Zwift Exaggerated Numbers
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Great White North
Posts: 1,226
Bikes: 2013 Cannondale Caad 8, 2010 Opus Fidelio, 1985 Peugeot UO14, 1999 Peugeot Dune, Sakai Select, L'Avantage, 1971 Gitane Apache Standard, 1999 Specialized Hard Rock
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 548 Post(s)
Liked 473 Times
in
302 Posts
Zwift Exaggerated Numbers
I've talked with a few people and read a number of posts on Zwift Power and how it calculates power and speed and the accuracy compared to riding for real. In some cases I've read there can be up to a 15% difference. I have an Elite wheel on trainer and no power meter so I rely on Zwift power to calculate my numbers.
When I ride outside, I have no power meter or bike computer but ride with my phone and run Strava to record my numbers.
The difference between what Zwift says I'm doing and what Strava records is way off. My Zwift numbers are way higher than my real life numbers. Does anyone else notice this? Am I just getting a very inaccurate reading because of my equipment (or lack there of)?
I know there's a big difference between riding all out on Zwift with no cars, no stop signs, lights or people to worry about compared to outside riding but am i really going that much slower on the road?
When I ride outside, I have no power meter or bike computer but ride with my phone and run Strava to record my numbers.
The difference between what Zwift says I'm doing and what Strava records is way off. My Zwift numbers are way higher than my real life numbers. Does anyone else notice this? Am I just getting a very inaccurate reading because of my equipment (or lack there of)?
I know there's a big difference between riding all out on Zwift with no cars, no stop signs, lights or people to worry about compared to outside riding but am i really going that much slower on the road?
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 581 Post(s)
Liked 921 Times
in
518 Posts
I have no personal experience with Zwift, but don't you have to input personal details like rider weight? THat could be a hilarious way to cheat... an average 190 lb rider tells the system they weigh 32 lbs, then the power output from a 190lb rider makes them into a TdF-Z champion.
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Great White North
Posts: 1,226
Bikes: 2013 Cannondale Caad 8, 2010 Opus Fidelio, 1985 Peugeot UO14, 1999 Peugeot Dune, Sakai Select, L'Avantage, 1971 Gitane Apache Standard, 1999 Specialized Hard Rock
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 548 Post(s)
Liked 473 Times
in
302 Posts
I have no personal experience with Zwift, but don't you have to input personal details like rider weight? THat could be a hilarious way to cheat... an average 190 lb rider tells the system they weigh 32 lbs, then the power output from a 190lb rider makes them into a TdF-Z champion.
Keeping in mind, it's a tool to help training for triathlons or races so cheating only hurts yourself
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: NJ, USA
Posts: 1,282
Bikes: two blacks, a blue and a white.
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 445 Post(s)
Liked 847 Times
in
410 Posts
they're both "guesstimate" algorithms, strava and zwift with no direct measurement, so that kind of difference doesn't seem surprising.
Likes For blacknbluebikes:
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
Without a power meter, you may as well just make up a number.
Likes For caloso:
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: reno, nv
Posts: 2,303
Bikes: yes, i have one
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1139 Post(s)
Liked 1,182 Times
in
687 Posts
what are you comparing exactly? Zwift estimated power compared to Strava estimated power? why would either be correct?
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,957
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix, Canyon Inflite AL SLX, Ibis Ripley AF, Priority Continuum Onyx, Santana Vision, Kent Dual-Drive Tandem
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 878 Post(s)
Liked 726 Times
in
436 Posts
Well, only your outside riding speed is real.
On Zwift they are not only estimating your power, but also your whole system CdA and rolling resistance. Zwift doesn't even try to make the bike frame and wheels reflect reality, they just pick some numbers for weight, aero, Crr. Then everybody with the same height and weight gets the same CdA. Can you replicate that outside with your position, clothes, and body shape being what Zwift uses?
On Zwift they are not only estimating your power, but also your whole system CdA and rolling resistance. Zwift doesn't even try to make the bike frame and wheels reflect reality, they just pick some numbers for weight, aero, Crr. Then everybody with the same height and weight gets the same CdA. Can you replicate that outside with your position, clothes, and body shape being what Zwift uses?
#8
Hack
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,265
Bikes: TrueNorth CX bike, 88 Bianchi Strada (currently Sturmey'd), Yess World Cup race BMX, Pure Cruiser race BMX, RSD Mayor v3 Fatbike
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 191 Times
in
132 Posts
I've talked with a few people and read a number of posts on Zwift Power and how it calculates power and speed and the accuracy compared to riding for real. In some cases I've read there can be up to a 15% difference. I have an Elite wheel on trainer and no power meter so I rely on Zwift power to calculate my numbers.
