The official TrainerRoad thread

barry_kellett99

bobmcstuff wrote:

Bit annoying that it is syncing all my outdoor rides with 0 TSS (no powermeter).

Seems like a good feature though, clearly I just need to buy a powermeter

Like any performance analytic software I have used, you need to enter an estimated TSS figure for rides where you didn't use a Power Meter. How else would you expect it to know?
The manual TSS entry on trainerroad is quite nice as it has a good range of RPE on the drop down list to choose from.

bobmcstuff

barry_kellett99 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Bit annoying that it is syncing all my outdoor rides with 0 TSS (no powermeter).

Seems like a good feature though, clearly I just need to buy a powermeter

Like any performance analytic software I have used, you need to enter an estimated TSS figure for rides where you didn't use a Power Meter. How else would you expect it to know?
The manual TSS entry on trainerroad is quite nice as it has a good range of RPE on the drop down list to choose from.

Oh I didn't know it did that.

But I guess I was assuming it would be better if it just ignored it. I've only looked on mobile though so far.

daniel_b

I struggled with the ramp test (even if I thought it was good at the time) and I wonder if that is because I have a naturally (always have) high heartbeat.

With the ramp test, I caved in 1 to 2 minutes before I 'should' have done. How do I know this?
When I completed the twin 8 test, I was in trouble for sure, but achieved a full 20 watts more than I did on the ramp test.

I may give the ramp test another chance, as perhaps I was having a bad day, but I think perhaps for me, one of the more traditional ones ones is better suited.

Was feeling a bit disenchanted with training, as had let it go at the beginning of winter last year, but have improved by 24 watts since Jan, and that's on low volume. Now work has calmed down a touch, switching to a mid volume sustained build, so hoping to eclipse my previous highest figure, andxarry some good fitness into a century, in Sep, and two weeks later a 1 mile hill climb.

Any tips for keeping or improving over the winter?
Or just keep plugging away.
Tbh, I would be happy to just hold onto what I have, and then see if I can build on it again.

The frustation for me this year, is that it's taken me 5 months to get back to where I was in Sep last year.

vpnikolov

I have a quick question on sprinting intervals... I might already know the answer, but just to double-check - did the Spanish Needle workout last week and it alternates between 15 secs at 150% FTP and 15 secs rest. Whatever I do, I can't hit the prescribed wattage of the 15sec 150% interval as my turbo (Tacx Neo) takes about 4-5 secs to reach the required watts, which at the end of the interval leaves me with about 30 watts less than the prescribed. Is it something that I can address somehow or I should not be worried?

bobmcstuff

Is the neo a smart trainer?

I use a Tacx Blue Motion (dumb trainer), and it takes me a few seconds for the power to even out as well, I also have 3s power averaging on TR which obviously adds a little to the time it takes to hit the watts on the display (not an issue for normal intervals, only the super short ones).

I just ignore it and get on with it. If I'm feeling really good I might start to spin up before the interval starts but I don't think TR recommend that, and if I can get through whole workouts like that it usually means I need to do an FTP test (I'll also likely be finding the longer intervals a bit easy).

Freeza

vpnikolov wrote:

Whatever I do, I can't hit the prescribed wattage of the 15sec 150% interval as my turbo (Tacx Neo) takes about 4-5 secs to reach the required watts, which at the end of the interval leaves me with about 30 watts less than the prescribed. Is it something that I can address somehow or I should not be worried?

I'm using a Tacx Bushido Smart and it's exactly the same. I've noticed that after each interval TR usually reports that you've come up short but if you examine the workout in the new interface you'll see you've had your full 15 seconds of pain. Seems like a small 2-3 second synchronisation offset.

Either way Spanish Needle is tough workout, according to the in-ride "coach" dropping intensity by up to 20% will still give an effective workout.

cgfw201

barry_kellett99 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Bit annoying that it is syncing all my outdoor rides with 0 TSS (no powermeter).

Seems like a good feature though, clearly I just need to buy a powermeter

Like any performance analytic software I have used, you need to enter an estimated TSS figure for rides where you didn't use a Power Meter. How else would you expect it to know?
The manual TSS entry on trainerroad is quite nice as it has a good range of RPE on the drop down list to choose from.

trainingpeaks hrTSS is pretty decent, does TrainerRoad offer an equivalent of this if you train with a hrm?

vpnikolov

I've read a couple of comments on the ramp test since it was introduced as a beta test, but nothing more recent. How are you guys finding it? Do you feel it accurately estimates your FTP?

