Interesting

Control- AM-164 - History

Control- AM-164 - History


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Control

The exercise of restraint or direction.

(AM-164: dp. 530, 1. 184'6"; b. 33'; dr. 9'9"; s. 15 k.;
cpl. 104; a. 1 3"; cl. Admirable)

Control (AM-164) was launched 28 January 1943 by Willamette Iron and Steel Corp., Portland, Oreg.; and commissioned 11 May 1944, Lieutenant Commander S. A. Brand, USNR, in command.

Control reached Pearl Harbor 29 July 1944, and during August removed mines previously planted in the defenses of French Frigate Shoals. Between 5 September and 30 November, Control patrolled and escorted ships from Eniwetok to Saipan, Ulithi, and Manus, then sailed to Kossol Roads for patrol duty off the Palaus until arriving at Guam 1 February 1945 to sweep Apra Harbor. She returned to convoy escort duty from Eniwetok until June, when she put back to Pearl Harbor for brief overhaul.

Between 1 July 1945 and 11 August, Control cleared the harbor at Eniwetok and planted navigational buoys there. After serving at Okinawa between 25 September and 13 October, she returned to the west coast, and was decommisisoned and placed in reserve at San Diego 6 June 1946. Her classification was changed to MSF-164 on 7 February 1965. Control was sold on 30 March 1969.


45 CFR § 164.526 - Amendment of protected health information.

(1) Right to amend. An individual has the right to have a covered entity amend protected health information or a record about the individual in a designated record set for as long as the protected health information is maintained in the designated record set.

(2) Denial of amendment. A covered entity may deny an individual's request for amendment, if it determines that the protected health information or record that is the subject of the request:

(i) Was not created by the covered entity, unless the individual provides a reasonable basis to believe that the originator of protected health information is no longer available to act on the requested amendment

(iii) Would not be available for inspection under § 164.524 or

(iv) Is accurate and complete.

(b) Implementation specifications: Requests for amendment and timely action -

(1) Individual's request for amendment. The covered entity must permit an individual to request that the covered entity amend the protected health information maintained in the designated record set. The covered entity may require individuals to make requests for amendment in writing and to provide a reason to support a requested amendment, provided that it informs individuals in advance of such requirements.

(2) Timely action by the covered entity.

(i) The covered entity must act on the individual's request for an amendment no later than 60 days after receipt of such a request, as follows.

(A) If the covered entity grants the requested amendment, in whole or in part, it must take the actions required by paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.

(B) If the covered entity denies the requested amendment, in whole or in part, it must provide the individual with a written denial, in accordance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section.

(ii) If the covered entity is unable to act on the amendment within the time required by paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the covered entity may extend the time for such action by no more than 30 days, provided that:

(A) The covered entity, within the time limit set by paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, provides the individual with a written statement of the reasons for the delay and the date by which the covered entity will complete its action on the request and

(B) The covered entity may have only one such extension of time for action on a request for an amendment.

(c) Implementation specifications: Accepting the amendment. If the covered entity accepts the requested amendment, in whole or in part, the covered entity must comply with the following requirements.

(1) Making the amendment. The covered entity must make the appropriate amendment to the protected health information or record that is the subject of the request for amendment by, at a minimum, identifying the records in the designated record set that are affected by the amendment and appending or otherwise providing a link to the location of the amendment.

(2) Informing the individual. In accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, the covered entity must timely inform the individual that the amendment is accepted and obtain the individual's identification of and agreement to have the covered entity notify the relevant persons with which the amendment needs to be shared in accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section.

(3) Informing others. The covered entity must make reasonable efforts to inform and provide the amendment within a reasonable time to:

(i) Persons identified by the individual as having received protected health information about the individual and needing the amendment and

(ii) Persons, including business associates, that the covered entity knows have the protected health information that is the subject of the amendment and that may have relied, or could foreseeably rely, on such information to the detriment of the individual.

(d) Implementation specifications: Denying the amendment. If the covered entity denies the requested amendment, in whole or in part, the covered entity must comply with the following requirements.

(1) Denial. The covered entity must provide the individual with a timely, written denial, in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section. The denial must use plain language and contain:

(i) The basis for the denial, in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section

(ii) The individual's right to submit a written statement disagreeing with the denial and how the individual may file such a statement

(iii) A statement that, if the individual does not submit a statement of disagreement, the individual may request that the covered entity provide the individual's request for amendment and the denial with any future disclosures of the protected health information that is the subject of the amendment and

(iv) A description of how the individual may complain to the covered entity pursuant to the complaint procedures established in § 164.530(d) or to the Secretary pursuant to the procedures established in § 160.306. The description must include the name, or title, and telephone number of the contact person or office designated in § 164.530(a)(1)(ii).

(2) Statement of disagreement. The covered entity must permit the individual to submit to the covered entity a written statement disagreeing with the denial of all or part of a requested amendment and the basis of such disagreement. The covered entity may reasonably limit the length of a statement of disagreement.

(3) Rebuttal statement. The covered entity may prepare a written rebuttal to the individual's statement of disagreement. Whenever such a rebuttal is prepared, the covered entity must provide a copy to the individual who submitted the statement of disagreement.

(4) Recordkeeping. The covered entity must, as appropriate, identify the record or protected health information in the designated record set that is the subject of the disputed amendment and append or otherwise link the individual's request for an amendment, the covered entity's denial of the request, the individual's statement of disagreement, if any, and the covered entity's rebuttal, if any, to the designated record set.

(i) If a statement of disagreement has been submitted by the individual, the covered entity must include the material appended in accordance with paragraph (d)(4) of this section, or, at the election of the covered entity, an accurate summary of any such information, with any subsequent disclosure of the protected health information to which the disagreement relates.

(ii) If the individual has not submitted a written statement of disagreement, the covered entity must include the individual's request for amendment and its denial, or an accurate summary of such information, with any subsequent disclosure of the protected health information only if the individual has requested such action in accordance with paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section.

(iii) When a subsequent disclosure described in paragraph (d)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section is made using a standard transaction under part 162 of this subchapter that does not permit the additional material to be included with the disclosure, the covered entity may separately transmit the material required by paragraph (d)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section, as applicable, to the recipient of the standard transaction.

(e) Implementation specification: Actions on notices of amendment. A covered entity that is informed by another covered entity of an amendment to an individual's protected health information, in accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this section, must amend the protected health information in designated record sets as provided by paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(f) Implementation specification: Documentation. A covered entity must document the titles of the persons or offices responsible for receiving and processing requests for amendments by individuals and retain the documentation as required by § 164.530(j).


How to View, Search and Delete History in Chrome

Use Ctrl+H to go to your history in Chrome. The history appears on a full page in a new tab, organized by time. Mobile users should tap the three-button menu and choose History.

You can browse search history in Chrome with the search box at the top of the History page. Just start typing, and your search history will become filtered automatically to show only the items that match your search.

If you're using the Chrome mobile app, tap the search icon at the top to find the search box.

If you find part of your Chrome search history that you want to keep but decide that there's something particular you want to remove, press the three-dotted button next to that specific item, and then choose Remove from history.

Mobile users can erase a single website from their history by tapping the small x off to the right.

Another way to erase your Chrome search history is to delete it all in one action.

Select Clear browsing data to open a new window, and choose Browsing history.

You can change the Time range value to whatever works for you, and then press Clear data to delete your browsing history and search history.

The Chrome app for mobile devices works the same way: use the Clear browsing data link on the History page to see the same screen shown above.


Early American History Auctions

NEW YORK — Itinerant carver Wilhelm Schimmel (Germany and America, 1817-1890) was certainly a colorful character. He was known for having a rough and tumble life, punctuated by heavy drinking, bouts with the law, and possibly cheating death a few times. He emigrated to Pennsylvania from Germany around 1860 and became known as one of […]

RANCHO SANTA FE, Calif. – Early American History Auctions, Inc. is presenting an important Autograph and Historic Americana auction featuring 311 lots that will close on Saturday, Jan. 23. Bid absentee or live online through LiveAuctioneers.

NEW YORK – What better way to honor Independence Day than to look at the words written by people who first fought for America’s independence? In honor of the Fourth of July, Auction Central News looks at letters written by officers who fought in the Continental Army to hear in their own words what the […]

NEW YORK – Nearly every American must surely be familiar with the name Paul Revere, if only for his famous midnight ride in 1775, alerting the Colonial militia to approaching British forces prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord in the Revolutionary War. The ride was made even more famous in Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s […]


Overview of Pro-gun Arguments

  • A well-armed population has the power to stop tyrannical governments. Our country was founded by such a battle, where a well-armed population succeeded in stopping tyranny and founded a government of the people.
  • Governments will inevitably abuse their power, and we must be ready to overthrow the government as a last resort to protect liberty.
  • Without guns, we are powerless to prevent government overreach.

Reality

It is worth noting at the outset that this fear of tyranny suddenly arising belies a fundamental misreading of how authoritarian regimes actually come to power. Namely, it assumes a false dichotomy between “the people” on one side and “the government” on the other. Government is not some foreign entity imposed on the people, which would only arise from a foreign country conquering the United States (not going to happen). Rather democratic government is derived from the people. A tyrannical government could only arise in the US with a majority of the population supporting it due to some economic or military crisis: in reaction, say, to a heavily armed minority attempting to enforce its will on the rest of the country. Government does not just “suddenly” become tyrannical. The debate should just end here. However, given that this a blog dedicated to thoroughly debunking myths, I will delve deeper.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The founding fathers were wrong.

Blasphemy, I know. Yet the idea that Militias are in anyway necessary or good for a free State has no historical justification, especially in the modern era. Militias (especially unregulated ones) are overwhelmingly detrimental to the existence of a free society, and at best are impotent in its defense. A historical analysis reveals that Militias are typically the gateway to tyranny, not the safeguard against it. A heavily armed population has little to no bearing on preventing tyranny.

Pro-gun arguments typically follow at least one of four paths:

  1. Our own Revolutionary War shows militias are effective at protecting liberty.
  2. Militias promote liberty.
  3. Armed populations deter tyrants while unarmed populations are defenseless.
  4. Disarming a population is the gateway to genocide.

All of these arguments are false. Let’s first look at our own Revolutionary War.

The idea that militias are the bulwark against tyranny typically begins in a faulty reading of American History. The Revolutionary War was not won by Militias, but rather the Continental Army with considerable help from the French. While it is probably an exaggeration to suggest that the Militia was completely worthless during the War, that is far closer to reality than the myth promulgated by some pro-gun advocates. And the Militias that did significantly contribute to the cause were organized by the states and represented a well-disciplined, cohesive fighting force that mirrored the Continental Army, not the minutemen of lore.

Moving to the modern era, Militias have a terrible history of creating tyranny, even when fighting against foreign powers. Militias that have been successful in warding off foreign aggression overwhelmingly opposed democratic rule. A few examples are Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba, Somalia, Iraq, and southern Lebanon in none of these countries did the militias promote a free State. Add to this list countries where militias have ripped apart society in tribal states or civil war (such as Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Colombia, and the Palestinian Territories) and we can form an even clearer picture of militias. For a more immediate example, one only has to look at the bewildering array of militias (more than “1,000” according to Robin Wright) currently fighting in Syria to see how little they promote democratic values and how ineffective they tend to be on the battlefield. While there may be an example of victorious militias replacing tyranny with freedom since the industrial age hiding somewhere in an obscure footnote of history, the rule that militias are detrimental to preserving freedom holds.

An astute reader will note that all of the examples I am providing are from poor countries or societies that never had a well-established democratic tradition. And this is true. While it is typically wise to refrain from comparing countries in different socio-economic strata, there simply aren’t any wealthy, free societies that use militias for self-defense. Every democratic country, with the exception of Costa Rica, has a standing army to defend it, not militias.

For examples closer to home, we can easily see that the Klu Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi elements, and the Black Panthers (all of which are or were unregulated militias) have done little to promote a free society. Perhaps the best example in America of the influence militias have on society is “Bloody Kansas” during the 1850s. Pro-Northern and Southern settlers, armed to the teeth, streamed into Kansas in order to sway whether the state became free or slave. The constant skirmishes killed 56 settlers, out of a total population of 8,000. It is safe to conclude that the sudden explosion in the number of armed men did not contribute to a democratic process.

