New trainer => lower power readings

[ccooper]

I just replaced my first-generation Wahoo KICKR with a Neo Tacx 2T. I am disappointed, but not entirely surprised, to find that my power is 10-15% lower than Wahoo was reporting. The first-generation KICKR's are known to have accuracy issues, and the Neo is reportedly pretty accurate, so I have to accept the new readings as reality. At least, until I acquire some Assioma's and compare them to the Neo.

While it is disappointing, I know that it's better to see the real numbers. Instead of an FTP of 338 watts, I'm now not sure that I can break 300 watts. Oh well, I'll keep training and hope to get back up there eventually. But next year I'll be 70 -- how much longer can I keep improving?

This is certainly an issue for people who don't have a smart trainer, but as you can see even some of the smart trainers have accuracy problems.

Chris

 

[xtalbike]

I’m glad you were still having the high readings when I needed you to pull me back to the group on the TTT a few weeks ago! I have the Assiomas on my outdoor bike but tested them with the more recent KICKR Core that I use for Zwift. They matched up pretty well on average.

Joel

 

[ed72]

Zwift FTP can be skewed upwards also because short criteriums give a very high NP. Deadly sin #4 per Coggan. Zwift has my FTP a touch too high but.....it is just a game

https://wattmatters.blog/home/2008/05/the-seven-deadly-sins.html

 

[JerseyJim]

I'm about to be 52 and I have never broken 300 watts as an FTP so kudos to you. I think your biological age is much lower than your chronological age.
The competitive rider in me always wants more power and speed. However, I've found that the more endurance events I do, there's less correlation between FTP and overall performance. After a certain distance and fatigue my 1 hour power has little relevance. Now I mainly look at it as a metric for setting training zones. One number does not define you.