Yeah, that was my reaction after I got mine. I love most aspects of my 2T (solid feel, accuracy, Erg feel) but frankly if I’m paying that much money for a trainer, I’d expect it to read cadence accurately. If they couldn’t design a robust way of doing it, why didn’t they just throw a GBP/USD 20/30 shoe mounted cadence sensor in the box.
I may end up just using my CABLE device to collect crank-based cadence sensor, power, HRM, etc. to package and send via FTMS to AppleTV or TrainerRoad.
The other annoying part is that for Ant+, the Neo either outputs cadence AND power, or neither. There’s a toggle in the Tacx Utility app to turn off Ant+ broadcast of cadence from the Neo, but when you do that it also turns off power broadcast.
If you want to see if the crank extension will work, just rubber band a butter knife or any metal stick ( I used a park tool chain stretch tool ). I verified it fixed all my cadence issues before I had them even send it to me.
Also depending on your crank you could mount your cadence sensor lower on the arm and have both the extension and the sensor on at the same time.
Totally agree
Giving my test results here, I have a 2%-5% power difference between the 2T and Quarq Dzero Axs the 2T underreporting. Yet the results seem within the drivetrain losses. Small ring, big ring… no actual difference except that pikes are higher on the Quarq PM which is normal.
What I find weird though is that I have big differences in numbers and feeling between oustside and inside numbers. I have the Quarq PM on my oustise bike which I did put on the 2T for the above test but when I go outside I am able to maintain 375W for 5 min when I can’t even hold it for 1 min in the ramp test which I ended at 363W last time I tested.
I don’t believe the outside effect is that big in terms of difference… I am using two fans for my inside trainings and windows opended etc. I didn’t really test thinking of the effort difference using my outside bike on the 2T instead of the regular 2T bike but I didn’t notice so much difference in feeling just testing, so I really don’t think it could come from power accuracy measurements, neither from the bike setup…
As anyone tested Quard Dzero Axs with the 2T as well ?
Another issue I noticed is that sometimes using the 2T to record the power with the Garmin 1080 Plus, I have holes in the graphs like 0 power for a few seconds when the Quarq never stopped recording… Anyone had this ?
My rough guess is they needed the cadence directly in the unit for the L/R power numbers, it would also explain why they don’t just use torque variations like Wahoo and everyone else to determine cadence since it wouldn’t know Left vs Right. Though this seems like it would be a good fall back for cadence that could be done in firmware.
Now don’t get me started on the promised cycling dynamics stats that use this L/R power that still seem to be missing unless you use their Windows application or a Garmin head unit. If TR could access this it would be a great feature update to see my pedal smoothness, etc while doing the drills during a session.
1 Like
The Flux series also uses the proximity sensor to measure cadence - with the same difficulties. So it’s not driven by pedal dynamics. The variations in chainstay length, foot length, crank arm length, etc makes heel position vary a lot between individuals and bikes. It’s not a foolproof design. I ditched their measure and use a Wahoo Cadence instead.
1 Like