Long-Term Test of the Coospo S10: Are Its Watts Worth It?

With its power meter integrated into the chainring and its Easton Cinch-compatible carbon cranks, the Coospo S10 offers a particularly affordable way to get into power metering. After several weeks of use, the results are more impressive than its price might suggest: very consistent during standard efforts, less convincing at high cadences and during sprints, but with the added benefit of reducing the crankset’s weight. Our full test covering nearly 4,000 km.

By Guillaume Judas – Photos: ©3bikes.fr, DR

Coospo is a young Chinese brand specializing in sports-related electronics—and cycling in particular—that has just celebrated its twelfth anniversary. It offers a range of products including bike computers, indoor trainers, heart rate monitors, rear radar sensors, and, of course, a power meter. All at extremely competitive prices compared to the best-known brands on the market.

The Coospo S10 isn’t just a power meter that you simply attach to an existing crankset. The system we tested combines carbon cranks based on the Easton Cinch interface with a Coospo chainring that integrates the power meter. The price of the S10 should therefore be considered in the context of the entire solution, not just the power meter itself, which retails for around 100 euros.

For about €345, you get a lightweight carbon crankset capable of measuring power, plus a pair of 110 mm four-bolt chainrings. In my case, I kept my Shimano chainrings and replaced my Dura-Ace R9200 cranks with this newcomer to the world of power meters, without changing the bottom bracket. The ability to keep the Dura-Ace chainrings is a plus, since it means you don’t have to replace the entire drivetrain to switch to the S10. Chainring shifting remains just as crisp and precise, with the same smoothness.

Note that the Easton cranks are available in lengths ranging from 160 to 172.5 mm, with a 24-mm or 29-mm axle. They’re also available in aluminum, for about 60 euros less.

Aesthetically, the setup looks pretty good to me, with well-finished cranks and a high-end appearance. Admittedly, the connection between the star and the chainrings could be a bit neater, but overall, the setup doesn’t detract from my bike’s look.

A second pleasant surprise: the setup allowed me to save nearly 100 g on the crankset’s weight. For a product in this price range, that’s far from negligible. It’s even enough to bring my bike—equipped with the new Dura-Ace WH-R9370 wheels—just under the UCI limit of 6.8 kg.

Furthermore, the Q-factor—that is, the distance between the two cranks—is only 2 mm greater than that of the Shimano crankset. A difference that’s completely imperceptible during use.

Hassle-Free Use

The S10 communicates via ANT+ and Bluetooth and can therefore be paired with most current bike computers and training apps. In my experience, I haven’t encountered any particular issues with connection or data transmission.

My Wahoo bike computer recognized the sensor in a matter of seconds, as did my smartphone, allowing me to connect it to the CoospoRide app. This app serves as a single platform for all Coospo products. It allows you to record data from a Wahoo bike computer and send it to Strava, for example, as well as check the battery levels of the various sensors. For updates and to resolve certain hardware issues, you’ll need to use the CoopoTools app, which is also very easy to use. I’ll come back to this a bit later.

This is an important point with a power meter: once it’s installed and paired with the bike computer, you should be able to forget about it. The S10 performs this function correctly as soon as the bike computer is turned on, right before I set off on a ride.

However, I’ve occasionally encountered a few glitches when trying to calibrate the sensor from the bike computer. Nine times out of ten, everything works instantly, but sometimes the bike computer keeps grinding away at this function, forcing me to abandon the calibration without knowing exactly where the communication problem is coming from. Nevertheless, calibration is just as easy using the CoospoTools app.

How reliable is the data, really?

The question of power data accuracy is obviously one of the most important aspects of this test. And it’s also the one where I prefer to err on the side of caution. Since I’ve been using different power meters, I’ve regularly noticed differences between the systems. My colleagues have made the same observation. Whether using pedal-based sensors, crank-integrated sensors, chainrings, or indoor trainers, it’s relatively rare to get exactly the same readings across the board.