However, gun advocates claim, armed populations never have the chance to stop tyranny as they are disarmed first. There are many cases though where this is demonstrably untrue. Yemen is currently the second most heavily armed country in the world (per capita), and it is currently a battlefield between a Western dictatorship and various Jihadist organizations who have no love for a free State. Saudi Arabia and several other Arab countries are heavily armed, with what can only be described as tyrannical governments. Iraq before the 2003 US invasion is perhaps the best example. Saddam Hussein falls under any definition of a tyrannical dictator, yet the Iraqi people were very heavily armed with a gun culture mirroring that of the US. How armed a population is appears to have no empirical bearing on how free that society is.

Along with reversing the likely causality, the idea that gun control leads to genocide is a pure example of post hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”). Oftentimes, the argument gun advocates advance is as simplistic as: name a dictator, claim he supported gun control. The entire process of determining which dictator did what quickly devolves into an exercise of historical whack-a-mole. As there are dozens of dictators various gun advocates claim used gun control to disarm and then murder people, I will only focus on a few of the main tyrants. Regimes that haven’t engaged in genocidal acts (such as Cuba and Venezuela) will be excluded. Yes these countries have stiff gun control, but so does nearly every modernized country in the world, including England, Australia, Canada, France, Switzerland, Israel, etc. While Nazi Germany is not one of the examples provided by the widely circulated “A Little Gun History,” it is often the first alleged case of gun control leading to tyranny and genocide that gun advocates advance.

Hitler took the guns

If only to affirm Godwin’s Law, the most frequently used example of gun control leading to genocide is that of Nazi Germany. At a superficial glance, gun advocates do appear to have a point. After all, didn’t Hitler praise gun control? Hitler clearly lays out his beliefs here: “This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!”

However, like many widely circulated pro-gun quotes, this attribution is fake. There is no evidence that Hitler actually made these remarks. In reality, Hitler was relatively pro-gun. Most of the strict gun control was implemented by the Weimar Republic in direct response to rising street violence and to prevent an armed coup from either the Nazis or Communists. And to a small degree it was successful, as it prevented Hitler from seizing power by armed insurrection. The “gun control” law implemented in 1938, when the Nazis were fully in power, actually loosened restrictions on gun ownership. If the “armed populations prevent tyranny” maxim held, the Germans could have removed Hitler from office with relative ease.

When presented with these facts, gun advocates typically reply that their theory still holds, as Hitler did do his utmost to prevent Jews (as well as Gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs, communists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses) from owning weapons. Therefore, if they had been armed, genocide could have been averted. However, the notion that small groups of armed Jews could have succeeded where the entire Polish and French armies failed is completely inane. It took the combined might of the US, Britain, Russia, and our allies to finally defeat Hitler and his allies. Comparing this reality to the Red Dawn narrative of armed resistance gun advocates offer highlights how little merit the “guns prevent tyranny” hypothesis has. The few instances of armed resistance such as the Warsaw uprising were quickly annihilated.

Stalin took the guns

The hypothesis that a heavily armed Russian population could have stopped Stalin and communist rule completely overlooks the massive civil war (1917-22) that culminated in the triumph of communist forces. Lenin and Stalin didn’t need gun control. They simply annihilated any domestic threats to their rule. As Omer Bratov, a historian from Brown University, explains about Stalin, “the very idea of either gun control or the freedom to bear arms would have been absurd to him. His regime used violence on a vast scale, provided arms to thugs of all descriptions, and stripped not guns but any human image from those it declared to be its enemies. And then, when it needed them, as in WWII, it took millions of men out of the Gulags, trained and armed them and sent them to fight Hitler, only to send back the few survivors into the camps if they uttered any criticism of the regime.” It also defies logic that where the military might of Nazi Germany failed, scattered bands of Russian resistance could have somehow succeeded.

The Turks took the guns

It is true that the Ottomans/Turks seized the weapons of many Armenians. But the Turkish government also took the Armenian’s right to speech, property, livelihood, etc. Anything the Turks could take, they did. Seizing their weapons was simply one of many tools used by the Turks to carry out genocide, not the cause. The idea that a better armed Armenian population would have stopped the genocide is naïve. Although some Armenians were able to hold out versus the government (with the help of the Russian military or French naval forces), most batches of armed resistance were annihilated with artillery bombardment and overwhelming military force. As the Armenian National Institute explains, while the armed resistance was noble, it was ultimately the International awareness and pressure on Turkey that saved the remnants of the Armenian population.

Mao took the guns

Like the Russian case, the idea that Mao’s gun control allowed him to commit genocidal acts completely overlooks how Mao gained power in the first place: a massive civil war. If guns could have stopped Mao, they would have then, not at the height of his power. It also overlooks the fact that any type of gun laws would have had only a negligible influence of gun ownership as the vast majority of Chinese peasants (those bearing the brunt of Mao’s disastrous policies) were too poor to even consider owning a gun. Gun policy shouldn’t enter any meaningful discourse on Mao’s rule.

Guatemala took the guns

The rationale for Guatemala’s wanton slaughter of the Mayan population was to eliminate the threat of Marxist rebels by removing their support base. Guatemala’s genocidal acts were a response to an armed threat, not an opportunistic assault to take advantage of a recently disarmed population as some gun advocates suggest. The tactics to remove this armed resistance, unfortunately, involved the slaughter of unarmed civilians, and was spurred by decades (if not centuries) of pent up racial tensions. It was the presence of armed resistance, not the absence of it, which led to further atrocities.

Idi Amin took the guns

The Ugandan case is a prime example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in action. Gun advocates point to a 1970 Uganda law that restricted firearm ownership and regulated the types of weapons a citizen could own as the gateway to genocidal acts beginning in 1971 under the rule of Idi Amin. Had the population not been “disarmed,” the people of Uganda could have stopped the reign of terror. However, this analysis completely overlooks two very basic facts. First, the gun law implemented in 1970 was mostly an extension of a colonial firearms law dating back to 1955, meaning the number of gun owners would not have changed substantially. Second, the idea that the gun law was stage one of genocide is not viable, as the law was implemented in 1970 and Idi Amin did not seize power and begin killing people until 1971.

Pol Pot took the guns

The claims of Cambodian gun control leading to genocide is, like the Uganda case, a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that conveniently ignores the fact that there was a massive five year civil war from 1970-75 in which the Republican forces protecting the “one million educated people” were decisively defeated. As Robert Spitzer, the author of “The Politics of Gun Control” states the idea that gun control led to genocide in Cambodia and the other countries mentioned represents “a cartoonish view of the complex events” and the people touting these ideas “don’t know comparative politics, they don’t know international relations, they haven’t studied war.”

Conclusion

Even if the gun advocates’ deeply flawed reading of history was accurate, applying the lessons from these countries to the US is foolish. None of the above countries had well established democratic traditions at the time. Most of these nations were suffering from battlefield defeats or economic catastrophe. In no way do these scenarios bear any resemblance to the US. Even if gun control was the gateway to genocide in these countries (which was definitively not the case), such analysis overlooks the vast host of causal socio-economic and political factors that led to these tragic events. Extrapolating these flawed conclusions to domestic gun policy, in the words of James Madison, “must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.”


World War II Pacific Ocean operations

Control reached Pearl Harbor 29 July 1944, and during August removed mines previously planted in the defenses of French Frigate Shoals. Between 5 September and 30 November, Control patrolled and escorted ships from Eniwetok to Saipan, Ulithi, and Manus, then sailed to Kossol Roads for patrol duty off the Palaus until arriving at Guam 1 February 1945 to sweep Apra Harbor. She returned to convoy escort duty from Eniwetok until June, when she put back to Pearl Harbor for brief overhaul.

Between 1 July 1945 and 11 August, Control cleared the harbor at Eniwetok and planted navigational buoys there.


A brief history of the birth control pill

Antiquity: Ancient Egyptian women use a combination of cotton, dates, honey and acacia as a suppository, and it turns out fermented acacia really does have a spermicidal effect. The Bible and the Koran both refer to coitus interruptus (the withdrawal method).

1914-1921 Activist Margaret Sanger coins the term “birth control,” opens first birth control clinic in Brownsville, Brooklyn, and starts the American Birth Control League, the precursor to Planned Parenthood.

1934 Endocrinologist Gregory Pincus creates a test tube rabbit — and is vilified as a Frankenstein.

Katherine McCormick & Margret Sanger. Courtesy: Smithsonian Institute

1951 Sanger and Pincus meet at a dinner party in New York she persuades him to work on a birth control pill.

1951 Meanwhile, Carl Djerassi, a chemist in Mexico City, creates a pill by synthesizing hormones from Mexican yams. On a chemical level, the pill has been invented, but Djerassi isn’t equipped to test, produce or distribute it.

1952 The race is on. Pincus tests progesterone in rats and finds it works. He meets gynecologist John Rock, who has already begun testing chemical contraception in women. Frank Colton, chief chemist at the pharmaceutical company Searle, also independently develops synthetic progesterone.

1953 If Sanger is the activist behind the pill and Pincus the scientist, Katherine McCormick — biologist, women’s rights activist and heiress to a great fortune — is the money. She writes Pincus a check for $40,000 to conduct research.

1954 Rock and Pincus conduct the first human trials on 50 women in Massachusetts. It works.

1956 Large scale clinical trials are conducted in Puerto Rico, where there were no anti-birth control laws on the books. The pill is deemed 100 percent effective, but some serious side effects are ignored.

1957 The FDA approves the pill, but only for severe menstrual disorders, not as a contraceptive. An unusually large number of women report severe menstrual disorders.

1960 The pill is approved for contraceptive use.

1962 It’s an instant hit. After two years, 1.2 million Americans women are on the pill after three years, the number almost doubles, to 2.3 million.

1964 But the pill is still controversial: It remains illegal in eight states. The Pope convenes the Commission on Population, the Family and Natality many within the Catholic Church are in favor.

1965 Five years after the FDA approval, 6.5 million American women are on pill, making it the most popular form of birth control in the U.S.

1967 The controversy over the pill takes on a new dimension when African-American activists charge that Planned Parenthood, by providing the pill in poor, minority neighborhoods, is committing genocide.

1968 Pope Paul VI ultimately declares his opposition to the pill in the Humanae Vitae encyclical.

1969 Barbara Seaman publishes The Doctor’s Case Against the Pill, which exposes side effects including the risk of blood clots, heart attack, stroke, depression, weight gain and loss of libido.

1970 Senate hearings on the safety of the pill are disrupted by women demanding a voice on the issue.

1979 Sales of the pill drop by 24 percent in four years due to publicity about health risks.

1988 The original high-dose pill is taken off the market an FDA study shows the heath benefits of newer pills, including a decreased risk of ovarian cancer, iron deficiency anemia and pelvic inflammatory disease.

1997 Not just a contraceptive any more — the FDA approves Ortho Pharmaceutical’s Tri-Cyclen pill as treatment for acne.

2000 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rules that prescription contraception must be covered by health insurance offered by employers.

2003 The FDA approves Seasonale, a pill that gives women only four periods a year.

2007 What could be next? Lybrel makes the annoying period a thing of the past for those willing to try it.

2010 Fifty years after the FDA approval, problems remain: there are currently 1,100 lawsuits pending against Bayer Healthcare Corporation regarding blood clots, heart attacks and strokes allegedly caused by the popular pills Yaz, Yazmin and the generic Ocella.


Garmin Rally Power Meter In-Depth Review (SPD/SPD-SL/LOOK KEO)

Garmin has launched three new power meters today, all under the new ‘Garmin Rally’ brand, which supersedes the Garmin Vector power meter lineup. The Rally series includes three pedal bodies at this point: Shimano SPD-SL (road), Shimano SPD (typically off-road/MTB), and Look KEO (which they previously had).

However, if there are two takeaways to know from this review, it’s this: The Garmin Rally series power meter is but a spindle that fits into multiple pedal platform types that you can choose from – at least, as long as those choices are Look KEO/SPD/SPD-SL. Which of course, is the vast majority of the endurance sports pedal market, save Speedplay (and Wahoo just solved that last week).

The second thing to know is that if you already have Garmin Vector 3 pedals, then you’re also able to take advantage of this pedal portability, and switch between all of the three pedal types above – complete with an even newer battery cap design.

Beyond that, this review will of course cover the ins and outs of the Garmin Rally series of power meters (which, is effectively Vector 4 by another name). I’ve been using all three pedal body types over the last while, getting in boatloads of rides indoors, outside on the road, and then outside off-road. I’ve also converted a pair of Vector 3 units to Rally SPD bodies too – to test how that works. You can watch my full quick guide to converting your pedals here, and soon also a dedicated post on it.

Or, you can get the entire Garmin Rally In-Depth Review in video form with lots of sweet cycling shots b hitting the play button below:

In any event, Garmin shot over these media loaner Rally pedals/bodies to test, which will go back as usual. Though, the Vector 3 sets I used for conversion tests are my own that I’ve had for about three years now. Once I’m done with these loaner Rally pedals here shortly, I’ll box them up and send them back to Garmin. Just the way I roll. If you found this post useful, consider becoming a DCR Supporter which makes the site ad-free, while also getting access to a mostly weekly video series behind the scenes of the DCR Cave. And of course, it makes you awesome.

What’s new:

Temporarily setting aside the added pedal bodies, the Rally sets aren’t appreciably that different from Vector 3 – however, they do have a few minor tweaks to them:

Switched to pedal threads for the pedal body: This basically increases durability, but also helps protect a bit against overtightening
Adopted latest gen battery caps: In the never-ending Garmin Vector battery cap saga, the Rally pedals use the most recent Vector 3 caps, which are about 6-9 months old now. Existing Vector 3 owners can always call Garmin support to get these shipped out free if they don’t have them already.
– Switched to CR1/3N batteries: While Vector 3 has supported this battery type for a while, this is now the official recommendation from Garmin, as opposed to dual LR44 batteries.
– Minor changes internal to spindle: Slightly newer hardware components that get better standby/sleep time than previously, which should give you longer overall battery life.

However, the big-ticket item here is that you can swap between the three pedal types easily, using a so-called ‘Conversion kit’. In fact, there are basically 6 core products that Garmin is launching, and then the single-sided variants of them too. Here, let me explain. First, you’ve got the three pedal types:

Rally RS: Shimano SPD-SL Road variant (get it? RS = Rally Shimano)
Rally RK: Look KEO variant (RK = Rally KEO)
Rally XC: Shimano SPD MTB Variant (XC = Cross Country)

Then, you can buy *any* of the three sets as:

A) Dual-sided full power meter ($1,099-$1,199) – Rally RS200/XC200/RK200
B) Single-sided power meter ($649-$699) – Rally RS100/XC100/RK100
C) Pedal body conversion kit ($199-$249)

Plus, atop all that, Garmin Vector 3 is compatible with any of the conversion kits. So if you’ve got a Garmin Vector 3 pair today (which is Look KEO), but you want it to be SPD for your gravel bike or mountain bike – then you’ll just need to buy the conversion kit. As with before, they also still have upgrade kits (from single-sided to dual-sided – $549-$599), replacement bodies, and all the usual parts and such in case you need them. Here’s a simple chart that Garmin has showing the core models:

Finally, for lack of anywhere else to note it – Garmin seems to know they’ve got a Vector reputational issue to deal with. In fact, in their press materials, they lead with just how much testing they’ve put into this series, and how broad the testing has been. They have 125 riders around the world that have been using Rally, completing 6,000 rides for 110,000 hours of usage and 125,000 miles (200,000KM). They said this includes rides in rain/snow/sun, and in temperature ranges from 0-105°F (-18-40°C), and notably including someone who rode 430 miles over 47 hours. I can only assume that person couldn’t get his route to load on his GPS, and just kept on riding or something.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding. And certainly, I can show you plenty of data from this review (both good and bad data), and others can do the same. But only time will really tell. There are people, especially between year 1 and year 2, who rightfully gave up on Garmin power meters. Inversely, there’s also plenty of people who never had any issues at all. Of course, it helps that this is basically just Vector 3+. And by now, Vector 3 is pretty well stabilized, even if it did take nearly 4 years and a lot of pain and anguish for a lot of people.

Unboxing:

Each of the Rally pedal kits is essentially the same, so I’ll unbox one, and then show galleries for the others. First up, said box:

Inside, you’ll find the pedals atop some protective foam stuffs:

And then below deck, you’ve got the cleats, washers (more on them later), the manual, as well as some spare o-rings.

And here’s a closer look at the Rally KEO pedal bodies:

Notable is that if you can’t figure out whether a pedal is a Look KEO or Shimano SPD-SL (as they look very similar), the RK or RS name is written in super-tiny letters on the back:

Alternatively, here’s the two from a top-down standpoint.

Note the little peaks/tips of the silver strike plate in the SPD-SL variant as the main giveaway.

Anyway, here’s the quick-start guide. While you can activate the pedals with the Garmin Connect app (so that they get firmware updates), there’s no absolute need to, unlike some power meters. Of course, you’ll want to update the firmware from time to time, so that you can get any bug fixes.

In the box, there are the washers, which can be placed in between the crank arm and pedal, in the event you have clearance issues (either chain/derailleur clearance, or crankarm inset clearance).

And then the two o-rings are for the battery cap, just in case you need them. The batteries come pre-installed in the pedals. Also, there’s mounting hardware for your shoes, and then a set of cleats:

Again, the Shimano SPD-SL variant is precisely the same in terms of box components.

Meanwhile, here’s what comes in a pedal body conversion kit – in this case, for the Rally XC (SPD). Essentially it’s the pedal bodies, new battery caps (in case you’re coming from Vector 3), and washers/o-rings:

However, you’ll notice that the pedal bodies are lacking the pedal spindles. Again, you can’t just buy a $200-$250 conversion kit and have a power meter. You need the spindles from a Vector 3 or other Rally set.

Size & Weight Comparisons:


(Left to right above: Favero Assioma LOOK-KEO, Garmin Rally LOOK KEO, SRM X-POWER, PowerTap P2 LOOK KEO)

Next, let’s do a quick size and weight comparison. Here’s the two road Garmin Rally pedal bodies, plus Vector 3:

Then for comparison, here’s the Favero Assioma (LOOK KEO-ish), PowerTap P2 (Look KEO-ish)

Then we’ve got the SPD variant of Rally, plus SRM X-Power’s SPD option. Note that slight dust from actual use on both is included free of charge:

Oh, and some random weight tidbits:

Garmin Look KEO cleats/mounting weight: 37g per side
Garmin Shimano SPD-SL cleats/mounting weight: 40g per side
Garmin Shimano SPD cleats/mounting weight: 35g per side
Planned Wahoo Speedplay POWRLINK ZERO reference: 216g = 138g per pedal +

78g mounting (cleats/baseplate/screws)

This seems as good a time as any to talk about stack heights and q-factors. Thus, here’s your q-factors:

Garmin Rally (all units): 53mm (55mm with spacer)
Garmin Vector 3: 53mm (55mm with spacer)
PowerTap P2: 54mm
Favero Assioma: 55mm
SRM X-POWER: 54mm

And then here are your stack heights:

Garmin Rally RS (Shimano SPD-SL): 12.2mm
Garmin Rally XC (Shimano SPD): 13.5mm
Garmin Rally RK (LOOK KEO): 12.2mm
Garmin Vector 3: 12.2mm
PowerTap P2: 14mm
Favero Assioma: 10.5mm
SRM X-POWER: 10.5mm

And then some actual pedal heights for the MTB side with some comparison heights:

Garmin Rally XC: 40mm (power pedal)
SRM X-Power: 33.7mm (power pedal)
Shimano PD-M505: 37.5mm
Shimano XT PD-M8100: 32mm
Shimano XT Trail PD-M8020: 32mm

And for lack of anywhere else to put it, max rider weight:

Garmin Rally Series: 105 kg (231 lbs)
Garmin Vector 3: 105 kg (231 lbs)
PowerTap P2: No practical limit according to PowerTap
Favero Assioma: 120 kg (265 lbs)
SRM X-POWER: No practical limit according to SRM

Then we’ve got side profile shots:

Ok, I’ll circle back here in a bit with a more detailed comparison post – like the power meter pedal shootout post I did a few years ago.

General Use Overview:

Getting the Rally power meter installed is the same for all three versions, and requires just a pedal wrench. If you’re coming to these from the days of Vector 1/2 where you needed a torque wrench, that’s not really necessary here. But yes, you’ll need a pedal wrench, because, like almost all other pedal-based power meters, the spindle houses the electronics (so you can’t stick an Allen wrench in there). But I suspect most people considering a pedal-based power meter will have a pedal wrench. If not, they cost $15-$25.

For the washers, you don’t need them by default. However, if the spindles are too close to the chain, less than 2mm, then Garmin recommends using a washer on each (to balance out the q-factor). My chain clearance is plenty, so I didn’t need it on any of my bikes. Also, yes, I cleaned my bike after this shot. Just not before. I ain’t got time for that.

You can simply thumb tighten the pedals on initially, and then once snug just grab the pedal wrench to go all the way. Technically speaking, you’ll install the pedals to 34Nm (25 ft-lbs) of torque, which is likely a bit tighter than you’re used to installing pedals. So don’t go crazy, but if you lack a torque wrench, just give it a bit of extra snugness. Pedals will tighten over time by design, so at worst it just means it might not be as accurate until you get some nice hard sprints to tighten things up.

Once installed, you can use the Garmin Connect app if you’d like to, to pair it up and check for firmware updates. It’ll also set the crank length – in case you’re using a head unit that doesn’t support that. The crank length is *incredibly important* on a pedal-based power meter, and especially if you’re not running 172.5mm cranks. It uses this length to calculate power. All Garmin bike computers/watches support doing the crank length on the GPS unit, but not all apps/devices do. So by using the Garmin Connect app, you basically hard-set it in the Rally pedal so other devices don’t have to worry about it.

Note that on a dual-sided Vector system, the left side is considered the master/primary pedal, and all communications funnel from the right side to the left side. Further, the ANT+ ID and BLE name shown on a bike computer/watch/app will match the ID shown on the left spindle, just next to the side of the crank arm.

For calibration, you can do it from the app or your bike computer. It’s a good idea to do it now, and then Garmin recommends doing a calibration before every ride, though after the temperature stabilizes (about 10-15 mins in most cases). This is one area I dive into in more depth later in the accuracy section. I saw a couple of quirks here that I haven’t seen on most other power meters in a while.

Here’s doing the calibration on the app:

On your bike computer or watch, you’ll go to the normal sensors menu to pair up Rally. As long as it supports ANT+ or Bluetooth Smart power meters, you should be good. If on a Garmin device, it’ll see that it’s Vector and ask if you want to set it up:

As part of that, it’ll ask for your crank length. Most other bike computers will do the same. This will overwrite what you put in via the app, but hopefully those two match.

Once done, you’ll do a calibration using a Garmin Edge device. Most other GPS bike computers work the same way. As always, ensure no load is on the pedals and that you’re unclipped.

With all that done, you’re done and ready to ride. However, for most power meters it’s good to do a few hard sprints to settle things – ideally 2-4 sprints and then ideally a few minutes of riding in there. Then do another calibration. With the Rally pedals it’ll automatically determine what’s called the ‘install angle’, which basically means it figures out the exact position how the pedal is screwed into the crank arm. Ultimately, there’s nothing you need to do here manually – it just happens in the background, and then may send a brief notification to your bike computer that an ‘Install angle’ has been computed/determined.

If you were to move the pedals to another bike, you should ‘reset’ the install angle on your Garmin or app, so it knows to recalculate it. You can see the ‘Reset Install Angles’ option here, and I just hit it after moving these pedals to this bike.

The side of the pedal is where the battery compartment/pod/door is. This is the latest gen battery door, and matches what is I think the 4th generation doors for Garmin Vector 3, from 6-8 months ago. For those not following that saga, the one-paragraph version is that Garmin had significant troubles when switching to the LR44 coin cell batteries, for which you’d use two of them. These batteries differed globally far more than Garmin expected, and also expanded/contracted, causing battery contact issues inside the battery pod, which in turn caused dropouts/suckage. That in turn led some Vector 3 owners wanting to throw their units into an industrial blender. There were other pedal thread material issues too. Garmin has gone through numerous battery pod designs, and the most recent one aims to handle all these better. At this point, issues with new Vector 3 pedals are basically non-existent.

The new pods/doors on Rally match the last set of Vector 3 pods, and as noted earlier in the post – if you’re on Vector 3, you can get these new pod doors too. Anyway, as part of that, they’ve switched to using CR1/3N batteries across the board, which is basically a double-stacked LR44 battery. You can see it below (left is Vector 3, right is Rally):

This reduces contact-type issues with two batteries. While I’d probably have suggested they go rechargeable, they say they’re confident in this battery cap design. The benefit for consumers is I suppose a much longer battery life, in this case a claimed 120-150 hours per charge. Further, the only difference Garmin noted in the newer Rally spindles is updated components which should get most people much closer to that 120-150 hour range, which was apparently heavily driven by how much your pedals slept (non-usage), more than straight usage. In this case, the newer components in the new spindles sleep better, thus saving more battery life. They must not have any small children at home.

Also, I noticed the baseplate of the battery contact area is slightly different too. It’s gone from an H-shaped contact pattern to a four-pronged uppy-thing. Again, left is Vector 3, right is Rally [Update: Some people have noted that if you bought the most recent Vector 3 battery pod replacement kit, it now includes the newer battery base used in Rally. My guess is like the battery caps, Garmin also changed this out later in Vector 3 too. My pedals are older though, and Garmin never sent out new battery bases to people unprompted, just new battery caps.]

Also, as noted, the pedal bodies now have metal threads vs the plastic threads, which should significantly reduce people threading their pedals from overtightening, an issue with earlier Vector 3 (they had iterated the thread materials once or twice already in Vector 3 in the first year).

Ultimately, as with Vector 3 – we won’t know for a while on Rally. Remember that with Vector 3 it took nearly 6 months for issues to start cropping up, because that’s about when most people started swapping out the Garmin-provided batteries for random ones from your corner store. Now of course, since these are the same pods that Garmin has been using for 6-8 months already (after 3 additional years of learnings on Vector 3) – it hopefully reduces the change of issues here. All I can say is that I’ve had zero dropouts/wonk on any of my rides here on Rally – and then we can check back in later this fall or so and see if that holds true.

In any case, by now you’ve probably stopped reading and have already paired up your pedals – but just in case, if not, the pedals pair on both ANT & Bluetooth Smart. In the case of ANT+, you’ll have unlimited connections.

In general though, you’ll virtually always want to pair on ANT+ over Bluetooth Smart, because the spec for power meters is more advanced/standardized there, and you’ll get more information – notably Cycling Dynamics. From an ANT+ standpoint, the unit broadcasts power balance, ANT+ power pedal balance, ANT+ pedal smoothness, and ANT+ torque effectiveness – those are all baseline specs you’ll get on pretty much every ANT+ bike computer. However, if you’ve got a bike computer that supports ANT+ Cycling Dynamics, you’ll get added information like platform center offset/seated & standing time, and power phase. Here, let me show you.

First up, is all the charts you get on a normal ride – you’ll see the cadence/power/balance, and then the seated/standing position bits of Cycling Dynamics are mixed in there:

As you scroll down, you transition entirely into the Cycling Dynamics related bits (Platform Center Offset, Pedal Phase):

Then, down below in Garmin Connect you’ll see much of that same info summarized:

But there’s also a secondary tab there, to see all the Cycling Dynamics information:

And then this same info is seen on your head-unit mid-ride as well, using the Cycling Dynamics page on a Garmin device:

Now – whether or not you find any value in any of this, that’s pretty darn debatable. I think there’s some benefit in bike fitting, and certainly some benefit in injury recovery. However, after years of having Cycling Dynamics in my ride, I virtually never look at it, nor really know what to do with it. Garmin has a few minor things they note, especially around PCO – but ultimately, there’s yet – 7 years later – any studies I’m aware of that actually demonstrate how, from a science standpoint, any of this is going to make us faster in training or racing (or more efficient). Lots of ‘might & maybe’, or ‘coulda/woulda/shoulda’, but very little concrete evidence.

Looking at other pairing things, if you use Bluetooth, you’re going to get total power, cadence, and power balance – assuming the head unit supports power balance (most do). You’ll likely use Bluetooth to pair to something like Zwift or TrainerRoad. Here it is enumerated and paired in Zwift for both power and cadence as a single source (versus dual-sources for most other pedals unless put into a specific mode):

And here it is enumerated and paired in TrainerRoad as a single source, for both power and cadence

Both correctly pull in the power from both sides of the pedals, so you don’t have to worry about toggling any settings in the app like some pedals. I’ve also paired it up to a Polar Vantage M2 GPS watch, and it paired up to it just fine, though, I did get data dropouts from it exactly every two minutes – which to me implies a Bluetooth power spec negotiation issue. Given Polar has a long history of not playing well with power meter pedals specifically (see: Any PowerTap P1 or P2 pedals, the SRM pedals, etc…) – I’m going to guess this is more of the same.

Next, rounding home here, I haven’t had any durability issues at this point across any of the pedal bodies, including the SPD ones while mountain biking. While I don’t have the super-rocky terrain of high mountain territory, I do have enough things to whack the pedals on during my recent rides. I’ve clipped more than enough tree roots on them, and a few rock clips too. I also managed to crash with them and had the bike (+ me) land directly on the right side pedal. No issues.

Further, in Garmin’s media presentation, they noted they use a cinder-block test where they have a machine that fires the pedal at the cinder-block representing a pedal strike on a rock:

I don’t have such a cool machine – so I’ll have to defer for now to that and check back in a year from now or so to see if my pedals are still alive on my MTB (after I go out and buy my own).

Converting Pedal Bodies:

Now, I’ve got an entire post – and video – showing how to do this. So I’m not gonna repeat that here, in an effort to save digital pixels or something. But you can hit the play button above, or here to see the full post on it (post coming shortly!).

However, the main takeaway you want to know is that you can convert any Rally pedal to any other pedal type, simply by buying the conversion kit (which is $200-$250). While that might seem a bit pricey for just a pedal body, if you consider the cost of a typical premium pedal, it’s not that bad. Plus, it’s a heck of a lot better than buying multiple power meter sets.

The process takes me on average, about 3-5 minutes. However, Garmin doesn’t really see it as a ‘do this every week’ kinda thing. Rather, they see it as a seasonal thing – and in doing it, I agree. While it’s easy to do, it’s an operation that if you tried to do it every week, I think you’d eventually wear down some of the pieces from ‘over-use’, such as the internal nut/bolt that connects the battery compartment to the pedal body, or the tiny jewelry screws that connect the battery compartment to the internal nut.

Anyway, you can see all that in the post/video in plenty of detail. And again, this also applies to Garmin Vector 3 – which you can convert to any of the Rally pedal body types.

Power Meter Accuracy:

I’ve long said that if your power meter isn’t accurate, then there’s no point in spending money on one. Strava can give you estimated power that’s ‘close enough’ for free, so if you’re gonna spend money on something it shouldn’t be a random number generator. Yet there are certain scenarios/products where a power meter may be less accurate than others, or perhaps it’s got known edge cases that don’t work. Neither product type is bad – but you just need to know what those use/edge cases are and whether it fits your budget or requirements.

As always, I set out to find that out. In power meters today, one of the biggest challenges is outdoor conditions. Generally speaking, indoor conditions are pretty easy to handle, but I still start there nonetheless. It allows me to dig into areas like low and high cadence, as well as just how clean numbers are at steady-state power outputs. Whereas outdoors allows me to look into water ingest concerns, temperature and humidity variations, and the all-important road surface aspects (e.g. vibrations). For reference, the Garmin Rally series has a claimed accuracy rate of +/- 1.0%.

In my testing, I generally use between 2-4 other power meters on the bike at once. I find this is the best way to validate power meters in real-world conditions. In the case of most of these tests with the Rally series pedals I was using these other power meters or trainers concurrently in three basic configurations:

Road Bike #1 (Canyon Ultimate CF SL) – Mostly road + indoors testing

– Rally RS200/RK200/XC200 (used all variants here)
– Quarq DZero power meter
– PowerTap G3 hub power meter
– with Wahoo KICKR V5/2020 smart trainer (when indoors)

Road Bike #2 (Giant DEFY) – Baseline indoors testing

– Rally RS200/XC200 power meter (SPD-SL & SPD dual-sided)
– Stages LR dual-sided power meter
– with Tacx NEO 2 smart trainer (when indoors)

Mountain Bike (Canyon EXCEED CF SL) – Mostly mountain bike testing

– Rally XC200 (SPD dual-sided)
– Quarq DZero DUB power meter
– 4iiii Precision Pro dual-sided power meter (on XX1 crankset)
– with Wahoo KICKR CORE smart trainer (when indoors)

So…yeah, I’ve got a lot of data across all the pedal types as well as in my conversion post I do a comparison on Garmin Vector 3 converted to Rally XC too. I’m going to try and distill all these data sets down though since I don’t really think you want to look at that much data. But fear not, if you do, I’ve provided links to it.

I’m going to basically chunk this section into:

A) Indoor data
B) Road data
C) MTB/off-road data

I’ll mix the pedal types between them. I have two sets of pedal spindles, and three pedal body types (all of them). So I’ve been moving spindles/bodies around as I see fit to make it all work.

First off, indoors. Starting off with something straightforward, a Zwift ride on the RK200’s (Look Keo variant), compared to a Quarq DZero & Wahoo KICKR V5/2020. This was the Titans Grove loop, with rolling terrain climbing up over the ridgeline and back down again, with a few sprints tossed in. Here’s that data set:

As you can see, the three units are all very very close, with the KICKR V5/2020 being slower/lower than the rest of them, as expected. If we look at one of the sprints, smoothed at 5-seconds, you’ll see very close alignment. There’s a momentary connectivity dropout from the Quarq to the head unit recording it, but setting that aside, these all look virtually identical.

Cadence is very similar as well – minus a few connectivity-looking dropouts that we see on the Quarq. Not sure what was up that day.

Next, let’s switch over to TrainerRoad and a pair of Rally RS200’s (Shimano SPD-SL road variant). In this case, this was some 3-minute intervals on a Tacx NEO 2 and Stages LR crankset. Here’s that data set:

As you can see, the NEO 2 was surprisingly a bit higher than I’d have expected, by about 5-7w (on

320w). One could also argue the Stages LR (dual-sided) and Rally RS200’s were lower than expected. Generally speaking, the NEO 2 is a pretty stable beast since it has no calibration option and is well known for being pretty much spot-on. Granted, this is out in the shed with wonky temperature shifts, on this first day of spring.

In any event, cadence is virtually identical on this. The NEO2 of course has estimated cadence here, and you can see when that falters a bit:

Looking at the ride power curves, the Stages LR & Rally RS200’s maintain near identical values, even if the NEO2 seems offset:

Of course, whether or not the NEO was annoyed at me that afternoon seems to depend on what I was asking it to do. Just prior to the above set, I had the XC200’s on the same bike/trainer, doing some 30吚’s. That was before I then moved the spindles to the SPD-SL pedal bodies. So again, NEO2 vs Stages LR vs XC200’s (SPD pedal bodies), here’s that data set:

And frankly, that’s looking pretty darn happy if you ask me, as is the cadence below it. And generally speaking, 30吚’s can be fraught with ways things can go wrong, though this seems super clean.

But now we’ll take a left turn, into what is arguably the singular set that gives one pause. This was a TrainerRoad workout on a pair of RK200’s (KEO dual-sided). What’s notable about this is that in virtually all my power meter and trainer testing, I like to do a test where I specifically don’t calibrate at the beginning of a ride, to see how it handles. In 2021 (or frankly, for the past 2-4 years), virtually every power meter on the market has some form of active or passive temperature compensation, to correct for shifts in temperature (such as the day warming, climbing up a mountain as it cools, or going from outside to inside or vice versa).

And that’s exactly what I did here. The *day prior* I did an outside ride on my bike in the afternoon. Then, the bike sat downstairs in what is effectively a heated garage at the studio, but slightly cooler than the upstairs where my trainers are. So the next day I took the bike upstairs, put it on the trainer, spun the pedals a few times to wake up all the power meters to ensure head units were ready, and then left it alone for 15-30 minutes before starting my ride without re-calibrating. And unfortunately, this was the result – with Rally in purple offset above everything.

It didn’t compensate for the temp shift, clearly. And in theory, it should have. In talking to Garmin, Rally will both actively compensate for temperature shift mid-ride, but also will do its automatic zero as it goes to sleep (so the night before, but also slightly before my ride too). When it does its zero, it has logic to check if it perhaps has shoes on it, or is leaned against something – things that would apply for weight impacting the zeroing.

Either way, it didn’t compensate. Thinking it might fix itself by the next day, I left it alone again. And nope, still off on a quick test ride. You can see this easy trainer test below. The first half of the ride I just got on and started riding. Then I paused and calibrated (I also waited a couple of mins, as apparently Rally writes extra diag data to the file when paused, and Garmin wanted to see some of that data). But after the calibration (zero), you can see all is well again.

So, in my mind – that’s not ideal. You can see the Quarq DZero handled this just fine. And frankly, so does every other power meter I’ve tested in the past few years. And in this case, Rally had numerous instances to sort itself out. Thus, I’m less confident in how well it can actually temp compensate over time.

