2026-03-20

Xcadey Ventus – beautiful carbon crankset with dual side power meter

I’ve been using power meters for five seasons now. They’ve been with me and helped me ever since I got back on the bike after years away, showing my FTP rise from a measly 180W to the current, less-measly 300W. It’s good to realize just how far you have to go to still be just an average cyclist :)
But let’s get back to power measurements. My first was also the Xcadey, but in the form of a single-sided measurement on the arm of a road bike’s Ultegra crankset. Plus, a spider on a Sram crankset for MTB. Then, gear changes led me toward the Magene P505 and Favero Assioma Duo, but photos of the new carbon Xcadey Ventus crankset with a perfectly matching cassette set made me say, “Shut up and take my money!”
Partly because it’s one of the nicest cranksets I know. Matte finish, visible carbon fibers, massive arms, and excellent weight (360g arms + 100g spider).
Plus, a new power meter on the spider and chainrings that match it perfectly. The latter isn’t so obvious, since chainrings bolted to different spiders usually don’t look like a cohesive whole. Want proof? Look at how awkward the Shimano topsheets look when bolted to that spider. The more standard ones without embossing are fine, but it’s thanks to the set that we have a complete product that you won’t be ashamed to use.

Specifications at a glance.

The most important aspect is that, because the sensor is mounted on the spider rather than the crank arm, this is a dual-sided power meter—meaning it measures power separately from each leg (provided you have two, of course)—rather than a single-sided one, which extrapolates power by doubling the measurement from one side. Multiplying means times two. In addition to power itself, we also get data on cadence and left-right power balance (assuming you have both legs), which can be important when analyzing workouts. This may not be a crucial aspect, but I’ve already encountered many interesting situations, such as a growing imbalance caused by fatigue, where the solution was sometimes a change in position and other times an actual lack of training in one leg. As it turned out—due to a past injury.

Xcadey claims the meter’s accuracy is ±1%, and I can agree with that, but there are a few details I’ll mention later on. The more you delve into testing such specialized devices, the more details you find that affect performance and results. Something that seems simple and obvious at first glance quickly raises further questions—and not always answers.
Connectivity is, of course, ANT+ and Bluetooth. Standard for meters and communication. The battery lasts about 150 hours. I tested this over two months in Gran Canaria, where the meter said “I’m done too” on the way back from the last ride, so I rode the last 10 km without power and cadence measurements. This was after 2 months, over 3,000 km covered, and exactly 150 hours of riding in temperatures around 20 degrees.

The Ventus crankset has a standard Shimano 24mm spindle, so if you have this crankset, the swap is plug-and-play—though perhaps more like pull-and-push.
I also ordered the chainrings from Xcadey—BCD110 4S, which is also a Shimano standard. I did have chainrings from my previous crankset, but the ones you see in the photo fit perfectly and look amazing. This spacing, i.e., BC110-4S, is a good option in case something goes wrong with the chainring. You can get Shimano chainrings practically anywhere, so the problem can be fixed right away.

Installation and riding

There’s no rocket science here. You open the box, get excited about the crank… and you’re almost done. The next step is to find a torque wrench and tighten the spider, followed by the chainrings. Tightening them evenly to the correct torque is a crucial detail when it comes to power readings. Unevenly tightened bolts cause stress on the spider, which can lead to inaccurate readings. The strain gauges in the measurement system react to minimal material deviations (because how many microns do you think the spider can bend under 50W of pressure?), so this is a point worth paying close attention to.

After installing the crank or power meter on your bike, pair the meter with your cyclocomputer and, ideally, with the Xcadey app as well. It’s worth checking if there’s a firmware update available. It’s also worth setting up the power display fields on the computer screen, and here I’ll offer a tip. If power measurement is new to your cycling world, set the average power to 3 or 5 seconds. 10 seconds is too long for interval training, and setting it to a 1-second reading causes the numbers to fluctuate too wildly. I’ll also add that a 5-second average doesn’t mean you see changes every 5 seconds, but rather that the reading itself is “smoothed out” a bit, so slight differences with each pedal stroke aren’t quite as noticeable. Anyway—you can set both fields, i.e., Power and Avg Power 5sec, to compare how they behave during your first ride…and then stick with the latter ;)

Below you can see what this looks like on my Garmin Edge 840 while riding. However, this isn’t a standard screen; I built it myself in HMSdiy. The top section shows the 3-second averaged power, and below that is a graph based on the same data. This lets me see the broader picture of what happened over the last 3 minutes

How does it work in practice?

The Xcadey Ventus connects quickly, maintains a stable signal, and didn’t cause any issues whatsoever during two months of testing. Just in case, you can enable the calibration prompt on the bike computer before riding, but since temperature compensation is built-in and works (which I’ve obviously verified), there’s no real need to worry about it too much. Generally, there’s no rocket science here. It works as it should and is practically maintenance-free. While with pedals like Favero or Garmin you have to remember to adjust the crank length if it varies across different bikes, power measurement on the spider doesn’t require this adjustment because it measures data at a different point. This is one of the reasons for the differences I mentioned earlier.

Accuracy – can you trust it?

The manufacturer claims an accuracy of ±1%, which sounds very good. In practice, as is usually the case, it all depends on… and here the list gets long and interesting.

I tested the meter in parallel with the Favero Assioma Duo, though I ride with Xpedo pedals on a daily basis.
And here it’s worth mentioning an interesting fact. Since the pedals measure power at a different point than the spider, the readings may differ from one another. In my unit, they differ by about 6%, and I believe this is due to differences in torque application, drive train losses, and the accuracy of the two meters themselves. This isn’t a flaw. You could say it’s a feature.