It’s very difficult today to know which system actually measures power accurately, even though some products generally have a better reputation than others. I’m obviously thinking of SRM, Assioma pedals, and the Garmin devices I’ve used for several seasons. Or high-end indoor trainers like the Wahoo Kickr. Power measurement has become much more widespread in recent years, but the accuracy—and especially the consistency—of the various systems isn’t always up to par.

Currently, one of the power meters that I believe offers the best value for the money is still the Quarq. This is primarily based on my personal experience, having used and compared various systems.

The issue worth noting with these well-known power meters is that they generally claim an accuracy of plus or minus 1 or 1.5%. This means that when a rider is actually producing 300 watts of power, the sensor might display 297 or 303 watts without its advertised accuracy being called into question. And when comparing a newcomer to the market like the Coospo S10 with a sensor considered the industry standard, you’re also comparing it against that standard’s margin of error. In fact, Coospo claims an accuracy of ±1% for its S10.

So I can’t say for certain—as some do—whether the Chinese brand actually lives up to its promises in this area, since I’ve only been able to compare the S10 to sensors that themselves have a margin of error. However, I can observe how it performs in different situations and, above all, whether it remains consistent from one session to the next. And in this regard, my impressions are quite reassuring.

Very Consistent During FTP Workouts

During FTP sessions, the Coospo S10 proves to be particularly consistent. The sets completed during a single session yield consistent values, which I can also compare with heart rate and ride times.

For example, when climbing a long hill three times at the same average power and with a heart rate that was within two or three beats of each other, I recorded the same climb times. I also observed this consistency between two similar sessions spaced about fifteen days apart, relying solely on how I felt. Each time, I rode with the power data hidden so as not to be influenced by what the computer was showing me.

For power-based training, this is probably one of the most important qualities of a power meter. If the S10 consistently measures a few watts less or more than another system, it’s not really a big deal. On the other hand, if the reading fluctuates unpredictably, using it becomes much more problematic.

During my FTP-intensity workouts, I didn’t notice this issue. In short, during steady efforts—when I apply sufficient torque to the pedals at submaximal intensity—the S10 performs reliably.

Of course, I also tested the S10 during 30/30-style sessions at MAP. These workouts rapidly alternate between intense phases and recovery phases, allowing you to observe the sensor’s responsiveness. Again, the readings seem consistent to me and sufficiently reproducible for use in training.

It’s not necessarily spectacular, but that’s exactly what you expect from a power meter: that it provides usable data without making the user constantly question its reliability.

Insightful Comparison

The most interesting comparison, however, comes from an endurance ride. About two months earlier, I’d done a Z2+ session (sustained endurance) on the same route using Garmin Rally pedals equipped with a power meter. I replicated a comparable session with the S10. The average power was nearly identical: within one watt.

Of course, we shouldn’t conclude from this that both systems are accurate to the nearest watt. Two rides separated by two months do not constitute a laboratory protocol.

But this consistency is still interesting and reinforces my overall impression: under normal use, the S10 provides values that are very consistent with those I previously obtained with the Garmin pedals.

Less Convincing at High Cadence

The picture changes slightly as cadence increases. I get the impression that the Coospo S10 performs particularly well when the torque applied to the pedals is relatively high. On the other hand, when cadence increases sharply and torque decreases, power readings can sometimes fluctuate more—to the point where it loses track of the pedals a bit.

The star doesn’t measure cadence using a magnet mounted on the frame, but rather through its built-in accelerometer. An update to the S10 via CoospoTools claims to resolve some algorithmic issues related to cadence calculation. It’s true—I noticed fewer cadence drops after the update, but it’s still slightly erratic.

This issue isn’t significant enough to call into question the sensor’s use during regular rides, but it’s worth noting.