I asked Garmin about this, and this is what they had to say on how to handle calibrations when you take a bike inside/outside (Note: I’ve re-ordered these four paragraphs to make more sense, as they were part of two different e-mail responses but the content is otherwise untouched):

“For the best results you will still want the bike to have fully adjusted to the temperature it is in and then do the zero offset calibration. We expect that to take about 10mins per 10°C. If you were to calibrate immediately, you would be setting the zero offset based on a temperature that’s likely much closer to what it was inside.

There is a difference between our zero offset calibration and temperature compensation. The zero offset is influenced by temperature at the time it is done which is the meaningful difference we expect between your rides after looking through the data. Our temperature compensation is then used to ensure we maintain that offset throughout a ride if the temperature changes to protect against drift.

Additionally, our Auto Cal feature does have some limits on how much it is allowed to change the zero offset which we believe you would have been outside of from your outdoor to indoor ride. The reason for that is we do not want to accidentally get a bad zero offset in the middle of a ride if the customer stops and happens to say, have one of their pedals leaned up against something.

Like I said, this is an area I’d like to improve going forward and we have some ideas around how to do so. I don’t want our customer to need to know all of this and even more importantly, we want to do everything we can to prevent a ride with inaccurate power data that can then influence the rider’s training guidance and our quantification of their fitness.”

The TLDR version is to ensure you use the zero offset option, ideally about 10-15 minutes after a temperature shift – kinda like the ‘olden days’. And in doing that for all my other rides, the data is spot-on perfect.

Ok, so, let’s head out on the road for some data there. First up is a roughly two-hour road ride on a pair of RK200’s, albeit with a short mid-ride break for some filming (also a great unintended way to test that the auto zero/temp comp stuff isn’t doing weird things mid-ride). This is compared to a PowerTap G3 hub wheelset, and a Quarq DZero power meter. Here’s the data set:

As you can see, at a high level, it looks pretty darn close (spoiler, it is). Here’s a few sections close up. First, this nice steady-state chunk:

While it is very close, there are a few minor imperfections there – and in some cases the Rally seems a few watts higher than the others – but they all float very close to each other. And the same is said for the second half too:

Cadence is virtually identical across them too, save the PowerTap’s estimated hub cadences when you reduce torque/power for a split-second. In general, we actually see Rally pick up these faster than Quarq and PowerTap, which is notable (see how the yellow dips further than the other two, when they dip – note these are smoothed, hence why the dips don’t hit the floor).

Next, we’ve got another outside ride on the RK200’s. Same grouping of Quarq DZero & PowerTap G3. Here’s that data set:

Boring alert: Virtually identical again, even across 8 sets of sprints. Here are the first four sprints:

As always, getting power meters to agree to an exact value on a short 800w+ sprint is challenging, due to the precise sub-second time alignment issues with different power meters and head units and how they all transmit/receive. But nonetheless, it’s really damn close.

Same goes for the 2nd set of sprints. There does seem to be a handful of dropouts on the PowerTap G3 recording here, I know I changed the battery around this ride, but can’t remember if it was before or after.

As expected, the power curves here look awesome:

Next, a road ride back over on the Shimano SPD-SL pedal variant, on my primary road bike compared to the Quarq DZero & PowerTap G3 hub as usual. Here’s that data set:

It looks really darn good. Super crispy. Very happy with this. Especially since I had just moved this set to a different bike right before this ride. I merely did 3 short sprints, then calibrated (zero offset) again, and called it done.

The power curve below is pretty much spot on as well:

So with all the roadie adventures covered for now, let’s head off-road with my mountain bike. In this case that’s configured with a dual-sided 4iiii Precision Pro power meter on an XX1 crankset, with a Quarq DZero DUB spider-based power meter on there as well. But I’ve had some connectivity issues between the two sides of the 4iiii unit lately, so while I’m troubleshooting that, I’m just running the 4iiii unit as a single-sided (left-only) power meter. No biggie, but just wanted to be clear on that.

Note, analyzing power meter data from mountain biking is frankly…a hot mess. Mostly because the types of trails I have here in the Netherlands means very few climbs – thus, the data s constant surge and coast (or brake). Whereas something like high-mountain terrain you’re going to get longer ascents and more ‘clean’ data to look at. Ain’t nothing clean here.

Welcome to the party, here’s your first data set:

Oh, and I’m being kind to you – that’s smoothed at 20-seconds to make it barely readable. So let’s just zoom in on a few chunks, since that’s the only viable way to tackle this. Here’s a random chunk that’s somewhat steady-state:

As you can see, the Rally XC200 and 4iiii left-sided unit seem to roughly agree the most. Whereas the Quarq seems a bit higher than the others. For all these sets, I did calibration in two groups. First, after arriving at the MTB location, I took the bikes out and let them chill outside for 10-15 mins, then I did a zero offset. Then, 10-15 minutes into the ride, I did another zero offset.

Now, if you remember back to a week or so ago, I had the SRM SPD pedal power meter, and you’ll remember the Quarq also *appeared* to read higher there too than the others. However, what’s when I had smoothed turned way up (20-second smoothing). Take a look at it when I yank all smoothing off:

They start to look pretty darn similar, huh?

Here, let’s zoom in more – to just a 45-second section from above. What you see starts to explain it – just like with the SRM SPD pedals. At the second to second level, they’re all actually very similar. However, the moment I make a surge – the Quarq responds faster – and usually higher. What I suspect is happening is the exact same as with SRM: Everyone else is being slightly more cautious in their rough-terrain algorithms than Quarq.

So when the ground noise increases, it appears that Quarq/Garmin/4iiii are basically being more hesitant on the surges, and recording a lower power value, whereas Quarq is letting it fly- and doing so faster. As a result, once you apply a longer average to it, those higher surges pull the whole line up above others.

Now – does that mean Quarq is more accurate? I’ve got no idea.

And frankly, I have no way to test that. That’d require incredibly complicated test rigs that can somehow determine force while being vibrated senseless like outside on rough terrain. Yet, it explains why on the same bike on smooth terrain, things all clean back up again nicely.

Anyway, here’s another example of MTB data analysis hell:

And then cleaned up with a 20-second smoothing average:

And it’s just like above. Any time my power significantly increases, the Quarq goes higher than the others, while at steady-state, it’s relatively the same. And because of the smoothing, even reduced to 10-seconds below, you’ll almost always see the Quarq as higher for any shifts of power. Now again, that could be totally 100% correct. It is what it is:

Note, before I forget, I did see a single clip-in spike oddity here – an incorrect 1,100w clip-in spike on the Rally XC200’s with an Edge 830.

And you can clearly see it’s still reporting 0-value for the cadence at that second, thus, an improper spike:

However, while Garmin might be more conservative than Quarq on power spikes, Garmin is clearly faster on cadence pauses. You can see in the cadence valleys below that Garmin goes lower, faster, to each time I briefly stop pedaling. It’s not really a meaningful thing in most cases, but just an interesting data thing I noticed both indoors and out.

And finally, for those that want yet another data set, you can check out this MTB data set as well, for more messy but normal mountain bike data to analyze.

So – with all that, where do we stand on overall power accuracy? Well, in short for both road riding and indoor riding – it’s great and spot-on with what I’d expect. I mean, assuming you calibrate (zero offset) if you move between substantially different temp ranges at the start of a ride. Everything I see in this realm looks great, and honestly basically what I’d expect from Vector 3 previously. I didn’t see any dropouts or such that would indicate any sort of battery cap/pod type issues – or any dropouts indicating connectivity issues at all on ANT+. I only paired via Bluetooth Smart once, to a Polar Vantage M2 watch for a ride, and that did see drop-outs – though Polar and pedal-based power meters via Bluetooth have a long and complicated relationship – and given both products released within one hour of each other, I couldn’t exactly tell either company about the issues to have them troubleshoot. I’m not worried about that though on the Rally front, I’d strongly suspect that’s a Polar BLE-spec negotiation thing (again, knowing Polar’s pedal pairing limitations historically).

For mountain biking, it’s a bit more complicated. Like with SRM a few weeks ago (or even the 4iiii on this set), it’s clear that Quarq is far less conservative with its power values during surges on rough terrain. On smoother terrain, all units are equal. But as the terrain variability increases, Garmin seems to become more conservative with power values, and won’t show as high of power values (or, Quarq’s are incorrectly high). Again, I have no way of knowing which are truly correct here. And given the variability of dirt/roots/rocks/mud/sand/etc on any section of trail, there’s no viable way I’m aware of to mathematically reverse engineer these power values like you can out on the road using something like Virtual Elevation from Robert Chung.

Which isn’t to say Garmin is inaccurate – not at all. It’s simply to note that it agrees with 4iiii (and by extension SRM’s X-Power SPD pedals), and that Quarq is higher. I don’t believe I have any viable tools in my arsenal to deduce exactly which one is 100% correct in off-road conditions. But for everything else that I do have plenty of tools for – it’s spot-on.

(Note: All of the charts in these accuracy sections were created using the DCR Analyzer tool. It allows you to compare power meters/trainers, heart rate, cadence, speed/pace, GPS tracks and plenty more. You can use it as well for your own gadget comparisons, more details here.)

Pedal Power Comparison:

I’ve added the Garmin Rally series into the product comparison database, to help you compare it against other power meters. You can always make your own comparison charts in the product comparison database, but for simplicity I’ve included a couple of main comparisons below. Notably, I’ve shown it compared to the Favero Assioma (LOOK-KEO) and SRM X-POWER units, as the PowerTap P2 series has been discontinued.

Function/Feature Garmin Rally Series Favero Assioma Pedals SRM X-Power
Copyright DC Rainmaker - Updated May 28th, 2021 @ 2:43 pm New Window
Price$1,099$459/$719(single/dual)$1,199
Available todayMar 24th, 2021GlobalYes
Measurement TypeDirect ForceDirect ForceDirect Force
Attachment areaPedalsPedalPedal
Attachment limitationsSPD/SPD-SL/LOOK KEOLOOK KEO COMPATIBLE CLEATS ONLYShiman oSPD
Weight (additional/net)159g SPD-SL/165g KEO/221g SPD150g per pedal (inclusive of pods)172g per pedal
Wireless Connectivity TypeANT+/Bluetooth SmartANT+/BLUETOOTH SMART (DUAL)ANT+/Bluetooth Smart
Unit auto-turns on when on bikeYesYesYes
Battery Garmin Rally Series Favero Assioma Pedals SRM X-Power
Battery Life120-150 hours50 Hours30ish hours
User or Factory battery replacementUserFACTORY (SUPPORT ISSUE ONLY)Factory (support issue only)
Battery typeCR3/1NRechargeableRecharageable
Low Battery WarningYesYesYes
Features Garmin Rally Series Favero Assioma Pedals SRM X-Power
Measures/Transmits CadenceYesYesYes
Ability to update firmwareYesYesYes
Transmits Left/Right Power Balance (Measured)YesYesYes
Transmits Pedal SmoothnessYesYesYes
Accuracy Garmin Rally Series Favero Assioma Pedals SRM X-Power
Measures all power outputYesYesYes
Claimed Accuracy Level+/- 1%+/- 1%+/- 1.5%
Includes temperature compensationYesYesYes
Supports auto-zero functionYesYesYes
Supports manual calibrationYesYesYes
Supports hanging weights (static test)YesYesYes
Software Garmin Rally Series Favero Assioma Pedals SRM X-Power
Phone App to Configure/TestYesYesYes
Purchase Garmin Rally Series Favero Assioma Pedals SRM X-Power
AmazonLinkLink
Backcountry.comLink
Competitive CyclistLink
REILink
WiggleLinkLink
DCRainmaker Garmin Rally Series Favero Assioma Pedals SRM X-Power
Review LinkLinkLinkLink

Note that aside from pedal interface type (SPD/SPD-SL/LOOK KEO), all remaining specs on Rally are the same across all units. And again, you can mix and match your own comparison charts in the product comparison database.

Summary:

There’s no question that Garmin sees Rally as the one-size-fits-all answer to pedal-based power meters. And the mix and match pedal body concept makes a ton of sense, the idea that you can buy one Rally power meter set, and move them between bikes with different pedal types seasonally is something that will undoubtedly appeal to a lot of people. And basically, unless you’ve got Speedplay or Time, this pretty much covers most of the most types people use.

And while Garmin’s Rally XC200’s with SPD compatibility makes it an option for mountain bikes, I suspect the biggest focus area there is really gravel bike conditions more than nasty rock-laden terrain of some mountain bike trails. Certainly, I’ve been using it mountain biking just fine, but for most people it’ll be cheaper to go with a crankset-based power meter on their mountain bike – unless they are actively moving the pedals between bikes with different bottom bracket situations. But hey, it’s an option.