In the app, you can adjust the Xcadey reading correction in the Power Adjust field. You can calculate the percentage by comparing the average readings from several-minute segments. For the purposes of this test, I wrote a simple platform for analyzing FIT files (the one you see in the photos), but you can also successfully perform this analysis in Excel or Google Sheets. After changing the setting to 106%, the readings from Favero were practically spot on. The average power values from different segments differed by as much as 1–2W at times, and this was mainly because power is recorded once per second, and the fluctuation on the two meters (one paired with Xcadey, the other with Favero) sometimes diverges by that single reading. It can be said that during high variability, Favero reacts immediately, while Xcadey does so with a slight (but not second-long) delay. In everyday use, even very intense use, this has absolutely no impact.

An important aspect of power measurement is stability in terms of temperature. For the test, I initially calibrated the meter in my apartment, then verified the offset (i.e., deviation from zero) after riding several kilometers in the sun. No problem. Period.
After returning from Gran Canaria, I rode several times in Poland in surprisingly mild March temperatures of 10–19 degrees, and even after leaving home and out on the road, there was no issue with the offset despite significant temperature differences. It happened that I’d leave at 19 degrees and return at 10. The odometer, reset as a precaution at the start of the route, also read zero after completing the trip.
In other tests, I’ve seen instances where the sensor changed its offset (minimally, but still) after switching the front chainring (from large to small or vice versa), which is actually quite logical due to different stresses on the chainring during gear shifts. From what I learned directly from the manufacturer, the issue has been resolved (material-related issues) since it didn’t actually occur for me.
While enjoying my coffee, I also left the bike in full Canarian sun, and that was the only situation where the offset drifted slightly due to the relatively high temperature reached by the crank. However, not enough to make a drastic difference in the reading—at most a 3% difference from the Favero, only to return to zero offset and practically perfect accuracy after a few minutes of riding.

I tested the Xcadey for two months in a variety of scenarios. Outdoors, this included relatively steady rides on long climbs spanning several kilometers, sprints with peaks around 1300W, and everything else you do on a bike when riding in the mountains… like VO2max on descents ;) On top of that, I did various workouts on the trainer, which allowed me to test the meter’s readings quite accurately in ERG mode during 10-second sprints around 1000W, stability during an hour of pedaling at 200W, or various intervals. And what did I find? I can say that it’s repeatable, and that’s the most important feature of power measurement. In reality, 10W or 20W one way or the other makes absolutely no difference (except for scratching your ego), but the consistency of the readings is a very important factor—perhaps even the most important one. If you’re putting out X at the start of the season, it’s good if the meter gives the same X at the end of the season. And here, after nearly 4,000 km, the Xcadey performs as it should.

[image with 1000W 10s intervals]

Due to the differences described, I try to normalize every measurement I have—i.e., road/gravel/MTB and trainer—using Favero to ensure repeatable results and the most accurate data translation possible. If I’m putting out 200W on the trainer, I like to know that I’m also putting out 200W on the MTB and road bike. Another issue is that indoor FTP differs from outdoor FTP. A separate issue is our fitness and muscle engagement on different bikes, which depends, among other things, on riding position. Lactate measurement from Qlac also helps with this normalization, allowing you to realistically track the differences between various bikes.

I therefore recommend, in the context of potential equipment changes in the future, setting some reference points using a second power meter. A trainer or power-measuring pedals will definitely help if you switch to a different power meter. I know of cases where, immediately after switching devices, the first workout appeared to be +20W above FTP, while in reality, the FTP hadn’t budged.

To sum up—sprints, intervals, long Z2 sessions, medium-long Z5 sessions—the Ventus handles it all, and you can rely on the data without any issues for training or races. You can meaningfully correlate this data with heart rate and lactate levels, which provides a fairly accurate picture of your fitness and capabilities, e.g., during longer rides. While in XCO we push ourselves to the limit with intervals for an hour or more, during marathons, stage races, or longer gravel rides, it’s worth knowing if we’re overexerting ourselves, because every time we cross the threshold, it can cost us dearly.

Pros, cons, summary

On the plus side, I’ll start with the good value for money. With the Xcadey Ventus, you get dual-sided measurement, a carbon crank, decent accuracy, and good repeatability for the equivalent of $540.
The power meter on the spider alone costs around $330. It’s worth mentioning that when buying the spider alone, you can choose from a multitude of standard crank mountings, such as Sram, RaceFace, Shimano, etc., as well as various BCDs.

Among the pros, I can and must also mention the brand’s support in case of questions or issues.
I had a malfunction in one of the devices (I doubted the 1300W FTP) in 2021, and just like now, I waited literally a few hours for a response after contacting them. After a quick remote verification of the issue, a new sensor was already on the crank within about a week.

Cons? Because there have to be some.
I could include the need to verify the power reading among them. However, only if I had to find a downside. In an ideal world, I would want the purchase of such a device to be free of reading errors. Nevertheless, a moment of engineering and technological reflection leads me to the conclusion that this isn’t entirely possible. The sensor in the spider won’t “figure out” how many newtons (force) we lose from the pedal through the crankarm, chainrings, and chain. The trainer doesn’t know what’s happening from the pedal all the way to the cassette. It’s worth being aware of this, as it significantly minimizes frustration and allows for more accurate training.

Soon, I’ll also test measurements from the same generation on MTB and gravel bikes; I’ll then edit this section and add compatibility between devices to the list of pros or cons ;)
However, based on the previous generation of Xcadey spiders, I can assume that, with proper installation, they’ll be compatible down to the last detail.

If you have any questions about using power meters, purchasing them, or anything else—feel free to reach out.
I’d love it if you’d also check me out on Instagram -> @adam_jedrysik and Strava.

zostaw ślad po sobie!

Przeczytaj pozostałe: