Kickr or Neo 2T

andyh01

Hey all.
I'm in the process of setting up a home gym . I've got a large log cabin on order, already have a treadmill and a thru axle bike.

I'm looking to add a turbo trainer to it, probably use Zwift, which I'm on for running.

Anyway, I was wanting the Neo 2T but it's quite expensive when have to add a cassette and thru axle adapter as well. I've just seen the new kickr with improved accuracy reading. It seems the only difference between the two are:
Gradient 25% on 2T Vs 20% on kickr
I know the decent is 10% on kickr but not sure on 2T?
Then flywheel kickr is over 7kg belt whereas the 2T is virtual so no belt to stretch and supposedly best ride feel?

Basically is the 2T worth it over something like the kickr?

I would want to simulate the climbs so was looking at higher gradient (similar with the Treadmill in hindsight wish gone for incline trainer I think albeit again tradeoff of budget)
I also don't understand enough re resistance within Zwift etc and gear ratios ; currently on semi compact 11-28 I believe gravel/adventure do.it all type bike, for irl use but want to have a go at serious climbs when indoors so I don't know what setting I would need to reduce my irl gearing to virtually climb say the V-Everest challenge or the new TDF stages at the same irl steepness/difficulty with a similar gear ratios as a climbing bike would have

fatted864

Some people like Wahoo some Tacx, both good trainers, choose the one you like. For virtual rides you can always reduce the gradients of the hills or put in a lighter weight if its too hard for you. Or turn the Trainer into ergo mode and just ride up at what ever wattage you set this basically allows you to have what ever cadence you want but of course does take away the feeling of climbing some iconic mountain.

redvision

You won't go wrong with either.

General rule though, if you have a Wahoo gps unit go for the kickr, if you have a garmin gps go with the tacx (tacx is now garmin).

thegreatdivide

redvision said:

You won't go wrong with either.

General rule though, if you have a Wahoo gps unit go for the kickr, if you have a garmin gps go with the tacx (tacx is now garmin).

Is this your general rule that you just made up?

redvision

No, it's fact. For whatever reason garmin devices don't work particularly smoothly on wahoo turbos, and likewise, wahoo gps don't work as well on garmin (tacx) turbos.

It's not to say they don't work, but just not as smoothly. So the tip is to stick with the same brand.

DCR and Shane Miller have covered this topic and so have most cycling forums at some point.

dowtcha

Why would you be using GPS units on a stationary trainer?

pblakeney

dowtcha said:

Why would you be using GPS units on a stationary trainer?

Head units are capable of displaying much more data than apps usually have onscreen.

StillGoing

dowtcha said:

Why would you be using GPS units on a stationary trainer?

Sometimes you may want to ride a recorded route on the device. A Wahoo with a TACX Neo doesn't play nicely, but to be honest, the experience of a Garmin with the Neo wasn't much better, other than I wasn't doing 235mph as the Wahoo insisted.

andyh01

I only have an old Edge 500 head unit and an old 975xt(?) Watch...
I know they're both good trainers, just is the Neo 2T worth the extra?
The fly wheels are obviously different, one being magnet, the other belt. Belts wear out so will the 2T last longer and feel more realistic?

The only other main difference is the simulated gradient 25% Vs 20%. Initially I was wanting the extra 5% but thinking about it, although my only bike is a Mason Bokeh adventure/gravel type bike with "middle" gearing, (I think semi compact with 11-28), I may need to lower the gearing, although again with the Neo, I would need to buy another cassette anyway, and/or lower the difficulty, to give the same/similar effect as lower gearing. I would, however, still want the same gradient "feeling"

I can't remember off hand if the Neo has an extra 500w, however, as an "average" mortal I'm sure even ,2kw is more than enough.

It's like the treadmill I suppose, ideally,I wanted the next model up which was about £500 more, main difference was had decline whereas one I have doesn't, yes it would be nice to have but still happy with what I have...
I guess it's same with the trainer, although I envision more time on trainer then treadmill, once I have both do don't want to compromise, but it's an extra £400 ish more than the kicker... I've read the Neo's have issues like cracks in the casing and poor cust service esp now Garmin too

Dorset_Boy

They are the 2 best turbos on the market, either will be plenty good enough. Just go for which one you prefer the look of or suits your budget better.
Very few normal riders will ever do much more that 1,000 watts, let alone 2,000w! Even for a 100 kg sprinter that's still 20 w/kg.
I have a 2017 Kickr with about 10k Zwift miles on it, zero problems, no belt wear.

