I have a 2018 KICKR and a Quarq PM on my mountain bike with an XX1 AXS drivetrain. Firmware is up to date, everything is installed correctly, the drivetrain is clean, and both devices are zeroed. Regardless of where on the cassette I run the chain, the PM reads 6% higher than the KICKR.
KICKR…PM
100…106
200…212
300…318
I can understand the 2% tolerance, but I’m concerned that these are off by 6%. Have you experienced this, do you have any suggestions? @Jonathan
Just use powermatch…
I understand, but when flipping between different bikes on the trainer and in the real world, accuracy matters as much as precision.
That seems like drivetrain loss, measuring at the spider vs at the cassette/wheel. It’s normal and unavoidable.
Basically, you’re never going to get them to match, so don’t worry about it and mental adjust depending on your situation.
But I will help you with the math here to let you understand why your reading above could POSSIBLY all be correct.
You can be putting out 104w on the quarq which would read 2% high at 106w
You then would be putting out 102w on the kickr with would read 2% low at 100w.
(Okay. I’m rounding on the math, but you get the point.)
Hi, same here, my Kickr doesn’t match my Quarq. It is close is some parts of the power curve and not in others. But it is consistent. I just use Powermatch and don’t even think about it anymore.
Make sure you have power smoothing turned off on the Kickr.
Same here with H1 and Quarq XX1. Tolerances, drive chain loses and more importantly IMO, different power devices.
So to ensure my power inside (TR & Zwift) matches power outside, I only use the Quarq power meter and use Powermatch.
This is the end of the issue for me as I have one bike and one trainer but can see why having a many bikes/trainers this would be an issue. Guess you might have to have a cross reference chart for different bikes, or get them all fitted with a Quarq (Expensive!!)
I’ve done a lot of comparisons testing between my Quarq XX1 PM, my Kickr Snap and now my Kickr Core. You will never get the PM and Kickr to match. They may match at times depending on the workout, the power being put out and a bunch of other factors. The ONLY way to keep it consistent is to use PowerMatch. Below is my most recent comparison during a ramp test between my Quarq and Kickr Core. It started off close but then drifted away from each other later in the workout.
Let’s take another approach. Does anyone have a trainer that is accurate with a 148 bike?
If you’re referring to boost 148 that is what I’m using.
Let me clarify…
You said that your PM and KICKR never lined up. I want to know if someone has a trainer that is lining up with their PM on a boost bike.
Very unlikely any two power meters will be identical; lots of posts on that. Powermatch is your friend; or just accept your TR FTP (trainer) will be different to your outdoor FTP (power meter).
I know, this thread is 2 year old, but I would like to point out another option to adjust the Quarq as I had the samme issue:
My Quarq AXS DZero XX1 was way off. The power meter delivered power values >9% than my kickr core (now the unit is in warranty, but this is another story).
As my Stages Power Meter on the road bike was within 1,5% compared to the kickr, the quarq had to be off.
I had the chance to validate the data on a Kickr V5 with both meters. Same result: The Quarq was off:
https://analyze.dcrainmaker.com/#/public/d269014f-c1bd-4bff-5cf5-34b3e96ac346
Solution / Workaround:
I did a slope adjustment on the Quarq using the AXS Android App.
This solved the issue regarding the power values.
The power data between the Quarq and the Kickr differs by <1,5% now.
https://analyze.dcrainmaker.com/#/public/268f68b7-70ef-469c-4f4b-3946b0294e17
I like to adjust the Quarq as close to the Kickr as possible - regardless of drive loss etc.
Indoor and outdoor interval training should be comparable. Absolute power values are secondary.
Side info:
I invested a lot of time calibrating the Quarq using reference weights to get exact power values.
I can describe the process if somebody is interested. By choose wisely, as going down the rabbit hole will drive you crazy 
This is smart - I wouldn’t trust just gross comparisons to the kickr. But doing static weight tests myself, there is a lot of room for error. Why didn’t you send back for factory calibration?
I had a lot of trouble with the SRAM support and my request for calibration/exchange was not answered for a long time (first ticket opened Q4/2020).
After my offset correction, they saw no need to initiate further service steps 
Now my unit is sent in.
I think my Quarq has far more problems than a simple cal. offset, because left and right crank arm force readings differ by 10%.
So, the offset correction works for ballpark power readings, but Left/Right-Balance is completely off.
As the quarq is measuring via the spider, this is unusual. The crank side und force vector should be independent of the torque readings. I assume, that one of the internal strain gauges is delivering wrong data.
Let’s wait until the unit is back…
I think quarq going to SRAM was a downgrade in customer support.
Which, given other speculation…
Quarq XX1 is not accurate or precise according to me. I sold mine after the horrible standard answers from the support. Alot of people I know use quarq xx1 and they always get veeeery good power numbers. Myself did a couple of runs on the tacx neo trainer and compared it in zwift power analysis tool. My quarq was 11-16% off. It showed way higher numbers than my p2m, stages, 4iiii and assioma uno also. Great for the spirit to ride and feel strong though.
I think QUARQ is so popular because of branding and sponsoring.
You might have had a lemon, my XX1 Quarq has been spot on for over 3 years. In those 3 years it has seen a lot of abuse and crashes. Yet it remains within 1% of my Kickr Core.