I did it two weeks ago with my old FTP of 245, which I got from an 8 min test in March. At the end of the ramp test I got a new figure - 272. Now, I welcome the increase, but I am still left wondering whether the test overestimated it! I can manage the workouts at the new FTP though, so could it be possible that my FTP was underestimated back in March?

Just for the record, I never stood up during the test, seated all the way and maintaining at least 85 rpm and I felt like I was going to die at the end, never seen my heart rate that high when riding indoors.

Flâneur

You'll see for yourself how accurate it may now be by doing the workouts. How you feel at the end and if you completed them will help inform you.

daniel_b

Hi guys,

I recently started a mid volume sustained power build program.

I carried out the FTP (With a reasonable improvement, following on from a low volume build) not that long ago, and in week 1 it had me doing Red lake +8.
5 X 6 minute blocks at 108% - on that day I was not well rested, and did not have enough energy, so completed it, but it was a slog, and had to carry out one or two back pedals to get through them.

The following week (yesterday) I am tasked with Raymond + 7 - this is 4 X 108%, but critically each are 8 minute long, so the same length as I ran only twice in my FTP test, and was completely spent at the end of the FTP.

For my twin test I managed 109% of my FTP for the second one, and 113% for the first one -I also managed to keep the cadence up, but it was only for two efforts.

I started at 100% for this one, but within 3 minutes had to drop to 96%, and even then was unable to keep cadence up, for one block I averaged a lowly 77, which didn't do my knees any favours.
And my thighs are feeling it this morning, despite my usual stretching routine - I assume due to the lower than normal cadence?

Is it a bit much to expect someone to be able to complete 32 minutes at 108% that soon in the program after an FTP, or am I just not trying hard enough?!

I felt ok, end of a fairly easy day, had a good healthy meal 2.5 hours prior, and had not ridden since Saturday morning, so 2.5 days leg rest.

Just curious to see if others have struggled with this, and if so how you tackled it -grinded your way through, or dropped the percentage to maintain cadence but not power.
We'll gloss over the fact I did both :oops:

norvernrob

Daniel B wrote:

Hi guys,

I recently started a mid volume sustained power build program.

I carried out the FTP (With a reasonable improvement, following on from a low volume build) not that long ago, and in week 1 it had me doing Red lake +8.
5 X 6 minute blocks at 108% - on that day I was not well rested, and did not have enough energy, so completed it, but it was a slog, and had to carry out one or two back pedals to get through them.

The following week (yesterday) I am tasked with Raymond + 7 - this is 4 X 108%, but critically each are 8 minute long, so the same length as I ran only twice in my FTP test, and was completely spent at the end of the FTP.

For my twin test I managed 109% of my FTP for the second one, and 113% for the first one -I also managed to keep the cadence up, but it was only for two efforts.

I started at 100% for this one, but within 3 minutes had to drop to 96%, and even then was unable to keep cadence up, for one block I averaged a lowly 77, which didn't do my knees any favours.
And my thighs are feeling it this morning, despite my usual stretching routine - I assume due to the lower than normal cadence?

Is it a bit much to expect someone to be able to complete 32 minutes at 108% that soon in the program after an FTP, or am I just not trying hard enough?!

I felt ok, end of a fairly easy day, had a good healthy meal 2.5 hours prior, and had not ridden since Saturday morning, so 2.5 days leg rest.

Just curious to see if others have struggled with this, and if so how you tackled it -grinded your way through, or dropped the percentage to maintain cadence but not power.
We'll gloss over the fact I did both :oops:

I’ve done the SPB before, and yes it’s pretty brutal. I’m going to do it again soon, and looking at the workouts they’ve either changed names or are slightly different, but at the end of the day medium-long intervals above ftp are always going to be pretty horrible. You should be able to complete the vast majority at 100% though, unless maybe your physiology isn’t ideal for those types of effort at the moment (others will know better than me about that kind of stuff). If you feel ok and rested just carry on, even if you have to dial down the intensity to complete them. They are as mentally demanding as physically, that’s for sure.

green_mark

Daniel B wrote:

Hi guys,

I recently started a mid volume sustained power build program.