If you read enoug forum threads you will see issues with every brand, but people rarely post to say they had no problems!

thistle_

andyh01 said:

The only other main difference is the simulated gradient 25% Vs 20%. Initially I was wanting the extra 5% but thinking about it, although my only bike is a Mason Bokeh adventure/gravel type bike with "middle" gearing, (I think semi compact with 11-28), I may need to lower the gearing, although again with the Neo, I would need to buy another cassette anyway, and/or lower the difficulty, to give the same/similar effect as lower gearing. I would, however, still want the same gradient "feeling"

In Zwift you can turn up/down the trainer difficulty - it adjusts how extreme the changes in resistance are as part of the simulation:
https://zwiftinsider.com/using-the-trainer-difficulty-setting-in-zwift/

Difficulty is set to 50% by default, so if your 20% trainer wasn't hard enough you can crank it up harder rather than changing the gearing on the bike. The biggest gradient I've seen on Zwift is 15%, but apparently there's a short 18% somewhere.
Obviously if 20% gradient @ 100% difficulty is still too easy then stick a bigger chainring on.

andyh01

Thanks for the replies so far.
Ideally I would like 100% "difficulty" to realistically replicate the gradient of irl climbs. With the Neo I would need another rear cassette anyway and I have a long (clutched) rear derailleur do could add a wide/lower cassette, however, I'm sure as an average recorational cyclist the Kicker be more than enough.

Anyone know what the max descent on the Neo is? I understand the cassette will coast/,rotate without pedalling to replicate the feeling of coasting and that the Wahoo replicates up.to 10% downhill but what about the Neo?

Do far my pros for the Neo are
Already in the Garmin family and use Connect
Ride feel cobble stones etc (if more than a gimmick)
Magnetic drive/resistance no parts to stretch/wear out
Slightly more gradient/power
The cons compared to the new Wahoo kickr, the 25% higher price tag (factoring in an additional cassette, altho gives more options for irl riding if needed) I would also need disc brake pad holders (which Wahoo include in the box)
The cons about the Wahoo compared to Neo are
I'd be new to wahoo,
belt drive/fly wheel weight/ride feel
However now the V5 has no need for calibration/spin downs (although done by algorithm, so depends how good/accurate that is) improved accuracy (although currently teething problems according to DCC rainmaker) included cassette and 25% cheaper price makes it more appealing.
All said and done, I would prefer the Neo I think, just a question of whether the budget will stretch.

pblakeney

andyh01 said:

Anyone know what the max descent on the Neo is? I understand the cassette will coast/,rotate without pedalling to replicate the feeling of coasting and that the Wahoo replicates up.to 10% downhill but what about the Neo?

...Ride feel cobble stones etc (if more than a gimmick)...

Not sure about an actual gradient figure but I know I hit 40mph while freewheeling down a steep section.

Personally I hate the surface feel and switched it off as I always had the feeling of transmission problems. Each to their own.

Dorset_Boy

Also don't fall for the 100% difficulty BS. You still have to generate the watts to get up a climb whether on 25% or 100%. The lower setting increases the gearing range and the seffective size of your cassette.
Would you climb the alpe with a 39 x 23 set up? Most people would probably have a 34 (or 36) x 28/32 set up.
100% setting in effect will narrow the gear range and decrease your cassette ratio. somewhere around 70-80% is likely to be the best replication of your IRL set up.
i'm not aware of anyone who lines the surface feel on the Neo. I think it is an unloved gimmick.

pblakeney

Dorset_Boy said:

Also don't fall for the 100% difficulty BS.

Depends on what you are using the trainer for.
I like to know that when I get the chance to do the Stelvio for real that I know I can do it, and my bike has the appropriate gearing.
If you are just chasing watts for training then fair enough.

Dorset_Boy

pblakeney said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Also don't fall for the 100% difficulty BS.

Depends on what you are using the trainer for.
I like to know that when I get the chance to do the Stelvio for real that I know I can do it, and my bike has the appropriate gearing.
If you are just chasing watts for training then fair enough.

But 100% TD setting is harder than real life. IMO.
and if you were doing a big mountain climb you wouldn't do it with a 23 or 25 on the back as your easiest gear unless you want to knacker your knees.

pblakeney

Dorset_Boy said:

pblakeney said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Also don't fall for the 100% difficulty BS.

Depends on what you are using the trainer for.
I like to know that when I get the chance to do the Stelvio for real that I know I can do it, and my bike has the appropriate gearing.
If you are just chasing watts for training then fair enough.

But 100% TD setting is harder than real life. IMO.
and if you were doing a big mountain climb you wouldn't do it with a 23 or 25 on the back as your easiest gear unless you want to knacker your knees.

I've done a side by side comparison with a local route and found it to be spot on.
I now know that my 34x29/30* is adequate. I have a lot of steep climbs nearby.

