Body Rocket, the aero tech start-up known for its real-time aerodynamic drag measurement system for cyclists and triathletes, has launched what it claims to be the "world's most accurate cycling power meter." The dual-sided power meter, a set of pedals that clip into any Shimano-style SPD-SL cleats, boasts a claimed accuracy of +/- 0.1% and is compatible with Body Rocket's drag force aero system. The pedals are available to pre-order now priced at £1,500.
At the end of last year, we tested another world-first innovation from Body Rocket - the "world's first real-time aerodynamic drag force measurement system for cyclists" - designed to measure drag without a wind tunnel, bringing DIY aero testing to cyclists and triathletes.
The Body Rocket system consists of sensors mounted on the seat post, stem, and pedals, streaming real-time aerodynamic drag force data to a Garmin head unit for post-session analysis.
Now, Body Rocket has introduced its own power meter pedals, which can be purchased separately or used alongside the aero system. The British brand says it developed the power meter "upon finding that current power meter offerings didn’t provide a high enough level of accuracy for the system’s precise requirements."
> The future of going fast? Why live drag sensors might be cycling's next big tech craze
Body Rocket's power meter pedals, claimed to be the most accurate cycling power meter in the world, boast a claimed accuracy of +/- 0.1% with a 20Hz sample rate. For comparison, some of the best power meters for cycling like the Garmin Rally pedals typically offer a claimed accuracy within +/- 1%, meaning Body Rocket's pedals have a claimed margin of error that is 10 times smaller.
Eric DeGolier, Body Rocket Founder and CEO, says: "Measuring aerodynamics is about 10x as hard as measuring power, so in building our own system we ended up with all the measurements needed for power at, unsurprisingly, about 10x the accuracy of most commercial systems.
"While we didn't initially set out to create the most accurate power meter on the market, the feedback we've received from our customers and community has made it clear there's a real demand."
According to Body Rocket, these accuracy claims have been independently verified by engineers at the Silverstone Sports Engineering Hub. For details on the verification process and the power meter's accuracy, you can find further information here.
The data is streamed to any ANT+ compatible head unit, and you can also send it to the Body Rocket app, which provides post-ride analysis at a sample rate of around 1Hz for more detailed insights into your power data.
Body Rocket's power meter pedals are dual-sided and rechargeable, with a claimed battery life of 40 hours, but they are only compatible with SPD-SL cleats.
Each pedal weighs a claimed 185g, making them slightly heavier than the Garmin Rally power meter pedals, which weigh 330g per pair (approximately 165g each). They also feature a standard 53mm spindle.
The Body Rocket power meter pedals are available for pre-order now at £1,500, with shipping expected in June 2025. Of course we're not able to test those accuracy claims yet, but we'll be looking to get a set of the pedals for ourselves to compare with the competition soon.
bodyrocket.cc
Add new comment
8 comments
What's the power meter they use to provide the reference figure against which they make the claims for this one? Surely the former must be the world's most accurate power meter?
I mainly use 10 second averaging so I can't see this super-'accuracy' being relevant to me. Of course, that's not to say it's no use to others
Shrugs
It would be interesting to see exactly what is meant by the "0.1% accuracy" claim as on the face of it Plot 2 on the link which is meant to describe the process doesn't seem to support this statement.
Pointless. Nobody - not even the Pro's - needs this level of accuracy and certainly not for 50% than most existing PM's.
Impressive, but does it really matter?
I don't see 200W or 202W for the standard power meters 1% making?much a difference when training.
The primary use for such high accuracy (if precise) would mainly be for a Chung method based cda measurement system, where if you want a very precise and accurate output you need very high accuracy and precision inputs.
In his paper about his method, Prof. Robert Chung mentions that while you can get good estimates from somewhat lousy data, you can get extremely good values from very clean data
That's pretty impressive accuracy if true. For comparison, the best of the very expensive commercial torque meters I use at work (much larger, 10 000 N·m for engine testing) have a stated accuracy of ±0.03%.