When I ride outside, I have no power meter or bike computer but ride with my phone and run Strava to record my numbers.
The difference between what Zwift says I'm doing and what Strava records is way off. My Zwift numbers are way higher than my real life numbers. Does anyone else notice this? Am I just getting a very inaccurate reading because of my equipment (or lack there of)?
When I ride outside, I have no power meter or bike computer but ride with my phone and run Strava to record my numbers.
The difference between what Zwift says I'm doing and what Strava records is way off. My Zwift numbers are way higher than my real life numbers. Does anyone else notice this? Am I just getting a very inaccurate reading because of my equipment (or lack there of)?
The Strava estimates aren't great for power - but they're probably closer to reality, especially for uphill segments, than zPower estimate for most trainers.
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Great White North
Posts: 1,226
Bikes: 2013 Cannondale Caad 8, 2010 Opus Fidelio, 1985 Peugeot UO14, 1999 Peugeot Dune, Sakai Select, L'Avantage, 1971 Gitane Apache Standard, 1999 Specialized Hard Rock
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 548 Post(s)
Liked 473 Times
in
302 Posts
I'm not disputing the question, but wondering why bother generating any data at all if nothing is real?
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,957
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix, Canyon Inflite AL SLX, Ibis Ripley AF, Priority Continuum Onyx, Santana Vision, Kent Dual-Drive Tandem
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 878 Post(s)
Liked 726 Times
in
436 Posts
Without a power estimate there is no way to simulate the speed of your avatar. Without an FTP figure there's no binning your race category nor ability to properly use zones for workouts. That it can be inaccurate due to deficiencies in your training equipment is not a problem that Zwift can solve (nor should they care to when there are hardware solutions), and at least no one has ever reported that it's not directionally correct, meaning the estimate goes up if you exert more effort and down when you exert less.
Likes For surak:
#11
Junior Member
I've talked with a few people and read a number of posts on Zwift Power and how it calculates power and speed and the accuracy compared to riding for real. In some cases I've read there can be up to a 15% difference. I have an Elite wheel on trainer and no power meter so I rely on Zwift power to calculate my numbers.
When I ride outside, I have no power meter or bike computer but ride with my phone and run Strava to record my numbers.
The difference between what Zwift says I'm doing and what Strava records is way off. My Zwift numbers are way higher than my real life numbers. Does anyone else notice this? Am I just getting a very inaccurate reading because of my equipment (or lack there of)?
I know there's a big difference between riding all out on Zwift with no cars, no stop signs, lights or people to worry about compared to outside riding but am i really going that much slower on the road?
When I ride outside, I have no power meter or bike computer but ride with my phone and run Strava to record my numbers.
The difference between what Zwift says I'm doing and what Strava records is way off. My Zwift numbers are way higher than my real life numbers. Does anyone else notice this? Am I just getting a very inaccurate reading because of my equipment (or lack there of)?
I know there's a big difference between riding all out on Zwift with no cars, no stop signs, lights or people to worry about compared to outside riding but am i really going that much slower on the road?
every now and then but the rain doesn't seem to have any effect on speed.
It's windless which I believe is ideal for average speed. A tailwind
never helps as much as a headwind hurts
At least on the Zwift routes I usually ride there are plenty of other riders
contributing to a substantial draft effect.
Before drawing any conclusions about whether Zwift speeds are unrealistic
I would try to make it as much as an apples to apples comparison as possible.
I'd use a TT bike both on Zwift and IRL. The former because TT bikes don't
partake of the draft effect, the latter just trying to duplicate conditions.
I'd try to ride flats for both trials or at least try to ensure the ascent/mile
was really close for both. For the outdoor trial you'd need a windless day
and no other riders on the course. For the Zwift trial I'd use a TT bike
hooked up to the trainer and try to hold my best aero position as I would
IRL. Of course both courses should be of identical mileage.
Under those conditions assuming identical power output on both trials, I'd bet your average speed on Zwift and IRL would be
really close. The biggest variable would be whether your position IRL would
have more or less drag then the position modeled in Zwift.
Last edited by roadie77; 06-27-21 at 11:11 AM. Reason: Left something out
Likes For roadie77:
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: reno, nv
Posts: 2,303
Bikes: yes, i have one
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1139 Post(s)
Liked 1,182 Times
in
687 Posts
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.
Likes For spelger:
Likes For IntraVol:
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865
Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times
in
1,417 Posts
It's weird. I can do VO2max and anaerobic capacity work on the trainer and hit my targets pretty consistently, but I really struggle with sweet spot and threshold intervals inside. I wonder how much is psychological. The intervals are long enough to start thinking about how long they are....
