This reply won't be the definitive response to your question, but for me a key 'pro' for the Kickr over Computrainer is that Kickr software is compatible w/current generation Apple computers. I've been on a CT Lab for the last few yrs. and now I'm changing over to a Kickr in part because I can get the Erg. training mode like the CT and use my Mac, iPad, etc. Since I starting using TrainerRoad about a year ago the complaints about Racermate software issues are moot as I haven't used the CT software a single time since. In defense of the Computrainer, it has a reliable piece of hardware. I got 2-3 seasons out of my Continental home trainer tire, so no issue for me chewing up rubber. Only concern I have about the Kickr going in is about the noise level of the unit. The video clip in the DC Rainmaker review of the Kickr made it seem like the noise was pretty bad, but folks seem to say its no worse than other competitors. fwiw, Once my Kickr arrives and I test it out, I'll most likely be placing my gently used, 4yr. old CT Lab on the classifieds here for sale.

CT is great piece of hardware but u have to hate all those cables plus their crappy soft.

I haven't use RM1 since Trainer Road.

---

The entire event (IM) is like "death by 1000 cuts" and the best race is minimizing all those cuts and losing less blood than the other guy. - Dev

First I can't add much on the kickr as I have not tried it (hope to very soon), but I can talk a little bit about the computrainer.


Not sure there is a huge anti computrainer itself sentiment as much as an anti racermate lack of progress sentiment. Racermate One software took forever to release, although I actually think it's pretty good now that I've actually tried it out a bit. The unit's power reading is very accurate as long as you warmup and calibrate each time you ride. I also think it is pretty accurate in terms of it's course simulation through .crs files. I generated several courses with realistic wind conditions, and got very close to my expected times with my Normalized Power numbers. Changes in gradients for these course simulations are not super abrupt as well so it seems to handle that nicely. Their erg function is just erg and works as it should. The actual unit itself has not been updated in who knows how long and is pretty stale, especially the base! I adapted mine to use a rock-and-roll base and find it much nicer now. All that being said it's expensive and it doesn't look like there will be much in the way of software updates (from Racermate anyway). I use mine with TrainerRoad 90% of the time, but you can do some online racing with tourdegiro and there are other applications out there that can control the unit.

I really want to try out the wahoo as I think there are a lot of possibilities for outside developers to do cool stuff. I hear mixed reviews about the Strava App, but a lot of that may be due to what type of and the accuracy of the data being pulled from strava (elevation, etc). I've talked to some of the developers and there is a beta andriod app you can download (not sure if it supports ant+ embedded in phones like the S4), and the kickr api has some inputs that make for some interesting possibilities. I think the kickr has more upside potential as more developers jump on board.

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Founder: BestBikeSplit
Amazonian

In all fairness I haven't ridden both, but I do have experience on the CT and I have some riding buddies who use the Kickr and we have compared notes. People who use both are doing just fine and getting stronger but I count myself among the people who would buy a CT again today. Here is how I think they compare on the points you brought up:

* Accuracy: CT is pretty well established there. I've read enough comparisons with on-bike power meters that seem to show that it tracks pretty well and even when it is off, it is off consistently between rides so that 250w feels pretty much the same each time you use it. The Kickr may be just as accurate but what we don't know is whether it drifts over time.
* Noise: pretty similar from what I hear, but lots of stuff can affect this like the chain wear and the floor surface. I find the CT more quiet than my fluid trainer.
* Reliability: The Kickr is built solid but with just one season of use in the wild it is anyone's guess. People are riding their 10+ year old CT and the things are going strong. The reputation is well earned on the CT in this regard.
* Software: If the Kickr isn't in the lead now, it will be because they have a more open platform. That said, I think the ice is thawing a little at RacerMate. They really embraced Tour de Giro with open arms and I think these days you have a lot of good options with both systems.

I think they are both good systems and I'm hoping to try out the Kickr sometime to have more of a hands on comparison. The price is higher for the CT, but they can be found used if that is an issue.

I haven't used the kickr yet but love my CT. I choose the CT over the kickr this year for a few reasons. first I did not like not having to hook my bike up to the kickr via a cassette (no wheel) since I only have 1 bike and dont leave it set-up in a trainer due to lack of space plus I read the kickr is big and heavy. I knew the CT was proven albeit a little outdated but have had no troubles with it so far. I do use trainer road 90% of the time since it is just easy to run and I like training in erg better than the course simulation. The wires are a pain but you get used to it after a while and hopefully (fingers crossed) they come out with a wireless cadence sensor... The real course videos are def. cool and work well.