(If the Neo is in fact harder then it will simply be easier in real life. 😎)

*29 on the bike (Campagnolo), 30 on the trainer (Shimano).

teisetrotter

I bought the Tacx Neo 2T ..... has a slight rocking capability which is good for longer stints. It looks cool and has an exciting neon light under it that changes colour the harder you go ....... also it does road surface simulation on Zwift.

All these points are utterly irrelevant though. I'd head over to Youtube and look at reviews by DCRainmaker and Shane Millar - DP Lama.

fatted864

Dorset_Boy said:

pblakeney said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Also don't fall for the 100% difficulty BS.

Depends on what you are using the trainer for.
I like to know that when I get the chance to do the Stelvio for real that I know I can do it, and my bike has the appropriate gearing.
If you are just chasing watts for training then fair enough.

But 100% TD setting is harder than real life. IMO.
and if you were doing a big mountain climb you wouldn't do it with a 23 or 25 on the back as your easiest gear unless you want to knacker your knees.

I have done a lot of the same climbs virtual and real, 100% is accurate, of course no rain, sun or wind. I use Big Ring VR for virtual climbs.

StillGoing

andyh01 said:

Thanks for the replies so far.
Ideally I would like 100% "difficulty" to realistically replicate the gradient of irl climbs. With the Neo I would need another rear cassette anyway and I have a long (clutched) rear derailleur do could add a wide/lower cassette, however, I'm sure as an average recorational cyclist the Kicker be more than enough.

Anyone know what the max descent on the Neo is? I understand the cassette will coast/,rotate without pedalling to replicate the feeling of coasting and that the Wahoo replicates up.to 10% downhill but what about the Neo?

Do far my pros for the Neo are
Already in the Garmin family and use Connect
Ride feel cobble stones etc (if more than a gimmick)
Magnetic drive/resistance no parts to stretch/wear out
Slightly more gradient/power
The cons compared to the new Wahoo kickr, the 25% higher price tag (factoring in an additional cassette, altho gives more options for irl riding if needed) I would also need disc brake pad holders (which Wahoo include in the box)
The cons about the Wahoo compared to Neo are
I'd be new to wahoo,
belt drive/fly wheel weight/ride feel
However now the V5 has no need for calibration/spin downs (although done by algorithm, so depends how good/accurate that is) improved accuracy (although currently teething problems according to DCC rainmaker) included cassette and 25% cheaper price makes it more appealing.
All said and done, I would prefer the Neo I think, just a question of whether the budget will stretch.

You can add that the Neo doesn't require a spin down calibration, whereas the Kickr does, unless you stump up the extra for the new Kickr 5. The downhill gradient spin on the Neo is generally at over 3% and 18mph/29kmph. The Neo doesn't suffer with the corrosion and belt issues of the Kickr and can do a reasonable side to side rock in sprints.

The 25% setting and 2000 watts is ridiculous, but it is at least there for when someone replicates a 25% climb on a program.

The resistance of the turbo can be set to 0% or 100% on most programs. You can use ERG mode or not. ERG mode will automatically set the resistance. Riding up a hill with it on or off will make no difference to your time for the same watts.

Despite Garmin's issues with support, the TACX boffins have always been quick to sort any issues.

ibr17xvii

1 thing to consider is with the V5 Kickr just coming out there may be some deals available for the older model.

Wahoo sometimes have refurbs available at a lower price.

teebs_123

I'm in the same boat and can't decide. You do get a cassette with the Wahoo but apparently it's not great and would prob swap for a matching Ultegra one anyway...

ibr17xvii

teebs_123 said:

I'm in the same boat and can't decide. You do get a cassette with the Wahoo but apparently it's not great and would prob swap for a matching Ultegra one anyway...

On the V3 Kickr you got a 11/28 105 cassette which was fine if a wee bit noisy.

On my V4 Kickr I got a SunRace 11/28 cassette which again was fine if a little noisier still.

DCR recommends Ultegra cassettes as the quietest which I now have on mine & the difference isn't massive but is still noticeable, to me anyway.

No idea what cassette you get with a V5, I'm sure Wahoo, DCR or GP Lama will be able to advise if you ask them.

dannbodge

Neo gets my choice but I've got the Neo 1 so am bias.

fatted864

When you are spending large amount of coin on one of these Trainers with or without a cassette is irrelevant. I have a Neo 1.

pblakeney

fatted864 said:

When you are spending large amount of coin on one of these Trainers with or without a cassette is irrelevant. I have a Neo 1.

Adding your choice of cassette makes sense for me.
Some want an 11-23, some want an 11-34. Horses for courses.