#15
Kamen Rider
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: KL, MY
Posts: 1,071
Bikes: Fuji Transonic Elite, Marechal Soul Ultimate, Dahon Dash Altena
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 351 Post(s)
Liked 277 Times
in
164 Posts
Pretty sure at least some part is psychological. I seem to be able to hold power better while participating in an event or race, than when just riding around or doing intervals.
#16
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Great White North
Posts: 1,226
Bikes: 2013 Cannondale Caad 8, 2010 Opus Fidelio, 1985 Peugeot UO14, 1999 Peugeot Dune, Sakai Select, L'Avantage, 1971 Gitane Apache Standard, 1999 Specialized Hard Rock
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 548 Post(s)
Liked 473 Times
in
302 Posts
Great workout tool and worth the money in my opinion. For the monthly subscription fee I can get in as many workouts as I want, whenever I want.
#17
Hack
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,265
Bikes: TrueNorth CX bike, 88 Bianchi Strada (currently Sturmey'd), Yess World Cup race BMX, Pure Cruiser race BMX, RSD Mayor v3 Fatbike
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 191 Times
in
132 Posts
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.
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.
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.
#18
Senior Member
I can throw an n=1 data point in here.
When I started on Zwift I had an SRM that was a wired version, i.e. not ANT+. So I had to wait until Zwift had my fluid trainer in their database. Once that happened I started riding, using calculated Zwift power (aka zPower).
I noticed right away that my SRM powermeter read much higher than what Zwift was crediting me for. For example, in this picture, my phone/Zwift shows 104w but my SRM shows 155w:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XSnnFLgK09...0/DSC_0744.JPG
This was with a CycleOps Fluid2 trainer. The tire slipped at higher wattages so I had to really tighten the roller, increasing drag significantly. If I left it looser so it'd slip over, say, 800w, then the numbers would be more accurate. But if I wanted to do big efforts, Zwift was not accurate. Zwift can't accommodate a higher roller tension - there's no coast down or other calibration for "dumb" trainers.
I replaced the Fluid2 (it leaked - the 3rd one for me over 20 years) with a Kurt Kinetic Road Machine, another dumb trainer. It's known to be more durable and more accurate. With the roller relatively cranked down it was much closer, within 20-30w at that 150w range. zPower was still shorting me, just not as much.
I finally upgraded the SRM to wireless (aka ANT+) so now my Zwift data pulls off my SRM powermeter. When I went to wireless I got a nice little bump in power on Zwift because I was finally credited with the power I was putting down.
So that's zPower vs SRM, at least on a trainer with the roller at max pressure.
Strava, on the other hand, can only roughly guess your power. For example, it doesn't know if you're drafting, or if the wind is favorable. It just knows your ground speed, your weight, road gradient, and based on that it guesses your power. On Strava, in races, I appear to be an absolute monster, going 27 mph or whatever, averaging 400w. What Strava doesn't know is that I was doing 27 mph while averaging 175w sitting in a pack of riders.
On long, steeper hills, Strava is actually pretty accurate. It's because the wind suddenly becomes less significant at low speeds, steady power means it isn't trying to calculate acceleration power numbers, and the grade makes power output significant (so it's closer in its calculations). A slow, steady drag up a hill should give you pretty good idea of your power range. I won't say that it's accurate to, say, 10w, but if it says 200w, you're in that range, not the 100w or 300w range.
When I started on Zwift I had an SRM that was a wired version, i.e. not ANT+. So I had to wait until Zwift had my fluid trainer in their database. Once that happened I started riding, using calculated Zwift power (aka zPower).
I noticed right away that my SRM powermeter read much higher than what Zwift was crediting me for. For example, in this picture, my phone/Zwift shows 104w but my SRM shows 155w:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XSnnFLgK09...0/DSC_0744.JPG
This was with a CycleOps Fluid2 trainer. The tire slipped at higher wattages so I had to really tighten the roller, increasing drag significantly. If I left it looser so it'd slip over, say, 800w, then the numbers would be more accurate. But if I wanted to do big efforts, Zwift was not accurate. Zwift can't accommodate a higher roller tension - there's no coast down or other calibration for "dumb" trainers.
I replaced the Fluid2 (it leaked - the 3rd one for me over 20 years) with a Kurt Kinetic Road Machine, another dumb trainer. It's known to be more durable and more accurate. With the roller relatively cranked down it was much closer, within 20-30w at that 150w range. zPower was still shorting me, just not as much.
I finally upgraded the SRM to wireless (aka ANT+) so now my Zwift data pulls off my SRM powermeter. When I went to wireless I got a nice little bump in power on Zwift because I was finally credited with the power I was putting down.