---

Andy Mullen
Team Zoot

 
The main two arguments for the Kickr are Software and no cables with use of more modern technologies such as Ant+

The main argument for CT is proven reliability and accuracy

I think the software argument is going away.
Both vendors will become a hardware platform and the software will come from GoldenCheetah, TrainerRoad, ErgVideo, Perfpro Studio, Giro, KinoMap and more to come.

Yes, Wahoo is more open but the reverse engineering of the CT is done and anyone can program to it. Software Vendors will have to decide if they want to go after the thousands of computrainers out there or the future thousands of Kickrs out there. The smart ones will support both.
CT is silly to chase the SW market. Make the APIs open source and let the SW market build the software.

So it's coming down to who has the best hardware platform.
CT is proven, reliable for years and years. The cables are not pretty.
The Kickr is cleaner in terms of a setup. Only time will tell if it has the reliability of the CT
In a professional lab or cycling studio, for sure I would go CT
If I had to move it around a lot, I would go with Kickr
If proven reliability is more important, go CT
If packaging is more important, go Kickr

PS : I am not saying the Kickr is not reliable. It just doesn't have the proven reliability CT does. Maybe it will in 5 years.

Well, I went for the Kickr today. I'll report back on the durability in 5 years.

---

What I do: http://app.strava.com/athletes/345699

I have had my Kickr for three weeks and use TR and Sufferfest videos to mix it up. I also have a Quarq on my bike. After about 10 rides using both the overall watt delta is pretty small (< 5-7 watts).

What I have found is it is a bit easier to hold steady watts on the Kickr vs the Quarq (so it may overstate a bit here) but it is harder to spin up for quick intervals on the Kickr vs the Quarq (so it's a bit understated here). If you do a typical Sufferfest with both elements the overall watt number is very close. If you just do pickups the Kickr will understated your effort. If you just do a steady state ride the Kickr will overstate your effort.

I'm 100% happy with it vs the KK trainer I was using with my Quarq. I got fed up with tire spin, tire squeal, always looking at my small 510 for the watt numbers, etc. I have the Kickr setup in my media room (130 inch screen, 7.1 sound). It's pretty sweet. The TR software display can be reshapped so I can watch anything on the net while training too.

I have had my kickr for about 3 weeks as well. I love it. I have started using The Sufferfest videos as well. The set up was easy, and I have not had any issues with it. I have never had a Computrainer, so I cannot give you that point of reference.

I have the kickr set up in a small room in our basement. I train with headphones on so as not to disturb my family. the noise does not seem to be an issue at all.

I have had my comuptainer for 12 years. I love it, reliable, kind on trainer tyres. I have used the Racemate sofware in 3D or Egro for most of the time but for the past few years have used Sufferfests and a have been using PerfPro for 6 months.( now I'm in trainer heaven ) The set up was easy, and I have not had any issues with it. I have never had a Kickr, so I cannot give you that point of reference.

My computrainer is at least 12 years old. I only use erg mode. The only gotcha is the rust. I am not good about wiping it down and now it's a little rusty but still works good. It is pretty quite especially when I keep the chain clean.

I have both trainers (using those to test our software). From my experience:

1) Both are pretty accurate with power once calibrated
2) Computrainer is more quiet. KICKR noise can be pretty irritating.
3) KICKR has better flywheel and feels more natural when not trying to simulate steep hills,
4) From reliability standpoint both are built properly like tanks. So unless KICKR is using shoddy electronics which I doubt it should be just as good.
5) Computrainer eats tires (some might say opposite but this is my experience).
6) KICKR is a bliss to set up and Computrainer is like patient in ICU with all those wires.
7) Both trainers supported by numerous software programs.

So if I had to choose I would go for KICKR because of 3, 5, 6

I will echo what others have as well. I have a CT, so I am only speaking from that POV. With the Wahoo being so new to the market, getting a long-term review is impossible right now, but from what others have said it sounds pretty good. This is my experience on the CT:

1) Built well, sturdy and reliable
2) Software is shit, use a third party
3) Customer Service is shit, in my experience with them, they act like they have something better to do
4) Wires: I actually don't mind them. My unit stays put, so the wires are tucked and tidy
5) Noise: Quietest trainer I've ever used, I actually hear my chain more than the trainer

---

_________________________
I got nothing.

I am a happy Kickr owner for about 2 months. I used a CT at a University's power cycling class a few years ago and the software seem 15 years old at that time. I agree with all the items above. So far I am very happy with my Kickr purchase