I carried out the FTP (With a reasonable improvement, following on from a low volume build) not that long ago, and in week 1 it had me doing Red lake +8.
5 X 6 minute blocks at 108% - on that day I was not well rested, and did not have enough energy, so completed it, but it was a slog, and had to carry out one or two back pedals to get through them.

The following week (yesterday) I am tasked with Raymond + 7 - this is 4 X 108%, but critically each are 8 minute long, so the same length as I ran only twice in my FTP test, and was completely spent at the end of the FTP.

For my twin test I managed 109% of my FTP for the second one, and 113% for the first one -I also managed to keep the cadence up, but it was only for two efforts.

I started at 100% for this one, but within 3 minutes had to drop to 96%, and even then was unable to keep cadence up, for one block I averaged a lowly 77, which didn't do my knees any favours.
And my thighs are feeling it this morning, despite my usual stretching routine - I assume due to the lower than normal cadence?

Is it a bit much to expect someone to be able to complete 32 minutes at 108% that soon in the program after an FTP, or am I just not trying hard enough?!

I felt ok, end of a fairly easy day, had a good healthy meal 2.5 hours prior, and had not ridden since Saturday morning, so 2.5 days leg rest.

Just curious to see if others have struggled with this, and if so how you tackled it -grinded your way through, or dropped the percentage to maintain cadence but not power.
We'll gloss over the fact I did both :oops:

Just remember that any FTP test is a bit of a initial guess. Your true FTP could be a few watts either side of it. inputting one that is too high will make your rides impossible. You should try 2-3 workouts first to see if the workouts are too hard or too soft and then adjust your FTP accordingly.

You mentioned earlier you had a 24W gain using low volume (base?). That's a fairly big increase - possibly because your over-performed in the latest test.

The other thing - the choice of Low Mid or High volume isn't only about how many hours you have available. It is also about how much work you can recover from. Recovering from mid volume is more difficult than recovering from low volume. It is possible that you weren't sufficiently recovered between your FTP test and the workout. If that is the case then turn down the Wednesday endurance ride so you are nice and fresh for Thursday's under/overs.

daniel_b

NorvernRob wrote:

I’ve done the SPB before, and yes it’s pretty brutal. I’m going to do it again soon, and looking at the workouts they’ve either changed names or are slightly different, but at the end of the day medium-long intervals above ftp are always going to be pretty horrible. You should be able to complete the vast majority at 100% though, unless maybe your physiology isn’t ideal for those types of effort at the moment (others will know better than me about that kind of stuff). If you feel ok and rested just carry on, even if you have to dial down the intensity to complete them. They are as mentally demanding as physically, that’s for sure.

Hi NR, I've been through it before as well, and don't overly recall this before, but perhaps as you say it has altered.
The IF was only 0.87 which I was surprised at, given the apparent intensity of it (for me) - my general rule of thumb is that I can manage anything up to 0.9 - anything over can sometimes be quite a challenge that I need to really work at.
This one ended up at 0.83 with the reduced persentage.

I do get on really well with the peak ones, where you have a line below FTP, an then creep up above it for a minute, and either sit there for a minute before coming back down, or come straight back down on a slope - I seem to thrive on those for some reason.

green_mark wrote:

Just remember that any FTP test is a bit of a initial guess. Your true FTP could be a few watts either side of it. inputting one that is too high will make your rides impossible. You should try 2-3 workouts first to see if the workouts are too hard or too soft and then adjust your FTP accordingly.

You mentioned earlier you had a 24W gain using low volume (base?). That's a fairly big increase - possibly because your over-performed in the latest test.

The other thing - the choice of Low Mid or High volume isn't only about how many hours you have available. It is also about how much work you can recover from. Recovering from mid volume is more difficult than recovering from low volume. It is possible that you weren't sufficiently recovered between your FTP test and the workout. If that is the case then turn down the Wednesday endurance ride so you are nice and fresh for Thursday's under/overs.

Hi GM, this is true, but I have been on TR pretty consistently for nearly 18 months now.

