I did a bit of searching and found power curves for the Tacx Satori and Tacx Blue Matic. As of now the Satori is not yet supported by Zwift, but the Blue Matic is. Given the power curves below, I would say they are very close to each other. Accordingly, I’m going to use my Satori with Zwift disguised as a Blue Matic
From my figure, I’m deriving that at 30km/h the difference in power output us about 10watts, this seems to increase to about 20-25 watts at 40km/h.
hope this helps other people to start enjoying zwift too!
as a quick follow-up, the resistance level in Zwift for the Blue Matic is actually L3 and not L4 as shown in my graphs. I’m going to go with the assumption the the difference in power between the satori and blue matic is going to be roughly similar across resistance levels…
yes, after some more research I fully agree with you. On the tacx site you can mouseover the power plots and indeed discover that the ones of the Satori Smart and Blue Motion are ‘identical’. Given that the Blue Motion is indeed the Satori replacement, I’m going with that now.
Curious that that did not show from the power curves I found on that other site.
Anyway, I find that after switching from Blue Matic to Blue Motion my power output seems to make more sense, providing further subjective evidence for the Blue Motion = Satori hypothesis.
Unless I’ve missed something, I’m assuming this isn’t an exact science. At 100 psi tyre pressure and using the L5 setting on the Satori, I look like a cycling god on Zwift. The L6 setting looks about right - pretty accurate in matching climbing speed/effort, but a bit quick on the flat (Zwift tarmac could be a bit smoother than East Lothian). My estimated power output is a bit higher than Strava’s estimates - though that could just reflect the higher intensity / shorter duration of Zwift rides. However, overall Strava rankings for Zwift rides are lower. I don’t know whether this reflects a tendency for users to ‘under-calibrate’ dumb trainers or Zwift riders being generally faster than the full Strava population. It would be interesting to hear any other thoughts on the Satori set-up.
I found that on 100psi and level 5, I was 16w in my favour on the FTP test. I tried level 6 but that worked against me far greater than the 16w. I use this set up for training consistency rather than the ZWIFT races. (There are a few people taking it far too seriously when after all it’s a computer game and a rather fantastic training tool. Get out of it what works for you. I think if I was after accuracy I’d buy a power meter/active trainer. Enjoy!
Thanks for that. Point taken. I’m fairly new to Zwift, the main objective being to alleviate turbo boredom on dark Scottish winter evenings. I was trying to calibrate the trainer so it did bear some approximate relationship to my real-world performance. I think I’m there.
Hi John. I’m not sure just how new you are to ZWIFT but its definitely worth working your way through the workouts. It’s great to mix them up : ) But do your FTP test first and keep the set up consistant. Otherwise the numbers it gives you to work to will either be impossible or far too easy. Good luck and have fun!
Be aware that, based on my own research with a Stages power meter, the Tacx Satori does not offer constant resistance over the course of a workout, even if the resistance level remains the same.
My theory is that as the flywheel heats up, the magnetic resistance becomes less effective, so it takes less watts to maintain the same speed.
So take any calibrations, official or otherwise, with a pinch of salt.
Just got myself a Satori (dumb) and I’m using the Blue Motion power curve, can anyone else who has a real powermeter confirm that L5 is the closest match between virtual and real power? I know this is not exact science, but I just want to make sure I choose the best setting to compare with people with smart trainers or powermeters.
