Kickr v neo 2t

kdf1966

Hello,

I’m looking for a trainer for my MTB, something realistic and simulate the real thing as best as possible, I was looking at the 2t but then seen the accessories that can be bought for the kickr headwind and climb, and wasn’t ao sure the 2t would be best option. Could anyone provide any insight to which they think would be the better option?

I’ve not had a turbo trainer before and always done mtb, but due to work I can’t get out much so thought this would be a good way to keep fitness up, then for a few times a year disconnect the bike to go outside. It’s fitness I’m interested in, in particular increasing my VO2 max and burning fat, have to be a certain fitness for work so I want something I can monitor on and ensure I’m in target range, also cycling is the only exercise I can actually stick to (not keen on the old static bikes either) so the closest to reality is probably the best option.

TIA

dannbodge

Kickr headwind is just a glorified fan (The cleva vacmaster airmover is just as good)
and the climb is a gimmick (and an unreliable one at that)

Turbo trainer wise, they're both as good as each other. The newest version of the Kickr has brought in inline with the Neo by adding a bit of compliance in the legs/feet and removing the need for calibration.

I've got a Neo 1 and wouldn't change it for anything else, it just works.

kdf1966

That’s great thanks. Was a bit concerned I’d pick the wrong one and regret it

whyamihere

I've got a Kickr with a Climb and a Headwind. I probably wouldn't bother buying the Climb again. I do really like the Headwind, but I only use it in HR mode which works with any trainer, so wouldn't use that as a reason to go for one or the other.