Vector 3 accuracy thread

So here we go... This is the accuracy thread for the V3.

Now for my first post here, I need to inform you, that my comparison is with a Kettler Ergoracer S (2016 model). Note this bike has a flywheel which resistance is being controlled electronic. The bike is calibrated according to a DIN std. and the bikes comes along with the calibration sheet. My bike is slightly below actual wattage. As a simpel test, I do get the same result when doing a FTP test either on Kettler or outside with a different powermeter. So the wattage must be about right.

Back when I had Vector 2, one funny thing, I had to set the pedalarm to 187 mm (actual is 170 mm) to get the same wattage as Kettler(!). Never the less is worked quite well. With that setting I got good comparable data from both sources. So when getting V3 in my hands, I started out setting the pedalarm length to 187 mm. Once done riding, I compared the data. To my surprise and happiness, I found that V3 had to be adjusted to 171 mm to perfectly aligned with Kettler. Sweet thing - so I adjusted to 170 mm. However on the following ride, V3 was clearly not showing enough(?!). Going through the same comparison, I calculated the adjusted pedalarm to now 198 mm...!?!

So my very first conclusion here, based on only two rides indoor on my Kettler with V3 is the following. To get aligned wattage, I see pedalarm length varies from 170 to 198 mm. That's a difference about 16%

Check out the charts below and let me hear your thought...

EDIT: can't upload my second picture. I'm gonna try again later...
ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1280575.png
  • Thanks. Two more questions if you don't mind.

    1) I set the crank length at 172,5 using the Garmin app. However when I launch the app again, it mentions sometimes a value of 222. Which looks like something is not working correctly. How can I be sure that 172,5 is sent to the pedals? I also sometimes use the Wahoo Elemnt to set the crank length. However, again not sure if it effectively is set to the pedals. Any ideas? Also the auto zero offet value is not remember. Whenever I set it to ON, next time I launch the app it is set to OFF.

    2) About the scaling factor. You mean I should do a static torque test to know what value to put in?
  • Thanks we take look at the data. There definitely appears to be something going on with some models of trainers when in erg mode.


    Hello, I am a user of Vector since they were released (Vector1, then 2, and 3 since last December). I see the same behavior as other users in this thread using my Wahoo Kickr in ERG Mode. Around 10W less shown on Vector, compared to the ERG power applied. Calibrating Vector, Wahoo (even after 20/30' pedaling) doesn't change anything. Get used to it, but it is worth knowing.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 7 years ago
    My vectors appear to read quite a lot higher than my Stages, Xert reports my FTP has increased by 40W between the last outside ride using my stages and the first ride on my Garmin. They're actually fairly close to what my Tacx Neo reports - I always assumed it was reading 30W too high as that's the reported zero error between the two using the Xert workout app.

    I did the torque test and the torque is accurate to 1%
    [TABLE="border: 1, cellpadding: 1, width: 500"]
    [TR]
    [TD] [/TD]
    [TD]Weight[/TD]
    [TD] [TABLE="border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0"]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 64"] [/TD]
    [TD="width: 64"]L Torque[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    [/TD]
    [TD] [TABLE="border: 0, cellpadding: 0, cellspacing: 0"]
    [TR]
    [TD="width: 64"] [/TD]
    [TD="width: 64"]R Torque[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]
    [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]1[/TD]
    [TD]12.52[/TD]
    [TD]20.91[/TD]
    [TD]20.97[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]2[/TD]
    [TD]12.54[/TD]
    [TD]20.94[/TD]
    [TD]21.03[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]3[/TD]
    [TD]12.49[/TD]
    [TD]21.16[/TD]
    [TD]20.94[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD] [/TD]
    [TD] [/TD]
    [TD] [/TD]
    [TD] [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Avg[/TD]
    [TD]12.52[/TD]
    [TD]21.00[/TD]
    [TD]20.98[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD] [/TD]
    [TD] [/TD]
    [TD] [/TD]
    [TD] [/TD]
    [/TR]
    [TR]
    [TD]Theo[/TD]
    [TD]21.18[/TD]
    [TD]-1%[/TD]
    [TD]-1%[/TD]
    [/TR]
    [/TABLE]


    I'm assuming this validates both the force measurement at the pedal and the crank length setting? So the only other factor is cadence? I assume that's correct - I've not read any reports indicating there may be an issue. Not sure how to validate that other than just counting revolutions for a set time. I'm not sure though if the vectors sample instantaneous torque and pedal speed at multiple points around the pedal stroke of just multiple average cadence by average torque?
  • I'm assuming this validates both the force measurement at the pedal and the crank length setting?

