Trainer accuracy

On my friend’s Cycleops Hammer my FTP is @135, which makes sense since his is a little over 200 and he’s a much stronger rider than I am. I mean, I’m 71 and average @15 mph.

But on my unsmart Nashbar my FTP is 208.

So I borrowed another friend’s (Yes, I have more than one) 1Up and had such a goofy ride in NYC that Training Peaks upped me to 291.

Help! Is there an un-smart trainer that is close to being accurate?? I’m thinking about a Cycleops Fluid 2.

Or should I just stick with my good old Nashbar and consider the numbers relative rather than absolute.

Thanks for any thoughts.

Don

The Fluid 2 is a dumb trainer so you would need a power meter. You can use zpower with a Fluid 2 and this uses a known power curve to estimate the power. I’ve got a Fluid 2 and a Hammer along with several power meters. The Fluid 2 for me under reports power by 30 - 40 watts. The Hammer over reports power by around 2 - 3 %. Provided the Hammer has had a spindown calibration done recently I would go with that FTP. 291 is seriously fit for an older rider.

Probably one of the most debated topics on Zwift (and other platforms) @Don_Niederfrank. Unless you have access to a couple of correctly calibrated, consistently accurate power-meters the question is difficult to answer.

Unless your goal is to discover your own real FTP to a certain error percentage, stick to one machine and go with the relative data. Even if your Nashbar data is lower than you think it should be, it will still be a good relative indicator should your power rise or fall.

Be the best you can be on the equipment you have.

Ride On!

1 Like

Thanks to both of you for thoughts and insights.
291 isn’t just serious fitness, it’s absurd for me! There were times during that ride on the 1Up that my kw/g went over 6. That ain’t me, babe.

Paul this is a great piece of wisdom. You just saved me a bunch of money.

Again, thanks.

Don

1 Like