Obviously, the elephant in the room continues to be Garmin’s history with Vector 3. And no amount of shorter-term testing from me on Rally can really solve for that in comparison to 6-12 months of longer-term pounding/testing. Sure, design-wise, it’s effectively the same spindle inside the same pedal body (now with metal threads) with the same most recent battery pods that have been out for 6-8 months already on Vector 3. So that risk is reduced substantially, but I certainly wouldn’t blame anyone for saying they’ll check back in 2022 to see how they are going.

But for those looking for an SPD-SL option, there’s…well…no other options in the pedal-based realm. And for those wanting to shift pedals between pedal types, this seems like your best and only option as well. If you’re on LOOK KEO and trying to decide between Favero Assioma or Rally, I’d say it’d honestly depend on whether or not you plan to shift to other pedal types down the road. If not, I’d probably save the cash and go Favero Assioma (since you can literally buy yourself a Garmin Edge 530 GPS with that savings). Whereas, if you plan to mix and match pedal bodies, then I’d probably go Rally.

With that – thanks for reading!

Found This Post Useful? Support The Site!

Hopefully you found this review useful. At the end of the day, I’m an athlete just like you looking for the most detail possible on a new purchase – so my review is written from the standpoint of how I used the device. The reviews generally take a lot of hours to put together, so it’s a fair bit of work (and labor of love). As you probably noticed by looking below, I also take time to answer all the questions posted in the comments – and there’s quite a bit of detail in there as well.

If you're shopping for the Garmin Rally Series or any other accessory items, please consider using the affiliate links below! As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. It doesn’t cost you anything extra, but your purchases help support this website a lot. Even more, if you use Backcountry.com or Competitive Cyclist with coupon code DCRAINMAKER, first time users save 15% on applicable products!

Garmin Rally Series

Here's a few other variants or sibling products that are worth considering:


A Journey to the Oldest Cave Paintings in the World

I struggle to keep my footing on a narrow ridge of earth snaking between flooded fields of rice. The stalks, almost ready to harvest, ripple in the breeze, giving the valley the appearance of a shimmering green sea. In the distance, steep limestone hills rise from the ground, perhaps 400 feet tall, the remains of an ancient coral reef. Rivers have eroded the landscape over millions of years, leaving behind a flat plain interrupted by these bizarre towers, called karsts, which are full of holes, channels and interconnecting caves carved by water seeping through the rock.

Related Reads

The Oldest Enigma of Humanity

Related Content

We’re on the island of Sulawesi, in Indonesia, an hour’s drive north of the bustling port of Makassar. We approach the nearest karst undeterred by a group of large black macaques that screech at us from trees high on the cliff and climb a bamboo ladder through ferns to a cave called Leang Timpuseng. Inside, the usual sounds of everyday life here—cows, roosters, passing motorbikes—are barely audible through the insistent chirping of insects and birds. The cave is cramped and awkward, and rocks crowd into the space, giving the feeling that it might close up at any moment. But its modest appearance can’t diminish my excitement: I know this place is host to something magical, something I’ve traveled nearly 8,000 miles to see.

Scattered on the walls are stencils, human hands outlined against a background of red paint. Though faded, they are stark and evocative, a thrilling message from the distant past. My companion, Maxime Aubert, directs me to a narrow semicircular alcove, like the apse of a cathedral, and I crane my neck to a spot near the ceiling a few feet above my head. Just visible on darkened grayish rock is a seemingly abstract pattern of red lines.

Then my eyes focus and the lines coalesce into a figure, an animal with a large, bulbous body, stick legs and a diminutive head: a babirusa, or pig-deer, once common in these valleys. Aubert points out its neatly sketched features in admiration. “Look, there’s a line to represent the ground,” he says. “There are no tusks—it’s female. And there’s a curly tail at the back.”

This ghostly babirusa has been known to locals for decades, but it wasn’t until Aubert, a geochemist and archaeologist, used a technique he developed to date the painting that its importance was revealed. He found that it is staggeringly ancient: at least 35,400 years old. That likely makes it the oldest-known example of figurative art anywhere in the world—the world’s very first picture.

It’s among more than a dozen other dated cave paintings on Sulawesi that now rival the earliest cave art in Spain and France, long believed to be the oldest on earth.

The findings made headlines around the world when Aubert and his colleagues announced them in late 2014, and the implications are revolutionary. They smash our most common ideas about the origins of art and force us to embrace a far richer picture of how and where our species first awoke.

Hidden away in a damp cave on the “other” side of the world, this curly-tailed creature is our closest link yet to the moment when the human mind, with its unique capacity for imagination and symbolism, switched on.

Sulawesi’s rock art was first discovered in the 1950s. (Guilbert Gates)

Who were the first “people,” who saw and interpreted the world as we do? Studies of genes and fossils agree that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago. But although these earliest humans looked like us, it’s not clear they thought like us.

Intellectual breakthroughs in human evolution such as tool-making were mastered by other hominin species more than a million years ago. What sets us apart is our ability to think and plan for the future, and to remember and learn from the past—what theorists of early human cognition call “higher order consciousness.”

Such sophisticated thinking was a huge competitive advantage, helping us to cooperate, survive in harsh environments and colonize new lands. It also opened the door to imaginary realms, spirit worlds and a host of intellectual and emotional connections that infused our lives with meaning beyond the basic impulse to survive. And because it enabled symbolic thinking—our ability to let one thing stand for another—it allowed people to make visual representations of things that they could remember and imagine. “We couldn’t conceive of art, or conceive of the value of art, until we had higher order consciousness,” says Benjamin Smith, a rock art scholar at the University of Western Australia. In that sense, ancient art is a marker for this cognitive shift: Find early paintings, particularly figurative representations like animals, and you’ve found evidence for the modern human mind.

Until Aubert went to Sulawesi, the oldest dated art was firmly in Europe. The spectacular lions and rhinos of Chauvet Cave, in southeastern France, are commonly thought to be around 30,000 to 32,000 years old, and mammoth-ivory figurines found in Germany correspond to roughly the same time. Representational pictures or sculptures don’t appear elsewhere until thousands of years afterward. So it has long been assumed that sophisticated abstract thinking, perhaps unlocked by a lucky genetic mutation, emerged in Europe shortly after modern humans arrived there about 40,000 years ago. Once Europeans started to paint, their skills, and their human genius, must have then spread around the world.

Chauvet Cave, Ardèche, France. Dated to: 30,000 to 28,000 B.C. | Once thought to house the oldest representational art, the more than 1,000 paintings of predators like lions and mammoths are unmatched in their sophistication. (DRAC Rhone-Alpes, Ministere de la Culture / AP Images) Coliboaia Cave, Bihor, Romania. Dated to: 30,000 B.C. | This cave, often flooded by an underground river, revealed images to spelunkers in 2009—a bison, a horse, a feline and the heads of bears and rhinos. (Andrei Posmosanu / Romanian Federation of Speleology) Serra da Capivara, Piauí, Brazil. Dated to: 28,000 to 6,000 B.C. | In this national park, paintings of jaguar, tapir and red deer (shown here, c. 10,000 B.C.) interact with human figures in scenes that include dancing and hunting. (Niède Guidon / Bradshaw Foundation) Ubirr at Kakadu, Northern Territory, Australia. Dated to: 26,000 B.C. | Aboriginal painters covered rock shelters over millennia with enigmatic beings and animals (like the kangaroo here) plus, much later, arriving ships. (Tom Boyden, Lonely Planet Images / Getty Images) Apollo 11 Cave, Karas, Namibia. Dated to: 25,500 to 23,500 B.C. | The seven “Apollo 11 stones,” discovered shortly after the first moon landing, are decorated with feline and bovid-like figures in charcoal and ocher. (Windhoek Museum, Namibia via Trust for African Rock Art) Rock Shelters of Bhimbetka, Madhya Pradesh, India. Dated to: 13,000 B.C. (est.) | Clustered in five natural rock shelters, paintings show large animal figures including the Indian lion and gaur (an Indian bison), beside stick-like people. (Universal Images Group / Getty Images) Cumberland Valley Caves, Tennessee, U.S. Dated to: 4,000 B.C. | The art in this Appalachian valley shows the preoccupations of native Southeastern peoples, from hunting (seen here) to religious iconography. (Jan F. Simek / University of Tennessee, Knoxville)

But experts now challenge that standard view. Archaeologists in South Africa have found that the pigment ocher was used in caves 164,000 years ago. They have also unearthed deliberately pierced shells with marks suggesting they were strung like jewelry, as well as chunks of ocher, one engraved with a zigzag design—hinting that the capacity for art was present long before humans left Africa. Still, the evidence is frustratingly indirect. Perhaps the ocher wasn’t for painting but for mosquito repellent. And the engravings could have been one-offs, doodles with no symbolic meaning, says Wil Roebroeks, an expert in the archaeology of early humans, of Leiden University in the Netherlands. Other extinct hominin species have left similarly inconclusive artifacts.

By contrast, the gorgeous animal cave paintings in Europe represent a consistent tradition. The seeds of artistic creativity may have been sown earlier, but many scholars celebrate Europe as the place where it burst, full-fledged, into view. Before Chauvet and El Castillo, the famous art-filled cave in northern Spain, “we don’t have anything that smacks of figurative art,” says Roebroeks. “But from that point on,” he continues, “you have the full human package. Humans were more or less comparable to you and me.”

Yet the lack of older paintings may not reflect the true history of rock art so much as the fact that they can be very difficult to date. Radiocarbon dating, the kind used to determine the age of the charcoal paintings at Chauvet, is based on the decay of the radioactive isotope carbon-14 and works only on organic remains. It’s no good for studying inorganic pigments like ocher, a form of iron oxide used frequently in ancient cave paintings.

This is where Aubert comes in. Instead of analyzing pigment from the paintings directly, he wanted to date the rock they sat on, by measuring radioactive uranium, which is present in many rocks in trace amounts. Uranium decays into thorium at a known rate, so comparing the ratio of these two elements in a sample reveals its age the greater the proportion of thorium, the older the sample. The technique, known as uranium series dating, was used to determine that zircon crystals from Western Australia were more than four billion years old, proving Earth’s minimum age. But it can also date newer limestone formations, including stalactites and stalagmites, known collectively as speleothems, which form in caves as water seeps or flows through soluble bedrock.

Aubert, who grew up in Lévis, Canada, and says he has been interested in archaeology and rock art since childhood, thought to date rock formations at a minute scale directly above and below ancient paintings, to work out their minimum and maximum age. To do this would require analyzing almost impossibly thin layers cut from a cave wall—less than a millimeter thick. Then a PhD student at the Australian National University in Canberra, Aubert had access to a state-of-the-art spectrometer, and he started to experiment with the machine, to see if he could accurately date such tiny samples.

Aubert examines Leang Timpuseng, home of the record-breaking babirusa. (Justin Mott)

Within a few years, Adam Brumm, an archaeologist at the University of Wollongong, where Aubert had received a postdoctoral fellowship—today they are both based at Griffith University—started digging in caves in Sulawesi. Brumm was working with the late Mike Morwood, co-discoverer of the diminutive hominin Homo floresiensis, which once lived on the nearby Indonesian island of Flores. The evolutionary origins of this so-called “hobbit” remain a mystery, but, to have reached Flores from mainland Southeast Asia, its ancestors must have passed through Sulawesi. Brumm hoped to find them.

As they worked, Brumm and his Indonesian colleagues were struck by the hand stencils and animal images that surrounded them. The standard view was that Neolithic farmers or other Stone Age people made the markings no more than 5,000 years ago—such markings on relatively exposed rock in a tropical environment, it was thought, couldn’t have lasted longer than that without eroding away. But the archaeological evidence showed that modern humans had arrived on Sulawesi at least 35,000 years ago. Could some of the paintings be older? “We were drinking palm wine in the evenings, talking about the rock art and how we might date it,” Brumm recalls. And it dawned on him: Aubert’s new method seemed perfect.

The idea for dating the paintings in Sulawesi came from Brumm. (Justin Mott)

After that, Brumm looked for paintings partly obscured by speleothems every chance he got. “One day off, I visited Leang Jarie,” he says. Leang Jarie means “Cave of Fingers,” named for the dozens of stencils decorating its walls. Like Leang Timpuseng, it is covered by small growths of white minerals formed by the evaporation of seeping or dripping water, which are nicknamed “cave popcorn.” “I walked in and bang, I saw these things. The whole ceiling was covered with popcorn, and I could see bits of hand stencils in between,” recalls Brumm. As soon as he got home, he told Aubert to come to Sulawesi.