Oh and also, just to add, I don't carry the workouts on the days they are meant to happen, as with a family I basically have to find a time slot, and see what I can fit into it, BUT I do carry out a weeks worth of workouts before progressing onto the next week, but they won't remotely be in order.
So for example - week 1.
Wednesday 16th - FTP (Should have been Tuesday 15th)
Friday 18th - Avalanche Spire (Should have been Thursday 17th)
Monday 21st - Fletcher (Should have been Wednesday 16th)
Monday 21st - Round Bald (Should have been Sunday 20th)
Wednesday 23rd - Red Lake + 8 (Should have been Saturday 19th)

Th two in a day (Morning and evening) are not a usual occurrence, but if forced to, one will be the easy 60 minute ride.

My best FTP last year was 229, though I think I crept up to about 240, and my most recent FTP was a reported 224, so nearly back up to where I was last autumn.
Apologies, I may have made a mistake on a previous post in that case, as I went from 200 > 210 > 224 -those gains were all made on low volume. The 210 I did estimate, as I did not get on with the ramp test, and it told me only 204, which I was sure was too low - So I set it at 210, and that turned out to be pretty much spot on for the following low volume plan.

I switched to low volume for the first part of the year, purely because work was very intense, and did not have as much spare time, but have now reverted back to mid volume, as that is all I had done for the previous year.
The first 3 hard workouts of the plan I completed with no issue - hard for sure, but achievable.

Allegedly the low volume workouts are harder in intensity (for obvious reasons) than the mid volume plans.

I am pleased with the progress I made on low volume, but have switched back to mid as I felt I had better progress last year with it.

Could be that the low volume works better for me potentially, what with more rest, and less volume, but harder efforts when they are scheduled.

I have Beech as the next workout, fairly easy spin, so may stick that in this afternoon to see if it loosens the legs up.
Next workout after that is scheduled for Wednesday before work, likely Fang Mountain, which is one of those ones I seem to love!

One last thing I had not considered, is that despite having two fans on me last night, the garage was pretty warm, so maybe just an off day, or a few things conspiring against me - was just a bit disappointing, as I like to try and hit the targets whenever possible. Also when I saw the mention of 108% for that length, and that number of times, I did think it looked difficult, so perhaps I am already physching myself out.......

Thanks both for your feedback, much appreciated, and apologies if it's a bit of information overload above!

Bandit6

Hi, I'm looking at adding the Trainer Road (TR) system to my training program. I am looking at purchasing the BKOOL Smart Pro 2 indoor trainer. Does anyone have any experience with the BKOOL Smart Pro 2 Trainer? How does it interface with TR :?:

thanks

mrpbennett

Can anyone explain to me what the smaller numbers me on my workout data?

I completed an 2x 8min FTP test and it gave me a TSS score of 104 / 73.

What is the 73? Is that the avg stress score for the work out? As all the data has my TSS as 104.

bobmcstuff

That's the TSS you would have got if you had ridden the workout exactly as prescribed. Obviously it's not that useful for ftp tests as ideally you aren't riding it exactly as prescribed.

So if you pick another workout, say it has a planned tss of 50 and ride it exactly how the app says then you'll get 50/50 (It's not always a smaller number - if you have to reduce the intensity it could be a bigger number or if you bail on an interval)

rdt

Excluding the +/- variants, what are the pure* 30-seconds-on/30-seconds-off TR Workouts?

So far I've found:
- Gendarme
- Grassy Ridge
- Taylor

Anything missing? TIA.


*pure 30-sec-on 30-sec-off, ie. excluding 15-sec recoveries and all other such variations on the theme, of which there are quite a few...

mrpbennett

bobmcstuff wrote:

That's the TSS you would have got if you had ridden the workout exactly as prescribed. Obviously it's not that useful for ftp tests as ideally you aren't riding it exactly as prescribed.

So if you pick another workout, say it has a planned tss of 50 and ride it exactly how the app says then you'll get 50/50 (It's not always a smaller number - if you have to reduce the intensity it could be a bigger number or if you bail on an interval)

Got ya thanks, dude. Makes sense now. I guess it doesnt really matter if you went harder?

bobmcstuff

mrpbennett wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

That's the TSS you would have got if you had ridden the workout exactly as prescribed. Obviously it's not that useful for ftp tests as ideally you aren't riding it exactly as prescribed.

So if you pick another workout, say it has a planned tss of 50 and ride it exactly how the app says then you'll get 50/50 (It's not always a smaller number - if you have to reduce the intensity it could be a bigger number or if you bail on an interval)

Got ya thanks, dude. Makes sense now. I guess it doesnt really matter if you went harder?

