Anyone have the Neo 2T?

Well one thing that seems telling to me, is that the Neo 2 was pretty wildly 8-15% lower than the Favero’s, but now the Neo 2T is a much more consistent 7-9% lower than the Favero’s, so even TacX is having software issues deciding how to calculate power. Like I said above, I bought this because in GPLama and DCrainmaker’s results, it was tracking very close to pedal based power meters and for me, I bought it with the sole intention of not needing Power Match so I wouldn’t have to move gear around and carry bikes up to my second floor where my trainer room is. So in my case, its not worth $1,000 to me if I end up needing to use the Favero’s for Power Match anyways.

And as far as actual accuracy concerns go, I did the static weight test on my Favero’s twice and both times it was able to measure an 8kg weight to within <5 grams, so the strain gauges in the pedals are working nominally. Any power issues coming from the pedal at that point should be from Favero’s software calculations and from the results I’ve seen across the review board, I have no reason to doubt them.

I’m not trying to go out and say that the TacX is wrong. I definitely don’t have enough information to say that, but I just wanted to provide an additional data point for someone looking to buy it, since the two major reviewers people are looking at show different data. YMMV, but in the end it wasn’t worth my $1,000.

1 Like

Again, I am not in the realm of being an expert on this topic, but you can’t determine if the power meter is 100% accurate unless you actually tested the entire system in an experimental setup with a known input wattage/force and saw what kind of response you get. Not to say the Neo or the Favero’s are right or wrong, but it is extremely difficult to say which is which in this case where you have 2 “relatively vetted” data sets that seem off. Note that even crank based power meters have issues, as seen in things such as the new Shimano cranks. Depending on where you place the strain gauge, it will have different characteristics due to material properties (shape, asymmetry etc.)

Again, if you know the offset, just input the offset and be done with it. Again, data accuracy should be very good. Only caveat is I have heard the Neo does have some lower readings when at high flywheel speeds, as there is no strain gauge in the unit, so if you are using ERG its best to use an easy gear and let the device determine the power for you.

And lastly something to consider, manufactures errors may come into play as well. Lets say both power meter manufacturers say they have a 1% error range. I am not sure if this is an error with respect to your “absolute wattage” or your “wattage readings” (ie readings are +/- 1% vs you are 1 watt high or low for an absolute 100 watt value, if both it would be reading 101 x 1.01 or 101 x .99 or 99 x 1.01 or 99 x.99 watts). Drivetrain losses are non-negligible (note quick google :Mechanical Resistance on Bikes: Drivetrain Efficiency & Hub Bearings – Ride Far) so lets estimate 5-7% drive train losses (and worst case you cross chain so lets just say its 7.5%) so now your readings are 7.5% off empirically, even before you consider the device manufacturer acceptable errors. Note this is a napkin calculation.

So now your 100 watts absolute at the pedal will read 92.5 watts absolute at the hub. Note that with errors lets say the pedals read high, will read 101 x 1.01 watts while the neo will read low: (92.5-92.5*.01) x 99 watts (worst case, note we assume the offset error is reading 1% off the absolute value and factoring in a 99% accuracy of the meter, both within tolerance) and we now have your pedal reading 102 watts and your hub reading 90.659 (90.7 lets say). Whats the difference between the 2?

I get 11%. 11% difference. All within known qualities about the 2 power meters. I have no idea if the power meter manufacturers and/or smart trainer manufacturers have some secret sauce to lower the differences, but I would be suspect of that. Do you wax your chain? How good do you clean it? What brand of chain do you use? Do you use high quality bearings? Is your chain sized correctly? Are you cross chaining? etc.etc.

Someone can prove me wrong and explain to me how or why my write up may or may not be the case. If anything this emphasizes how you should use one power source, or understand that offset is offset. Of course this is worst case, but it falls within the manufacturers specs and standards. Thats not to say either power meter or device has anything going wrong, seems like both may be perfectly fine and you are just seeing science being science. If they both read accurately with a measured offset, they are both functioning absolutely as expected.

