One year of usage (4-5 times a week) no crack so farā¦
Great! But just to make sure, check the area around the two back feet. There looks it cracks because some of the metal substructure apparently pushes on that part of the leg. Hoping you donāt find any cracks. I also had cracks, in the original unit, around the small screw holes on both legs. Like the plastic wasnāt built or designed for the weight/stress of riding. Having a piece of plastic shoot out wasnāt good either.
1 Like
Nothing, not a tiny crack, I am lucky I guess 
Do you have pictures?
Picked up a Neo 2T as a second trainer in case of failure over the winter and I canāt get hold of a replacement. Pretty disappointed to see that it does seem to read a lower than the Neo Gen1. I was previously using PowerTap P1S for dual recording and the Neo lined up nicely there too. Todayās ride was with a new, freshly waxed chain and new cassette. For many, the difference wouldnāt be too much of a problem, but for the Zwift Premier league where we must use the trainer as primary power source, this immediately put me at a disadvantage. That kind of discrepancy is the difference between getting dropped and staying in the group. Pretty bummed TBH.
1 Like
Sorry to hear that 
. The bike and its components stayed exactly the same when you switched trainers?
[EDIT] Forget it, I just saw the time stampsā¦
Another question: Are you using oval chainrings?
Yes, Iām using Q-rings.
If I remember correctly, the Vectors do assume a constant angular velocity internally which causes a slight overestimation of power when used with oval chainrings. What if the NEO OG was using the same assumption/technique, but the 2T is using a more sophisticated method to determine cadence/angular velocity? Or, again, the left/right cadence sensor introduced with the 2T is causing problems in this regard.
Impressive numbers nonetheless! 
1 Like
Thank you!
Iām not sure if the oval rings are a red herring. Iāve a few dual recordings with my IRL race bike on the trainer (which has round rings) and there didnāt seem to be much of a difference. All my outdoor power PBās are on round rings, and they line up well with my indoor power PBās.
Iāll do a few more recordings and see where things are heading 
I had the same experience with the Neo 2T, reading about 12 watts lower than my Assiomas at around 300w. Returned and got a Kickr V5, which is spot on with two different sets of Assiomas.
1 Like
Then the Kickr or Assiomas, or both, are inaccurate.
They measure at opposite ends of the drivechain and you should see some difference.
2 Likes
I could have been a bit less opaque about what I meant by āspot onāā¦ at low wattage, both the Neo 2T and Kickr read about 5w lower than the Assiomas, which I attribute to drivetrain losses on the clean drivetrain on my trainer bike. Up around 300w, the Kickr is still reading about 5w lower, but the Neo 2T was reading 11ish watts lower, with progressively more negative skew as the wattage increased beyond that.
1 Like
So just to be clear, weāre talking about a 6w difference at 300w between the two trainers? I have no intention of defending the Neo 2T, Iāve owned over a dozen trainers at this point, but to me youāre just chasing numbers with no actual point.
If you use power match, you have no issue. If you do a ramp test on the Neo and use that number as your FTP, no issue. Thereās literally no issue with having either trainer be +/- 11w other than your ego telling someone what your FTP is (which is real, I get it).
1 Like
For the most part you are absolutely spot on. It doesnāt matter what the number is, as long as 300W is 300W each time you ride. However, there are some applications where is actually does matter. Racing on Zwift in the Invitational races where you must use your trainer as the primary power source, a 3% difference between trainers is significant. A five minute effort at 400W is very different from a five minute effort at 388W. Thatās the difference between being able to stay in the group to getting dropped.
1 Like
Yeah, difference of 6w at 300w, but around 13w at 500w, and so on, with increasing wattage. So let me ask ya, if youāre gonna drop 1200-1400 on a trainer, and youāve got two choices, one that consistently reads 5w lower than your pedals across all power outputs, and one that has a (presumably) linear increase in the offset between pedals and trainer, which are you gonna choose? Call me crazy, but as a consumer, when I spend that kind of money, I want something accurate. Some zwift races require you to use trainer based power, and I donāt want to have to take my Assiomas off my other bikes to do powermatch. So yeah, not just āchasing numbers with no actual pointā. As for ego, though, guilty as charged.
But isnāt the loss in fact proportional to the power output and not a fixed number of watts?
TBH, there is no perfect trainer. I would drop $2000+ on a solid trainer without any issues. But, Iām on my third Neo 2T (one had buzzing/electrical sounds with super loud Zwift ground effects, one was overheating and fried the cadence sensor, third one so far so good), I had two Neo 2 before that (cadence sensor issue), and before that I had an Elite that was so incredibly slow at changing power it was unusable for TR, and before THAT I went through seven Kickr 18s because of their disastrous QC problems.
FWIW, Iām not convinced that Wahoo has really fixed their QC issues and is any more reliable or accurate than the Neo. They both have issues. You solve one thing by switching companies and end up with 2 new things.
2 Likes
