@chloejm Best summation I’ve heard is from the HWPO resources “on the assault bike the relationship between rpm and cals in exponential, on the echo it’s linear”
Meaning your cals at 50rpm will be x for both. At 100rpm the echo will be 2x, but the assault bike will be more like 4x or x[sup]2.[/sup] Also the echo bike doesn’t start counting cals right away.
That seems to match my experience. Holding steady I get similar results. But then sprinting 10-20 cals feels way tougher on the echo.
So what I’ve found is sprints I prefer the AB. Anything over 30cal or .5k I’ll take the echo. But i almost exclusively use the echo bike in training. It makes AB feel easier, and I’m pretty sure it’ll be the standard across the board soon
@chloejm Personally I can rack up cals faster on the echo bike than the assault bike. my hypothesis is that the assault has more of a bell curve - if you're at a certain RPM, it's accurate. Below that RPM it underestimates calories above that RPM it overestimates calories. Vs. the echo bike which has more of a consistent, straight line (more effort = more calories).
Since I'm slow AF the echo is more accurate. i could be totally wrong though lol
@chloejm I think the way to test this is use a motor with known output to spin the pedal crank and see what it reads on each bike.
The problem is that the monitors make assumptions, and they’re not intended to be compared. If you bend the blade on the assault bike it’ll count calories like crazy - there’s no calibration from machine to machine like concept2 products do.
@chloejm Is there any chance these numbers are backwards? I held an average of around 71rpm on the echo bike for the 10 minute test and got 198 calories