Your example was an FTP test so you would really expect to get a higher number as your ftp is hopefully going up. So in that case no, but it's not the best example.

If you were frequently completing workouts with a significantly higher TSS than scheduled in the workout (I.e. more than a handful of points), then I would suggest you need to do another FTP test because it suggests your FTP might be set too low. Especially for the ones with a high intensity factor, I.e. you are working close to FTP - they're supposed to be hard so if you are repeatedly able to go harder than that you probably have your FTP set too low, so either your previous test was a bad day or you've got stronger.

daniel_b

Carried out my 2nd FTP test today, as half way through the mid volume build program.

I had sub standard results with the ramp test, so stuck with my favoured twin 8.

Was up at 4:30, and had plenty of time for a bit of muesli with half a banana, and a cup of black caffeinated coffee.

Started the test just before 6, had both fans going at full chat by the time I hit the 8's.

Plumped for 23% and went for it -felt quite easy for the first two minutes, but then steadily got harder - ended up riding on the tops (not really an issue I assume) but completed it fine, even with a little increase at the end.
The final one was tougher, had to get through it with counting, and any trick I could think of to be honest.
Thought I might have to bail with 2 minute to go, but managed to keep going.

Probably the best and most even test I have ever done.

Wasn't destroyed at the end, but don't think I had much more to give.





FTP 4 weeks ago was 224, and the one today was 238

Mapaputsi

That's cracking progress! And from my experience you can expect more if you stick to their plans

I started with TR last October with an FTP of 276, diligently completed Base 1, Base 2 and Short Power Build all at mid volume and saw my FTP climb from 276 - 289 - 301 - 315 - 320! Gives me a 4.4W/kg.

It really really works. I'm completely off the turbo now and enjoying being outside for the summer but I am twice the cyclist I was last year. Love it

Also I have a few free month referral codes, if anyone fancies them DM me.

daniel_b

Mapaputsi wrote:

That's cracking progress! And from my experience you can expect more if you stick to their plans

I started with TR last October with an FTP of 276, diligently completed Base 1, Base 2 and Short Power Build all at mid volume and saw my FTP climb from 276 - 289 - 301 - 315 - 320! Gives me a 4.4W/kg.

It really really works. I'm completely off the turbo now and enjoying being outside for the summer but I am twice the cyclist I was last year. Love it

Also I have a few free month referral codes, if anyone fancies them DM me.

Thankyou for your kind words :-)

I appreciate my output is a long way from impressive, but for me personally it's almost certainly the fittest I have been, so a nice personal achievement.

I had been on low volume for the first 3rd of the year, due to work commitments, and had only seen fairly modest gains, but was not expecting a 14 watt increase - was hoping for 6+, so it was a really nice surprise, and a great start to the day :-) Further enhanced by a well behaved and compliant daughter to pedal to school 90 minutes later

I've been on TR mostly for the last 18 months - with a young family, and not being able to be delayed by mechanicals out on the road (When carrying out a workout before the school run, or starting work, or in my lunch hour) I need the reliability of knowing when I will be finished.
I do still get out, but it tends to only be once a week, but I enjoy it so much more than I used to, it's wonderful to feel like you have some genuine power (everythng is relative!) in your legs.

Your power figures are mighty in comparison!
You must have been a pretty accomplished bike rider already, starting with that figure!

My immediate aim is to try and get to 4w\kg - and for that I need to get to around 250\260 watts.
Ideally I would like to get to 300, but am not sure if that's posible or not. Still, if you don't try...........!

bobmcstuff

Up at 4.30? Bleurgh!

If I did an FTP test at 6am I'd probably put out about 50 watts then collapse.

Good effort

norvernrob

bobmcstuff wrote:

Up at 4.30? Bleurgh!

If I did an FTP test at 6am I'd probably put out about 50 watts then collapse.

Good effort

I leave the house at 04.30 to cycle to work. It’s hard sometimes, especially hard when there’s a car sat on the drive and I’m really tired!

kmcd21

Advice please
I am wanting to get into trainerroad and get a program running.

Wahoo ant+ 30 pin dongle for iPhone

Kurt kinetic road machine 2011 turbo

Garmin edge 800 mk1 (no bluetooth)

Gsc 10 speed cadence sensor.

