I remember this being addressed in the podcast. Essentially the older versions of the Neo took quite a while to “wind up” the resistance, so TR solved this problem by giving the Neo more time and triggered resistance changes 2 seconds in advance. According to reviews, the latest incarnation of the Neo, the 2T, is not just very quick to react to changes in resistance, but according to @dcrainmaker’s review apparently so quickly that it becomes uncomfortable for the rider.
I think you should send an email to TR’s support so that they can undo their Tacx Neo hack for the 2T.
Which is why TrainerRoad was two seconds early in both directions. I would still think this is a bug, because if the wattage the app asks for and the trainer is set to are different, this is disconcerting to the user because of contradicting stimuli. It’s a bug that should be fixed.
I don’t know if it can be qualified as a “bug” necessarily. My personal point of view is that I like it quite a lot - gives me some 2 seconds to speed up my cadence going into the interval. A very useful example is doing sprints… Yes, DC Rainmaker pointed it right - Neo 2T would let you hit the wall by instantaneously jumping from 160W to 500W. The way it is today in TR gives me those 2 seconds to ramp up gradually before hitting those 500W, thus eliminating the “hit the wall” effect.
Maybe it can be feature that could be switched on or off, but I for sure will keep it “on” all the time on my Neo 2T.
It’s a feature, not a bug - I’m certain there is code in the app to create the lead in demand changes. Note that the OP never noticed this demand advance while using an Elite Direto, proving the worth of this feature. Of course, with smart trainers getting better, one could wonder if an option to disable or reduce the lead would be appropriate.
One thing I wish TR software would do would be to sample 2-3 seconds into the interval, and 2-3 seconds after the interval, when giving you your completed interval powers. Since ERG mode takes a few seconds to kick in, and a few seconds late to release, if you are doing lets say 15 or 30 second intervals, every time you finish one it looks like you missed the target by 20, 30, sometimes even 40w, but if you highlight the same 15 or 30 second interval post-ride and just shift it to start 2-3 seconds late and end 2-3 seconds late, it shows that you basically hit the target.
You just defined the reason that they do the 2-second pre-send of the resistance adjustment. It is a simple, and singular change that is meant to address the lag issue with trainer resistance changes.
The problem is that the delta of power change, trainer in use, and even the practice of the rider can all impact the actual results of the changes. I have gotten to the point that my changes (along with the 2-second sends) align pretty well with the interval target blocks.
But regardless of that, I now ignore the summaries. I only focus on hitting the power (via proper cadence application and letting the trainer do it’s job) during the interval. I make a simple call at the completion of the interval based on what I saw from the yellow live power line vs the blue interval block. I usually end up with a slight late, but overshoot at the start, and a bit of a hang at the end.
Those result in the basic goal of the interval demand on the body and accomplish the desired loading. Splitting hairs over seconds early and late are really pointless if you step back and look at the goals.
The implementation of the 2-second early send works reasonably well without the extra demand of making it trainer specific or user adjustable. It is the law of diminishing returns and making it “better” now would yield only minimal improvement in results for the rider.
Again, more my OCD than anything. I’m learning to disregard the number I see on the screen for shorter intervals, since I usually hit the intervals when I examine after the fact. For longer intervals like 60+ seconds, it seems like there is enough time for the average to build up and be within 1-2w of target.
I’m sure it was easier to offset all the trainer commands by 2 secs instead of writing a whole new set of commands for each workout interval. It would be a waste of time and resources in that regard.
I asked much the same question when I first got my Kickr Core. The offset felt unnecessary at the time and still does.
Given that many smart trainers are being rapidly developed to have faster response times, I think it’s not that unreasonable to expect TR to make an appropriate adjustment in the future. Half a second offset perhaps?
(Not before they finish the Plan Builder of course).
In the meantime, I can assure you it makes stuff all difference to the workouts. You soon stop thinking about it and automatically offset the clock subconsciously.
I disagree: this was a deliberate choice by the TR team to deal with the slow reaction times of the Tacx Neo. Tacx has improved reaction times (perhaps too much), so that this behavior is no longer necessary for the newer Neos.
A great example of why the 1-second advance on power demand, from DCRainmaker’s Elite Suito review, just published; see how the actual load (yellow line) matches the theoretical demand (the big blue block), as a result of the demand (green line) being 1-second early?
Ah, so this is not trainer-specific. I (incorrectly) thought it was. Given that the response time of trainers is different, IMHO it is time to re-evaluate whether to make the “early fire” time interval trainer-specific.
I’ve have this problem on the Tacx Vortex which surprisingly changes resistance pretty quickly too. I do what others do and learn to start increasing the power a second or two before the interval starts. Its fine, I mean I work around the ‘feature’, but it takes the shine of other features, like the beeps to count you in, and the interval power measurements.
It’s probably not great for the trainer nor particularly comfortable to make sudden power jumps. I can’t imagine that slamming from 100something to 400something or more Watts would be a particularly pleasant feeling. As an engineer I would guess that in addition to their being a latency a ramp to the power change has also been incorporated. If it’s a 2sec shift on both ends it’s only going to skew the analysis a bit. If you’re still hitting the power requirement and cadence for the prescribed amount of time does it matter?
I find it irritating. Coming from another smart trainer where the change in effort was coincident with the audio and clock countdown, it makes no sense to train yourself to ignore them Because of a bug. We are paying for this functionality and TR should address it. I have no idea about the mathematical modelling to determine the rate of application, but it makes no sense to apply it two seconds before your own software’s countdown. The audio/clock is currently telling me the effort started two seconds ago, shoddy frankly.