Rather Pessimistic Sprint Readings

For very short efforts, the results are less convincing. During 7- to 8-second sprints, the S10 returns maximum power readings that are generally lower than those I get with a Quarq, and also slightly lower than those from my Garmin pedals. Furthermore, during sudden changes in pace, the sensor seems a bit less responsive than some of its competitors.

For a rider primarily interested in endurance, FTP, and structured workouts, this characteristic is ultimately fairly minor. For a sprinter or a rider who wants to track their maximum power readings precisely, however, it becomes much more important.

This is a distinction that I believe is essential when evaluating a power meter: you also have to judge its performance based on how you intend to use it.

Battery Life

It was the S10’s battery life, however, that caused me the most trouble. Coospo claims up to 300 hours of use. On my unit, transmission stopped after about 50 hours the first time, then after only about 20 hours during the next charge cycle, and then only seven or eight hours thereafter. Most importantly, the sensor stopped transmitting without any real prior warning on the bike computer. You’ll therefore need to check the CoospoRide or CoospoTools apps to get an idea of the remaining battery level.

Fortunately, a full charge doesn’t take very long, which helps minimize the impact on daily use. But the discrepancy between the advertised battery life and what I actually experienced was significant enough to warrant mention.

However, a system update that took just a few dozen seconds appears to have resolved the issue, though I don’t understand what caused it. Everything is working properly now, but I’ll keep an eye on it over the next few weeks.

Another minor inconvenience, already noted during the review of the Coospo HW9 heart rate monitor: the charging system is specific to the S10. So if you’re traveling with multiple devices from the brand, you’ll need to bring several cables. This is a bit of a hassle at a time when many electronics manufacturers are standardizing their charging systems around USB-C.

Who is the Coospo S10 designed for?

After several weeks of testing, I probably wouldn’t consider the Coospo S10 the best choice for an elite runner looking for the most reliable measurements possible in all conditions. If I were competing at a high level today, I’d opt for a Quarq instead, which I believe currently offers an excellent balance between measurement quality, reliability, integration, and price.

But that isn’t necessarily the market the S10 is targeting. For an amateur cyclist who uses power as just one tool among many, the situation is different. The product lets you track your FTP sessions, monitor your intervals, manage your endurance, and track your progress with data that, in my experience, has proven to be particularly consistent.

And it does so at an affordable price, while also offering a carbon crankset.

The weight savings: the unexpected bonus

It would be a shame to talk about the S10 solely as a power meter. Switching out the crankset allowed me to go from Shimano Dura-Ace R9200 cranks to Coospo carbon cranks, while keeping my Dura-Ace chainrings. As a result, I saved 95 g on the entire crankset.

This isn’t obviously a deciding factor for every rider. But in this price range, it’s an additional selling point for the system. The S10 thus allows you to both measure power and replace a relatively high-end crankset with a lighter carbon set.

In practice, the crankset performed very consistently. The stiffness seemed slightly lower to me than that of the Dura-Ace, but it’s still more than sufficient for competitive use and, in my opinion, on par with what you’d expect from a good carbon crankset on the market.

However, I was a bit bothered by a recurring creaking noise with every pedal stroke for a few days. I finally thought to grease the contact area between the pedal threads and the cranks. The noise disappeared immediately, and everything has been working perfectly ever since.

Not perfect, but hard to fault at this price

The Coospo S10 isn’t a flawless power meter. Its performance at high cadences warrants monitoring, its power peak readings seem rather conservative compared to other systems, and its actual battery life remains to be verified even after the latest system update. But these flaws shouldn’t overshadow its strengths.

During steady-state efforts, 30/30 intervals, and endurance rides, I find it consistent and reliable. After several weeks of use, I have no trouble incorporating it into my training. And in the end, that’s perhaps what matters most.

The Coospo S10 probably isn’t the power meter I’d choose to win a race. But for an amateur who wants reliable, usable power measurements without spending a fortune, it’s a particularly attractive option. At this price point, especially with a lightweight carbon crankset included, it’s actually a very pleasant surprise.

