduce power fluctuations) and separately for power reporting (I like 1s, but higher averaging in 074 good at ignoring power spikes, now it's a tragedy it's so slow).