    That is correct.
    So the only other factor is cadence? I assume that's correct - I've not read any reports indicating there may be an issue.
    Not sure how to validate that other than just counting revolutions for a set time.

    There are a couple of ad-hoc ways you can do this. Play music that has a known beat rate, and pedal to the beat. If you want to specifically test 60, 90 or 120 RPM you can do it by pedaling such that your feet hit the same part of the crank cycle as the seconds indication on your watch or bike computer ticks over. We compare to cadence from a second independent source such as another power meter, or a crank mounted cadence sensor, using a second head unit.
    I'm not sure though if the vectors sample instantaneous torque and pedal speed at multiple points around the pedal stroke[...]?

    Essentially, yes. Both the torque and spindle acceleration signals are continuously sampled at a fairly high rate throughout the pedal stroke, but the crank position data is distilled down to a once-per-cycle cadence event and this is what's used for the power calculation, along with the average of all the torque data sampled during that pedal cycle.

  • For me, the average watt is slightly lower with my Vector 3 pedals (dual) than my p2m. Difference is 2-3%, but the alignment is pretty much spot on when compared between the two meters. I did an indoor ride the other evening to compare, and made a graph using the instructions on this website: https://athletictimemachine.com/2016/01/18/comparing-power-meter-data-on-a-bicycle/ The result is shown in the attached images.

    The first image is the first 20 minutes of the ride. Then I did 10 mins with both meters recording p2m to validate that the recording units didn't differ (920xt and Edge 800) and did another 30 mins comparison, which is the second image. I stopped the recording of p2m watts by mistake about halfway into the second comparison ride, which may be a reason to that the graphs' alignment is a bit more off towards in the last part.ciq.forums.garmin.com/.../1317738.png


  • What kind of P2M is it? As i see, its indoor, the Type S is sensitive for temp change (if the window is opened and and the room temp is changing) and needs an auto-zeroing (a 3-4secs coasting) on trainer (on longer , 2-3hs trainer session 2-3times apprx)
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 7 years ago
    I'm yet another Vector 3(s) user where it appears the pedals are reporting way too high compared to my previous Vector 2 and Tacx Neo. I've had a number of rides with whats looks like seriously exaggerated power numbers...an example is I just completed a 6 minute hill effort where the Vector 3s recorded an average power of 471w...only in my dreams! My previous best recorded avg power on that climb with the Vector 2 is 342w, which is a number that lines up with power efforts on my Tacx Neo for a similar duration. Both power meters calibarated, correct cranks lengths, install angles etc set. I know from my Vector 2 pedals that I have a 50/50 left right power balance so I don't see the Vector 3 being the single model being a significant issue here.

    I realise the above is not valid data for actual comparison, so I've set the pedals up on my Tacx Neo training bike, done all the calibrations, and I'll record a Zwift ride in the morning to see how the data between the 2 tracks. Given that there is a consistent pattern of users reporting the Vector 3 recording exaggerated power data, it looks to me like there's a real issue here.

    I'll report in the morning with more data....
  • What kind of P2M is it? As i see, its indoor, the Type S is sensitive for temp change (if the window is opened and and the room temp is changing) and needs an auto-zeroing (a 3-4secs coasting) on trainer (on longer , 2-3hs trainer session 2-3times apprx)


    Not sure actually. Am traveling at the moment so not able to take a look. Pretty sure it’s not a Type S though. Think it’s about five years old - got it when I bought a used bike.

    Indoor ride, no windows. Pretty large room however, ca 30 sqm. It gets warmer and more humid during a ride, but nothing crazy.
  • S_Staffan,
    than that is an old Classic then, which has no temperature compensation feature (they released a few years ago a new FW for the early Classic to implement this function but the customer has to send back to the factory to update it) If You send me a FIT file i can tell You, it is on the latest FW or not.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 7 years ago
    Which one is the V3? I assume the bottom one with the lower power output?