PROS

Probably the least expensive power meter crankset on the market, featuring carbon cranks
Weight
Ease of use
Connectivity
Build Quality
Sufficient accuracy for regular rides

CONS –

High cadences lack a bit of precision
Conservative power spikes
Battery life needs monitoring

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Model	S10 star-shaped power meter with crankset (Easton)
Bottom bracket shaft	24 or 29 mm
Bolt Circle Diameter (BCD)	110 BCD
Mounting	4 bolts
Crankset lengths	160, 165, 170, 172.5
Power range	0 to 2,800 W
Power accuracy	±1%
Speed range	20 to 240 rpm
Measured data	Power, cadence, left/right balance, fluidity
Calibration	Automatic, backpedaling, manual
Wireless protocol	ANT+, Bluetooth
Water resistance rating	IPX7
Operating temperature	– 20 to 50 °C
Battery life	300 hours
Charging	Magnetic
Weight	350 g (cranks + axle) + 102 g (star / sensor)
Price	345 €
Contact	https://www.coospo.com/

FAQ – Coospo S10 Power Meter

Who is Coospo?

Coospo is a Chinese company founded in 2014 that specializes in electronic cycling equipment (cycle computers, indoor trainers, speed sensors, heart rate monitors, power meters), with a focus on value for money.

Is the Coospo S10 an accurate power meter?

This is probably the hardest question to answer. After several weeks of use, I can speak most confidently about consistency and repeatability. During my FTP sessions, in Zone 2+, or during 30/30 intervals at maximum anaerobic power (MAP), the S10 provides consistent readings that are reproducible enough to be used in training. However, the readings are less convincing during very short efforts and sprints, where the sensor seems slightly more conservative than some competitors. It’s therefore difficult to say that it measures power “exactly” to the nearest watt, but in most situations it provides usable and consistent data.

Is the Coospo S10 compatible with my Garmin, Wahoo, or Bryton bike computer?

Yes. The S10 communicates via ANT+ and Bluetooth, allowing it to pair with most current bike computers and training apps. In my case, it was recognized without any trouble by my Wahoo bike computer and the CoospoRide app. It can therefore be used with your existing equipment without needing to replace your bike computer. Data transmission has been reliable in my experience, although I occasionally encountered some difficulties during the calibration process on the bike computer.

What is the actual battery life of the Coospo S10?

Coospo claims a battery life of up to 300 hours, but in my case, my initial experience was much less favorable. My sensor stopped transmitting after about 50 hours of use, without any prior warning. Recharging it then allowed it to resume operation. So I’ll continue testing it over several charge cycles to determine whether this initial battery life—which was significantly shorter than advertised—was an isolated incident or if it’s a recurring issue. For now, this is clearly one of the aspects of the S10 that puzzles me the most.

Is the Coospo S10 worth it for a recreational cyclist?

Yes, and that’s probably where the S10 really shines. For about €345, including the carbon cranks and power meter, you get a lightweight crankset and power measurement that has proven consistent in most of my workouts. The fact that you can keep your Shimano chainrings is also a plus. Since power measurement is primarily used to track FTP, monitor training zones, or structure your workouts, the S10 seems particularly appealing to me given its price. You just need to keep in mind its limitations during very short efforts.

Is the Coospo S10 suitable for competition and high-level cycling?

If I were to return to high-level competition, this isn’t the power meter I’d choose. I’d opt for a system I trust more in terms of accuracy, responsiveness to changes in pace, and data stability—such as the Quarq. But that doesn’t mean the S10 is a bad power meter. For an amateur who uses power as just one tool among many, its performance is more than adequate in most situations. The level of demand simply isn’t the same between a rider looking to squeeze every watt out of their effort and a rider who mainly wants a reliable benchmark for their training. And for that purpose, I approve of this power meter.

=> All our Test Articles