Aubert spent a week the next summer touring the region by motorbike. He took samples from five paintings partly covered by popcorn, each time using a diamond-tipped drill to cut a small square out of the rock, about 1.5 centimeters across and a few millimeters deep.

Back in Australia, he spent weeks painstakingly grinding the rock samples into thin layers before separating out the uranium and thorium in each one. “You collect the powder, then remove another layer, then collect the powder,” Aubert says. “You’re trying to get as close as possible to the paint layer.” Then he drove from Wollongong to Canberra to analyze his samples using the mass spectrometer, sleeping in his van outside the lab so he could work as many hours as possible, to minimize the number of days he needed on the expensive machine. Unable to get funding for the project, he had to pay for his flight to Sulawesi—and for the analysis—himself. “I was totally broke,“ he says.

The very first age Aubert calculated was for a hand stencil from the Cave of Fingers. “I thought, ‘Oh, shit,’” he says. “So I calculated it again.” Then he called Brumm.

“I couldn’t make sense of what he was saying,” Brumm recalls. “He blurted out, 󈦃,000!’ I was stunned. I said, are you sure? I had the feeling immediately that this was going to be big.”

The caves we visit in Sulawesi are astonishing in their variety. They range from small rock shelters to huge caverns inhabited by venomous spiders and large bats. Everywhere there is evidence of how water has formed and changed these spaces. The rock is bubbling and dynamic, often glistening wet. It erupts into shapes resembling skulls, jellyfish, waterfalls and chandeliers. As well as familiar stalactites and stalagmites, there are columns, curtains, steps and terraces—and popcorn everywhere. It grows like barnacles on the ceilings and walls.

Subscribe to Smithsonian magazine now for just $12

This story is a selection from the January-February issue of Smithsonian magazine

We’re joined by Muhammad Ramli, an archaeologist at the Center for the Preservation of Archaeological Heritage, in Makassar. Ramli knows the art in these caves intimately. The first one he visited, as a student in 1981, was a small site called Leang Kassi. He remembers it well, he says, not least because while staying overnight in the cave he was captured by local villagers who thought he was a headhunter. Ramli is now a portly but energetic 55-year-old with a wide-brimmed explorer’s hat and a collection of T-shirts with messages like “Save our heritage” and “Keep calm and visit museums.” He has cataloged more than 120 rock art sites in this region, and has established a system of gates and guards to protect the caves from damage and graffiti.

Almost all of the markings he shows me, in ocher and charcoal, appear in relatively exposed areas, lit by the sun. And they were apparently made by all members of the community. At one site, I climb a fig tree into a small, high chamber and am rewarded by the outline of a hand so small it could belong to my 2-year-old son. At another, hands are lined up in two horizontal tracks, all with fingers pointing to the left. Elsewhere there are hands with slender, pointed digits possibly created by overlapping one stencil with another with painted palm lines and with fingers that are bent or missing.

There’s still a tradition on Sulawesi of mixing rice powder with water to make a handprint on the central pillar of a new house, Ramli explains, to protect against evil spirits. “It’s a symbol of strength,” he says. “Maybe the prehistoric man thought like that too.” And on the nearby island of Papua, he says, some people express their grief when a loved one dies by cutting off a finger. Perhaps, he suggests, the stencils with missing fingers indicate that this practice too has ancient origins.

Paul Taçon, an expert in rock art at Griffith University, notes that the hand stencils are similar to designs created until recently in northern Australia. Aboriginal Australian elders he has interviewed explain that their stencils are intended to express connection to a particular place, to say: “I was here. This is my home.” The Sulawesi hand stencils “were probably made for similar reasons,” he says. Taçon believes that once the leap to rock art was made, a new cognitive path—the ability to retain complex information over time—had been set. “That was a major change,” he says.

There are two main phases of artwork in these caves. A series of black charcoal drawings—geometric shapes and stick figures including animals such as roosters and dogs, which were introduced to Sulawesi in the last few thousand years—haven’t been dated but presumably could not have been made before the arrival of these species.

Alongside these are red (and occasionally purplish-black) paintings that look very different: hand stencils and animals, including the babirusa in Leang Timpuseng, and other species endemic to this island, such as the warty pig. These are the paintings dated by Aubert and his colleagues, whose paper, published in Nature in October 2014, ultimately included more than 50 dates from 14 paintings. Most ancient of all was a hand stencil (right beside the record-breaking babirusa) with a minimum age of 39,900 years—making it the oldest-known stencil anywhere, and just 900 years shy of the world’s oldest-known cave painting of any kind, a simple red disk at El Castillo. The youngest stencil was dated to no more than 27,200 years ago, showing that this artistic tradition lasted largely unchanged on Sulawesi for at least 13 millennia.


Optical HR Armband Shootout: Polar OH1+, Scosche Rhythm24, Wahoo TICKR FIT

The last few weeks, well…months really, I’ve been spending an excessive amount of time wearing optical HR sensor straps. It mostly started back in January as I was preparing my Polar Vantage M and COROS APEX reviews, with the optical HR sensors having workout recording on-board, it became an easy way for me to gather additional HR data plots to compare against.

Then came my Polar OH1 Plus review, so I was doing some side by side comparisons then. And some day I’ll get around to spending a few hours to pull together all my thoughts on the Scosche Rhythm24 into a standalone review. But until then, I think this post should probably give you the clarity and detail you need to make a decision.

Anyway – the reason I like armband optical HR sensors such as the three compared here – is that they tend to be very accurate. That’s primarily because it’s an incredibly good place to measure your heart rate. Unlike your wrist, there’s usually a bit more ‘flab’ and ‘chunk’ for really good quality readings. Additionally, your upper arm tends to absorb the vibrations that your wrists don’t in certain applications, like riding. Further, for indoor hand-driven workouts (like weights), again, your wrist being strained also can produce issues with optical HR sensors like those in a watch. But upper arm? Very rarely an issue here, even when under strain in the gym.

Finally – not only that, but optical HR straps in this position aren’t susceptible to dryness issues that conventional chest straps are (such as in cooler/dryer fall or early spring weather). So, it was shootout time!

I don’t expect any further major player straps in this market anytime soon. So this list is what we’ve got to work with for the foreseeable future, certainly for this summer. As such, if you’re looking to get into this market – now’s the time. Let’s dive into it!

(Preemptive note: Anytime I say Polar OH1, you can interchangeably say Polar OH1 Plus. They’re identical once the Spring 2019 firmware update is applied to the Polar OH1. The only difference is the Polar OH1 Plus now includes two swim clips in the box, which you can also contact Polar customer service to get sent to you for a few bucks if you want.)

The Hardware and Battery:

We’ll start with the hardware. While each of the three are fairly similar, there are some minor nuances to the hardware of each. And no better place to begin than the size. So, suspect lineup below:

For the above two photos I removed the Polar strap from the pod, because of the fact that the Polar strap can’t detach, so it bunches up like a wedgie in the photo, making it look a gazillion times bigger than it actually is.

From a strap standpoint, there are some differences. While all straps are adjustable in size, only the Wahoo and Scosche straps have clips. Whereas the Polar one is permanently sewed closed in a loop.

Frankly, it doesn’t really matter, because even in the case of the Wahoo and Scosche ones you’re going to want to clip them before you put them on your arm, else, you’ll have to figure out how to clip a two-part strap one-handed. It’s doable, but it’s also likely you’ll fail and then snap the other end of the strap into your face. At which point your friends will (rightfully) make fun of you.

When it comes to charging, there are three different chargers at play here. The Scosche charger uses a clip-style design, allowing you to charge it swinging around attached to the bottom of a ceiling fan if you wanted to – it won’t go anywhere. The Polar charger is effectively a clunky AF USB stick. The charger is the USB stick, so you plug it directly into a USB port and it both syncs and charges. And finally, the Wahoo charger uses two small contact points on a not-so-strong magnetic base. It works fine, but you wouldn’t be able to stash it in a backpack to charge and assume it’d stay put on the charger (whereas the Scosche you would).

My preference here is the Scosche charger, merely because it’s nice and sturdy. However, the Polar does win points for being tiny (even if you lose it). On the downside, I find that for many of my USB chargers, the Polar doesn’t fit kindly next to other devices being charged. It’s too chubby, and ends up blocking ports.

In fact, it’s actually the battery that’s probably the single biggest differentiator between them. Here are those official specs:

Polar OH1/OH1 Plus: 12 hours
Scosche Rhythm24: 24 hours
Wahoo TICKR FIT: 30+ hours

I don’t tend to do single workouts that last to the exhaustion of any of these battery claims. That requires a lot more cookies than I could possibly eat in one sitting. Instead, I use the devices over multiple workouts – and then I tend to charge them roughly once per week. That does seem to work for me just fine.

Workout Usage and Transmission:

So, let’s quickly walk through using each one. Starting with the Polar, you’ll slide it on your arm. In doing so you’ll encounter really the only hiccup of the Polar OH1: It easily flips over (tumbles if you will). Due to its tiny size, you need to be sure that the optical HR sensor is pointed down on your arm. This is easy enough when you’ve got something short-sleeved on. But it’s trickier if it’s winter and you’ve got multiple layers on. Same goes for a wetsuit.

Once it’s on, then you’ll press the small button on the one side, and the light on the other side illuminates. At this point it’s measuring and transmitting over ANT+ & Bluetooth Smart. You can now pair it to any device you’d like on either protocol. Depending on what you’re connecting to, it’ll give you different LED colors. Same goes for battery status and so forth. If you’re doing a recorded workout (more on that in the next section), you’ll get a double-flash once you double-press the button to start it.

You can use the Polar OH1 with either Polar Flow or Polar Beat apps. Polar Flow is more about data and history, whereas Polar Beat is about real-time usage/monitoring. In that respect Polar Flow isn’t super different than the hundreds of other fitness apps out there that support Bluetooth Smart heart rate straps (yes, it’s different in other software features, but not for the purposes of this unit). No matter the app or device you’re using with it, at this point the Polar OH1 is doing its thing and you can do your workout. It doesn’t have any sport-specific modes during the workout, but you can change them afterwards if you used the offline functionality.

Next, is the Scosche Rhythm24. With this you’ll likely want to use the clasp to close it before sliding it onto your arm. After which you’ll power it on via a long-hold of the big button. It’ll illuminate the optical HR sensor arrangement on the bottom and start your heart rate transmitting on both ANT+ & Bluetooth Smart.

However, in addition to heart rate, the unit can transmit both as a running footpod and a cycling cadence sensor. It does this depending on how you’ve configured it in the smartphone app. This is unique to the Scosche Rhythm24, and not found in the Polar or Wahoo products. You can pair these transmissions with either smartphone apps or watches. For example, on a Garmin Forerunner 935, you can see the footpod pairing:

And within the app, you can see changing the modes and zones – as well as clearly see the battery level:

The Scosche Rhythm24 also has an offline recording mode that you can activate via holding the smaller button down. But more on that in the next section. In addition, the Scosche can display zone information using 5 LED colors. Because the Scosche supports the concept of multiple sport profiles/types, you can even configure a triathlon or duathlon mode. This allows you to iterate from one sport to the next by double-pressing the larger button.

Finally, the Scosche Rhythm24 is unique in recording HRV (heart rate variability) data. No other optical HR sensor on the market transmits this information in a confirmed way. You can configure this within the app:

Note that while Scosche advertises a swimming mode, and has long said they’d integrate it with Garmin devices for offline swim syncing – in practice, it doesn’t yet work. Yes, you can record a swim – but that’s no different than recording a Jazzercise class. It’s just another sport, it doesn’t record swim strokes or the like. And as of present, it doesn’t allow you to sync it to your Garmin watch. Further, because both Bluetooth Smart and ANT+ only go about 2-3cm underwater, unless the strap is directly next to the watch, you won’t get any live HR data underwater.

There’s no question in my mind that the Scosche Rhythm24 is the most full-featured of the three. That’s not really debatable. A more logical question is whether or not you’d use all those features, and if they fit what you need.

Finally, there’s the Wahoo TICKR FIT. It’s the most simplistic of the three. Like the Scosche, it’s easiest to close the clasp before sliding onto your arm. Wahoo generally recommends placing it on the lower portion of your arm (right below the elbow), though they aren’t opposed to placing it elsewhere:

Once that’s done you’ll press the singular button to power it on. It’ll now start transmitting in ANT+ & Bluetooth Smart concurrently, just like the others. So you can simply pair it to your watch, app, or bike computer and you’re off and running like any other heart rate sensor. I go into this in full detail in my Wahoo TICKR FIT review. It has no offline saving capability, nor any sort of zones or other fancy modes/transmissions. It just transmits your heart rate like a common heart rate strap. Simple, but effective. Once done, simply power it off.