Edit: It’s worth noting that I believe power meter manufactures and smart trainers are typically 1.5-2% error range, so this will magnify the difference you would read between the 2 meters. End of the day, as long as both power source are accurately recording and the only issue is the offset, there is nothing wrong with the power meters. Throw an offset value and you are done.

3 Likes

Offset doesn’t really work here either because that’s adjusting an absolute number of watts. I’m seeing a scaled difference between the two. If I put in an offset of 20 watts that worked at 200 watts, it would still be reading wrong 100 watts and 300 watts.

I could use the power scale on the Favero’s to adjust everything down 10%, but honestly I’ve been training on them for 2 years now and know what wattage targets feel like pretty well, so I don’t want to make that adjustment in my brain. Honestly if TacX had an option to scale power output from the reading I could probably make it work, but they don’t have an ability to do that, probably because they want to get involved in E-Sports and allowing the user to just scale the power from the device wouldn’t work with that goal.

Again I don’t know what else to say other than either power meter could be wrong, you cant determine if its the pedals or the neo without an experimental setup. Maybe you are power smoothing?

Call me a stickler but I try not to get too invested in the numbers and as long as the device allows me to train with a somewhat targeted precision I do not care if its +/-2 to 4% or whatever, as raceday nerves already account for more than what your power meter will likely tell you. Maybe ask on DC Rainmakers review comment section and he would have a better explanation or guess as to what the issue might be. Otherwise I think you might be obsessing over the numbers a bit too much. But hey, if you are unhappy with the product return it! It’s your hard earned cash

2 Likes

I have a 2T and a stages left side PM.

The 2T is on the lastest firmware and last night I did a TR workout using only the 2T and Bluetooth (no stages or powermatch). I captured the workout in Zwift as well on Ant+ on the stages. During the workout it appeared that the 2T was 10+w higher than the stages. Post workout I compared the data in TR and 1 minute power was within 2 or 3 watts.

I don’t expect them have the same instantaneous readings because there is so much variation even within a single second. If they are .5sec out of phase with each other its reasonable to get different readings.

I was disappointed on the perceived 10w difference but a 2w difference on best 60 sec power in the workout is pretty good. I don’t quite know how to react to that. I think the next step is to capture both in a single workout file and analyze it and see what that difference looks like.

Is it left side only that is being multiplied by 2? This in itself is another source of error, as you just power x 2 to get the “right side power” but as we all know, thats not the case (left vs right side power differences), not to mention that this amplifies errors.

But I have a left sided 4i power meter and I run into the same issues you just mentioned. I get different readings, which is to be expected.

Note that the mentioning of phase and such is also an interesting topic, as I am not sure how the frequency and recording is done from brand to brand. That would be more of a software question but I would not be surprised to see issues with respect to data recording like you mentioned. DC Rainmaker seems to have a better handle on this and he has a tool for comparing power profiles.

Ill be honest though, what do we have to gain by analyzing the numbers and being obsessed over the accuracy? I mean long term, it really has minimal impact and as long as you are aware of some fluctuations, I am sure that the differences would not significantly impact your training. If the reading is off by 2%, well that’s still within many manufacturers errors. I seriously think from a performance standpoint, its a waste of time and energy to get so bogged down in the numbers when they really have no direct impact on your long term training. If you gave two identical people the 2 power meters and they never knew it was “off” they would likely be extremely similar come race day and any variations would likely be due to conditional or situational or race day effects.

For me it comes down to being able to use my PM outdoors to pace a long ride. I am currently feeling like the way to go is to use the 2T with TR and ignore the stages entirely with the exception of the ramp test. The training will all be spot on. Then when doing a ramp test allow TR to calculate a new FTP based on the 2t, but also capture the data from the stages and run the formula on the stages output to get my ‘stages ftp’. That way i can get the benefit of the 2T and still have directly usable data outdoors.

