The point with inertia being a "special feature" of the bkool turbos is that there seems no reason for this. Rather than removing inertia, why can it not apply to all turbo's? I can't see any reason why not, as we can't see any hardware specific to the bkool turbos, they just adjust the resistance and therefore speed, and could do this for any resistance controllable trainer. We had the same argument with gravity assist on descents, with the software simulating the affect of gravity on speed for bkool trainers but not for non-bkool trainers. It took around a year of constant complaints before they fixed this, all the while making it impossible for non-bkool riders to get anywhere close to bkool riders. It seems the inertia into gradient changes is the same issue, they apply different software algorithms to bkool trainers and non-bkool trainers for no apparent reason, meaning non-bkool users are unable to ride with bkool users, as gradient changes and drafting produce radically different speeds. There seems no reason for the algorithms to be different, all trainers just apply resistance to pedalling as requested (some are better calibrated than others) by the software, so why not use the same algorithms for them all. It's all down to accepting the importance of giving all your users the same experience, and not treating your own hardware advantageously. The more even treatment of bkool hardware on Zwift would support this view! It is noticeable that bkool trainers are generally faster on bkool software, not slower, and generally over rate power and speed, sometimes to ridiculous extents, rather than under rate them. Perhaps it is just too tempting for companies that produce hardware and software to try and flatter their own hardware. If so, then software only platforms like Zwift will end up with the momentum and eventually the vast majority of users, and the hardware producers will lose most of their software revenue, and end up selling mostly just the hardware!