Up until this week I've been using my pedals to record power on Zwift, so that I have the consistency when comparing with outdoor rides. But now that I have a dedicated turbo bike, I'll be using the trainer (KickR) power.Here's a question for the clever bike tech bods on and triggered from a 'debate' on facebook at the moment ... the debate (for the god knows how many times!) is around the accuracy of power pedals vs the NEO (actually the 2T in this case). The poster has shown that his NEO is reporting power quite a bit lower than the pedals and so he's using the pedals as power on Zwift.
I think I'm correct in saying some power will be lost to the drive chain, so seeing the NEO report lower numbers compared to pedals is not that surprising and both power figures are (probably) correct, kind of.
Question is, why would using the pedals be wrong? Why is it not ok to use the NEO for resistance and the pedals for power? Assuming the rider also uses the pedals outside, and the pedals are accurate, why should someone use a power source that shows a lower figure?
Whenever this is brought up on FB there are always those that argue that the lower power should be used because ... well, I don't know really as there is no real evidence that the pedals are more or less accurate than the NEO.
I'd have thought it's better for the rider, if they use the same pedals outside, to use the pedals for indoor riding too. Yes, No?
Not meant to be an argument post, just interested why the assumption seems to be that the lower number is always the more accurate, or at least the one to use.
It'll be interesting to see how I compare. I won't know whether to attribute any decrease to the change of PM or actual lack of power!