I think I have everything to get started ? What about this virtual power, I’m not sure it’s accurate. What would be a good device to buy to gain power training ?

bobmcstuff

Virtual power is fine. Bit of lag for very short efforts but otherwise fine. Couldn't comment on the road machine - I assume yours isn't the smart version?

Cheapest way to get measured power would likely be a single sided Stages or 4iiii crank based system. Or you could buy a smart trainer which may cost less - but bear in mind most cheap smart trainers don't measure power and use the same virtual power approach as TR.

kmcd21

My road machine is basic trainer solid reliable but no smart function. Although I have read that “Inride” bykurtkientic can be retro fit onto my trainer. Not sure if it can be used with trainer road or only a Kurt kinetic app. The cadence data is not accurate but I could still use Garmin gsc 10 sensor

The only other good option is the Garmin v3 pedal PowerTap pedal / assioma pedals

4iii crank is that compatiable with rival sram cranks?

rdt

Kinetic Road Machine + Bluetooth Speed & Cadence sensors works well with TrainerRoad's Virtual Power feature. I use this setup myself. [using this BT sensor, £20: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01MAVQDF9/ ... 11_TE_item ]

I also use a Tacx Neo, which has highly accurate power measurement, and by all accounts offers maybe the best possible current TrainerRoad setup.

So I can compare the two, and although, as you'd expect, the Kinetic with TR's Virtual Power is not as good as the Neo, it is nonetheless a very effective training tool.

Power accuracy-wise, the Kinetic appears to be consistent (so long as you use consistent tyre pressure and roller tension), and over-reads power in comparison to the Neo, but only by "several" percent, not the huge gulf in power numbers you see between many other trainers and the Neo. On the Facebook Neo Owner's group, there's a standing joke about new Neo owners turning up and complaining that their Neo says their FTP is 15-30% less than with their old trainer: [ https://www.facebook.com/groups/TacxNeo ... 418125550/ ]. Well, my experience is that while the Kinetic + TR Virtual Power over-reads, it does so only fairly modestly - nothing like the gulf that appears to exist with some other trainers.

And accuracy isn't so critical as consistency, and the Kinetic appears to be pretty consistent in my experience. Also, the pedal feel (inertia, momentum) of the Kinetic is fairly good (with the Pro flywheel, I believe it to be much better still, and better than many mid- to high-end smart trainers), which means it feels fairly realistic; not on a par with the Neo, which one flaw aside (very steep gradients) tends to be in a different league to most other trainers in this regard, but good enough that you don't generally think about it when using the Kinetic.

All of which means the Kinetic makes for a good training tool, and I'd have no qualms about using your current setup with TrainerRoad. If you can later add-in accurate power measurement, or switch to a quality smart trainer if you want Erg-mode in TrainerRoad or slope simulation in other apps, then that'll be a bonus - but not essential IMO.

kmcd21

That’s a very informative response and I like the idea of just continuing with virtual power when the Kurt kinetic is that reliable !

The Inride retro fit they offer is only $50 if I decide to go that way..
for now the virtual by far beats paying out 100’s for others. Tks.

rdt

I wouldn't bother with the Inride. Kurt dropped a major b011ock when it came to pivoting into software, hence their slide from top trainer company to meh status. A basic bluetooth (BT) sensor pair like I linked to above (for <£20!), plus the Road Machine (RM), does the business with TR - no need to spend more.

I still have one of the original Kurt wired "power computers" that displays a power number based on your trainer speed, and as you'd expect TrainerRoad with Virtual Power and BT sensors displays exactly the same power number as the Kurt power computer (as both are using the same speed->power mapping formula).

In your position, I'd stick to Virtual Power using BT sensors with the Kinetic (ensuring identical tyre pressures and roller tension - I use 100 PSI and 3 turns of the tension knob after first contact between tyre & roller), and the next indoor trainer upgrade I'd consider* would be to move to a quality direct drive smart trainer (the best you can afford), removing the tyre/pressure/friction/roller variable and source of slippage if giving it some welly. But in the meantime, I think you already have a very good tool.


*If you wanted a power meter for outdoors anyway, then by all means get one, and enjoy the benefit of that accuracy indoors on the trainer also, but I wouldn't bother getting one with the primary intention of using it indoors on a Kinetic RM with TR, when the ultra-cheap Virtual Power alternative appears to work so well.