Originally Posted by
spelger
i think we can all agree that neither would be correct. but my point really was why bother to compare two completely different algorithms. from Strava:
Strava can estimates power using information about an athlete's weight, speed, and elevation change.
https://support.strava.com/hc/en-us/...for-Your-Rides
strava does not take road conditions into account.
Zwift may actually be more accurate since it is based on particular trainers:
https://zwiftinsider.com/virtual-power/
neither takes wind or temperature into account (guess zwift needn't do so). i don't know how temperature would affect this but i seem to recall others here on BF making that claim.
i do think it is fair to compare one vs a real ride though.
i'd love to know what my power numbers are in real life but a meter is not in the budget for me. i still enjoy my rides regardless.
It depends on the trainer. If you've a high quality fluid trainer that's been mapped by Zwift, your numbers are pretty close. Other trainers vary wildly from individual trainers of the same model, and even worse, many people ride on unsupported trainers as "Generic", including on spin bikes where they can turn the resistance to zero..... I've seen riders with heart rates below my easy ride sustain 400W for an hour, when their average outdoor riding pace (at higher HR) is slightly faster than my easy RUNNING pace....... and then they got a smart trainer with a power meter, and their sustained power was closer to 100W than 400W.
Our online race team kind of insisted they check their setup out after an ex-pro couldn't get past them to do a pull during a team time trial.
That being said - if that's what you've got and can afford, go for it. There aren't many races that include zPower estimated power riders in the results, but there are some - and free-ride and group ride to your heart's content.