1 Like

Thats what I would do if I were you.

alternatively I do all my indoor (and mostly all) my training on my neo and then know that my 4i typically reads 8-10 watts low, so I know that for example my “Neo FTP” of 300 will technically be in the 290 area for the crank power. However, I use this number is a soft guide and from actual races I know running 220 watts on the 4i this year with a 285 FTP ish will yield a solid run time, so if I gain significant wattage I know I can safely punch above 220 to a point. Anyways, I use a combo of both to structure my actual pace, but I make sure to use tests or old race experiences to “verify” the numbers and not just rely on the ramp test value.

Trust but verify.

When I started I relied solely on RPE and still rely on RPE for my races, while I use my power numbers to “check in”. To be honest though, I think I could ride anything shorter than a 70.3 tri ride blind and nail the wattage +/- 10 watts, while I would never want to try that on a longer race (hence power meter checking is much, much more important)

1 Like

Having a consistent 30 watt discrepancy (underreporting) between my new Neo 2T and other power devices: Vector 3, Vector 2, and Kickr. Still waiting for a resolution but thus far been pretty disappointed with the Tacx Neo 2T.

Felt the same but mine was the wheel slip. Returned it and got the H3 for 1/2 the price. It is not perfect but very solid and cannot find any major faults.

I got my Neo 2T today. Did my first TR ride this afternoon (DC Rainmaker analyser file at the link below). As well as TR, I connected my Vector 3 dual sided to my Edge 1030. There seems to be a 15w discrepancy on the average power, with the Vector reading consistently higher. Thoughts please? Is this a problem with the Neo reading low, or the Vectors reading high? Where do I start? I think the overall difference is outside the tolerances even if one device was at the top end and the ither at the bottom… Advice gratefully received!

https://analyze.dcrainmaker.com/#/public/f8d9fbd7-9a5b-4257-4afd-d7ba9e7b5d71

I’ve been having great difficulty getting two sets of data into one place where I can compare easily but on a recent ramp test my 2t appears to be within the error bars for agreement with my p2m…and generally much better than 2% allowance on both. They are close enough that I have confidence using either.

1 Like

I’ve got a dozen or so hours on a new Neo 2T (shipped from Garmin, Kansas on Dec 20). It has been very close to my crank based SRM, generally 2 or 3 watts average above the SRM on 10 minute threshold intervals at 200w.

Native thru-axle support (no hokey QR adapter thingy) and the 2T has elimited (or greatly reduced) the virtual tyre slip issue.

3 Likes

How is power accurancy with 2T in current time. Do you get any new firmware to fix these 15watts drops(i’ve heard a case form where some report higher is wattage more distance in correct numbers)? will it be in future fiex? How about ERG, i heard is now 2second input and output?

I’m considering to buy a unit. But in general if i choose much cheaper Elite Direto X, i got super power accurancy as power meter is integrated in this trainer (so, the said). it’s just more laggy?

Just a quick update to this, after returning the Neo 2T I picked up a Kickr Core. I did a ramp test on it tonight and the power is lining up within like +/-2 watts against my Favero’s.

1 Like

You good with the NEO 2T now??

Hello fellow riders,

I am in the market to buy a good trainer that will last for years and with the main goal to use it for structured programs like TrainerRoad (it would be my first try with this app). I have reduced my options to the wahoo kickr & neo 2T, maybe the wahoo kickr core because I don’t see that much of difference between the two kickr’s. Anyway, what is the general consensus as of today? It seems, if price is not a problem, that the neo 2T is a very solid option, being accurate, great road feel and silent. But I’m reading here and there that in ERG mode it might not be ideal due to its harsh responses. What are your thoughts, for those who are using it since a couple months now? thanks !

1 Like

I would describe mine as “very responsive” rather than “harsh”

I use it 6 times a week for a couple of months now, it does a great job. The only thing still missing is cycling dynamics, you have left-right balance though.

New firmware update out for the NEO2 and NEO2T. 0.34. Resolves a few issues with ghosting watts at 0rpm and accuracy at high flywheel speeds. All stacks up pretty well with my brief testing today.

7 Likes