To briefly recap on transmissions/protocols, here’s what each strap does:

Polar OH1/OH1 Plus: ANT+ Heart Rate, Bluetooth Smart Heart Rate
Scosche Rhythm24: ANT+ Heart Rate, Bluetooth Smart Heart Rate, ANT+ Footpod, ANT+ Cadence Sensor, Bluetooth Smart Cadence Sensor
Wahoo TICKR FIT: ANT+ Heart Rate, Bluetooth Smart Heart Rate

And last but not least, all three units support wireless firmware updates via their respective smartphone app (as well as via desktop with the USB charging clip in the case of Polar’s OH1).

Offline Functionality:

Both the Polar and Scosche units contain the ability to save workout data to their internal memory. The Wahoo TICKR FIT lacks that capability (though interestingly, Wahoo’s TICKR X chest strap does have that function).

However, while both Polar and Scosche have the function, their usability is dramatically different. In the case of Polar, they see this device as really no different than any of their other watches. So from an app sync perspective, it’s just a watch. That’s good news for you, because their mobile and desktop app platforms support it just like workouts from a watch.

To use the feature you’ll simply tap the button on the side of the Polar OH1 twice, and then the light on the other side double-blinks. Anytime it’s double-blinking, it’s recording. If it’s doing something other than double-blinking, it’s not recording. Clear-cut enough (cough, once you read the LED portion of the manual). To end the workout, you just power it off. Donezo.

Afterwards you simply open up the Polar Flow mobile app on your smartphone and it magically syncs the workout in the background to Polar Flow. Alternatively, you can plug it into your desktop computer and it’ll use the charging port to sync via USB to Polar Flow.

As seen above, you can then analyze the workout just like that from one of their $500 GPS watches. It’s all identical. Same goes for syncing that data to 3rd party platforms like Strava, or exporting it out to .TCX file from their Polar Flow website. There’s a 200 hour limit of storage on the device before you need to sync. I’ve never run out of space. The overall theme for this should be ‘it just works’.

At the other side of the ring is the Scosche system. In many ways, getting things started there is fairly similar. You simply hold the smaller of the two buttons down to enable recording mode. When a triple-set of LED’s light up orange, it’s recording. Simple enough. The easiest way to end the recording, like the Polar, is to simply shut it off.

It should be noted that you can configure triathlon mode and iterate through the different sports using the larger button, so you’ll get sport-specific broadcasted information like running/cycling cadence.

Afterwards, to download the workout you’ll open up the Scosche app on your smartphone. There’s no desktop option here. Then, you’ll manually connect to the Scosche Rhythm24 from within the app and go to the sync option. From there it’ll enumerate a list of workouts and you can select one to download. After which, you can manually select to share.

This sounds reasonable enough while writing it, but I find it’s full of caveats. First off, if you save a file to the app, it’s actually not accessible unless the Scosche device is powered on and within range. So you can’t download the files, and then open them after downloading them unless the device is handy. Second – the biggest issue – is that the internal member is limited to roughly 6 hours of recording. After that point, it’ll simply stop recording new workouts. You’ll think you’re capturing it, only to find out you’re actually not capturing it.

From a platform standpoint, the Scosche24 does however allow you to e-mail workout files directly from the app, but it doesn’t have any sort of analysis of those files. So you *have* to use a 3rd party platform/app to view the workout data.

This may sound like I’m being overly negative on the Scosche offline capability, but I think I’ve been bit too many times by it not recording a workout because I’m once again out of storage space that I’m just annoyed by it now. This is compounded by the fact that the saved workouts aren’t simply automatically transferred to your phone like Polar does (thus potentially freeing storage space). I think if Scosche solved that issue, it’d lessen the impact of the lack of storage internally.

Still, on the flip side, at least both companies do have options for internal recording of workouts – something Wahoo lacks entirely.

Heart Rate Sensor Accuracy:

I’ve done excessive testing of all three sensors over the last few years. You’ll find their data in more reviews than I could possibly count. Hundreds of data sets across all three devices. Including most data sets where I’m using two or more of these devices in comparison to chest straps and other watches. However, for the last week or so, I thought it’d be interesting to do some direct threesome testing.

No, disappointingly not that kinda threesome action – despite all the straps involved.

Instead, all three sensors on the exact same workout, along with reference data from chest straps and optical HR sensors. Unfortunately (spoiler alert), this turned out to be a relatively boring exercise. Simply put, all three sensors were near perfectly identical. Seriously.

For example, here’s a short interval run I did last week. This included 400m repeats, followed by 30-second sprints. Given the shorter duration of this workout, it’d be easy to trick these sensors into stumbling. The data set is here:

Wait, WTF? Where’s the Scosche data set? Oh, that’s right, it decided to record nothing. Actually, that’s not entirely true, it recorded a file with a flat-line for my speed. No HR. Sigh.

Anyway, as you can see – boring. The one thing you do notice however is the very slight delay on the optical HR sensors, with perhaps there being an extra 1-3 seconds on the Polar. Maybe it’s that extra 1-3 seconds that makes the Polar more accurate, at the slight expense of a delay that you frankly wouldn’t know about unless you had a secondary reference strap.

Switching to cycling, here’s an indoor ride with all three on them:

Wait – where’s the Polar OH1? !#%amp#$* me!

Welcome to my world. Apparently I didn’t press that button correctly and I have nothing. Eff me. I give up on threesomes, it’s just not working out for me.

Now, if we step back a little more broadly to my couple years worth of test data that I can look at, I’d give these rough overviews:

– The Polar OH1/OH1 Plus is the most accurate: I’d argue that it, alongside the Apple Watch Series 4, are the most accurate optical HR sensors on the market. Period. I’ve only seen one stumble in recent memory of the Polar OH1 (just a week or two ago on a ride). But otherwise, it’s really really good.

– The Scosche Rhythm24 is very good: But it can stumble slightly in some cycling situations (outdoors). For whatever reason, I feel that the Scosche Rhythm24’s optical HR sensor might be a slight step back from the original Rhythm+ sensor. I know it’s supposed to be better, but my gut feeling is something changed ever so slightly here. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still really good – but I’m not sure it’s as good. This may be how they’re getting significantly more battery life (which often can mean reducing power to the LED’s to get more battery life). Inversely, I have seen really good gym workout results here – even with arm-related movements. This is something that Valencell (the company behind Scosche’s sensor package) has spent enormous time on, and oft played up (for good reason).

– The Wahoo TICKR FIT does well, but can stumble here and there. It certainly does better than most optical HR sensors on watches, but if I were to assign an ‘A-‘ rating to the Polar unit on accuracy, and a B- to the Scosche Rhythm24 (again for accuracy only), I’d put the TICKR-Fit in the ‘B‘ range. I think there are just a tiny bit fewer cases where I see stumbles in data compared to the Scosche.

Phew, got all that? Good. If not, you can pick any watch or heart rate strap/sensor review I’ve done over the last two years and you’ll find 1-3 of these products used in every data set I’ve done. It’s a mind-boggling 648 data sets as of this writing.

(Note: All of the charts in these accuracy sections were created using the DCR Analyzer tool. It allows you to compare power meters/trainers, heart rate, cadence, speed/pace, GPS tracks and plenty more. You can use it as well for your own gadget comparisons, more details here.)

Features Comparison:

I’ve compiled all the units into a single comprehensive table allowing you to compare features side by side. Again, for the purposes of below, I just listed the OH1 Plus, but the original OH1 is identical once the ANT+ firmware update releases here shortly.

Also, if you want to compare other heart rate sensors, you can do that in the full product comparison tool here.

Function/Feature Wahoo TICKR FIT Polar OH1 Plus Scosche Rhythm 24
Copyright DC Rainmaker - Updated April 1st, 2021 @ 3:39 pm New Window
Price$79$79$99
Product Announce DateJan 3rd, 2018Mar 20th, 2019Jan 9th, 2018
Product Availability DateJan 3rd, 2018Mar 22nd, 2019Late April 2018
Measurement TypeOpticalOpticalOptical
Typical PlacementMid/Upper ArmUpper ArmMid/Upper Arm
Battery Life30 hours12 hours24 hours+
Battery TypeUSB rechargeableUSB RechargeableUSB rechargeable
NFC CapableNoNoYes
HR Transmission Wahoo TICKR FIT Polar OH1 Plus Scosche Rhythm 24
ANT+YesYes (with firmware update)Yes
Bluetooth SmartYesYesYes
Dual concurrent ANT+/BLEYesYesYes
Analog for gym equipmentNoNoNo
Usable HR data underwaterDepends: If on same wrist, YMMV.DEPENDS: IF ON SAME WRIST, YMMV.Depends: If on same wrist, YMMV.
Bridging ANT+ to Bluetooth SmartNoNoNo
Can record activity in memoryNoYesYes
Additional Data Wahoo TICKR FIT Polar OH1 Plus Scosche Rhythm 24
Run PaceNoNoYes
Run CadenceNoNoYEs
Run Economy/MetricsNoNoNo
Cycling CadenceNoNoYes
Cycling Power Meter EstimationNoNoNo
Valid HRV/RR dataNoNoAt rest only
Configurable Sport ModesNoNoYes
Displays HR ZonesNoNoYes
Requires Bluetooth Smart Phone for ConfigurationNoNoYes
Firmware UpdateableYesYesYes
App Wahoo TICKR FIT Polar OH1 Plus Scosche Rhythm 24
Can show workout afterwardsN/A (No recording)YesNo
Can sync files/workout to 3rd partyN/A (No recording)YesYes
More InfoLinkLinkLink
Purchase Wahoo TICKR FIT Polar OH1 Plus Scosche Rhythm 24
AmazonLinkLinkLink
Backcountry.comLink
Competitive CyclistLink
WiggleLinkLink

Again, don’t forget you can mix and match and make your own product comparison chart – including with other heart rate sensors (chest strap or otherwise) in the product comparison tool here.

Final Thoughts:

I’m not really going to declare a one-size fits all winner here, as I think different folks have different requirements. However, within different buckets, there are some different leaders. For example – if you want to record workouts offline, it’s hard to beat the Polar OH1 (plus or non-plus). The synchronization pieces on that just work exceedingly well, no matter what device or platform you’re on. Inversely, if you want broadcasting of cadence for running/cycling, the Scosche is the best bet. Whereas if you’re looking to go for a really long time, it’s hard to beat the battery on the Wahoo at 30+ hours.

Additionally, while not covered in this particular post, the original Scosche Rhythm+ is still in many ways the bar that many devices in this category are measured against. Yes, it’s a bit older – but it has just as many features as the Wahoo TICKR FIT, and typically costs less (especially on sale). It lacks the battery though of the TICKR FIT, and of course lacks the offline recording of the newer Scosche Rhythm+ or Polar OH1. But accuracy wise? Really really good.

Finally – since some will ask, what will I – as DCR – be using? Simple: The Polar OH1/OH1 Plus. With the ANT+ firmware update, this basically solves every box I need personally. Especially with the dependability of the saved data offload compared to the Scosche. For me in what I do, I’m loving lately the ability to record the data as a backup, and instantly sync it. If they added Dropbox sync support, I’d start sending Valentine’s cards to people in Finland. And now with ANT+ on the Polar, it allows me to quickly glance at HR on the slew of ANT+ specific devices I use for testing. The TICKR-FIT is fine, but I really want the offline caching features. The only downside for me of the Polar OH1 is how easily it can get overturned, primarily in a swim related setting when used under a wetsuit, or, also in cold-weather running/cycling with long-sleeves. The reduced 12-hour battery of the OH1 compared to the 24-30 hours of battery life of the others isn’t an issue for me specifically.

With that – hope this helps – and would love to hear your experiences below!

Found This Post Useful? Support The Site!

Hopefully you found this review useful. At the end of the day, I’m an athlete just like you looking for the most detail possible on a new purchase – so my review is written from the standpoint of how I used the device. The reviews generally take a lot of hours to put together, so it’s a fair bit of work (and labor of love). As you probably noticed by looking below, I also take time to answer all the questions posted in the comments – and there’s quite a bit of detail in there as well.


Watch the video: Summer of 1977 was WILD!! ep 164 - History Hyenas (July 2022).


Comments:

  1. Kaylene

    I'm sorry, of course, but it doesn't fit.There are other options?

  2. Malcom

    One and the same...

  3. Gurion

    it seems even funnier :)

  4. Xanthe

    You hit the mark. It seems to me a good thought. I agree with you.



Write a message