So that's zPower vs SRM, at least on a trainer with the roller at max pressure.
Strava, on the other hand, can only roughly guess your power. For example, it doesn't know if you're drafting, or if the wind is favorable. It just knows your ground speed, your weight, road gradient, and based on that it guesses your power. On Strava, in races, I appear to be an absolute monster, going 27 mph or whatever, averaging 400w. What Strava doesn't know is that I was doing 27 mph while averaging 175w sitting in a pack of riders.
On long, steeper hills, Strava is actually pretty accurate. It's because the wind suddenly becomes less significant at low speeds, steady power means it isn't trying to calculate acceleration power numbers, and the grade makes power output significant (so it's closer in its calculations). A slow, steady drag up a hill should give you pretty good idea of your power range. I won't say that it's accurate to, say, 10w, but if it says 200w, you're in that range, not the 100w or 300w range.
__________________
"...during the Lance years, being fit became the No. 1 thing. Totally the only thing. It’s a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. There’s skills, there’s tactics … there’s all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson
"...during the Lance years, being fit became the No. 1 thing. Totally the only thing. It’s a big part of what we do, but fitness is not the only thing. There’s skills, there’s tactics … there’s all kinds of stuff..." Tim Johnson
#19
Full Member
Zwift uses your power out to determine your speed. It also assumes you have the optimal aerodynamics and smooth roads. At the same power output, Zwift would net me at least 2+ mph faster (~10%). The bonus seems to be more at generous at lower power. One thing that I haven't been able to reproduced outdoors is keeping the pedals spinning. The comparison is for shorter durations at around 15-20 minutes on a flat run. I wish I can climb as well in real life as I did in Zwift (switched to RGT for better road feel and customized routes).
I have a gen 1 Elite Drivo and it's on par with my Pioneer dual (verified against my Drivo) and Assioma dual (verified against my Pioneer but been to lazy to check against my Drivo).
I have a gen 1 Elite Drivo and it's on par with my Pioneer dual (verified against my Drivo) and Assioma dual (verified against my Pioneer but been to lazy to check against my Drivo).
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: Australia
Posts: 824
Bikes: 2002 Trek 5200 (US POSTAL), 2020 Canyon Aeroad SL
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 314 Post(s)
Liked 683 Times
in
328 Posts
^This.
Both are "guestimates" rather than based on actual power data. With your setup, Zwift is basing it's power reading on the speed of your rear wheel (and some calculations it knows about trainer power curves). It can be anywhere from pretty close to a fair way off. It can also vary depending on tyre pressure, roller tightness, trainer age and wear, etc. It's a means t oget you riding on Zwift, but it's not real power data.
Strava bases it's power estimates on, ummm, I'm actually not sure. They can also be anywhere from close enough to wildly out. I find uphill segments are actually the closest as I guess it takes out the effect tof wind, drafting, traffic, etc.
But at the end of the day, if you want real power data, but a real powermeter.
Oh and as for your average speed in Zwift, their algorithm is very optimistic. It gives you a very good CdA, plus there's no stopping at lights, slowing for corners, etc.
Both are "guestimates" rather than based on actual power data. With your setup, Zwift is basing it's power reading on the speed of your rear wheel (and some calculations it knows about trainer power curves). It can be anywhere from pretty close to a fair way off. It can also vary depending on tyre pressure, roller tightness, trainer age and wear, etc. It's a means t oget you riding on Zwift, but it's not real power data.
Strava bases it's power estimates on, ummm, I'm actually not sure. They can also be anywhere from close enough to wildly out. I find uphill segments are actually the closest as I guess it takes out the effect tof wind, drafting, traffic, etc.
But at the end of the day, if you want real power data, but a real powermeter.
Oh and as for your average speed in Zwift, their algorithm is very optimistic. It gives you a very good CdA, plus there's no stopping at lights, slowing for corners, etc.
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Northeastern MA, USA
Posts: 1,678
Bikes: Garmin/Tacx Bike Smart
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 646 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times
in
191 Posts
I've talked with a few people and read a number of posts on Zwift Power and how it calculates power and speed and the accuracy compared to riding for real. In some cases I've read there can be up to a 15% difference. I have an Elite wheel on trainer and no power meter so I rely on Zwift power to calculate my numbers.
When I ride outside, I have no power meter or bike computer but ride with my phone and run Strava to record my numbers.
The difference between what Zwift says I'm doing and what Strava records is way off. My Zwift numbers are way higher than my real life numbers. Does anyone else notice this? Am I just getting a very inaccurate reading because of my equipment (or lack there of)?
I know there's a big difference between riding all out on Zwift with no cars, no stop signs, lights or people to worry about compared to outside riding but am i really going that much slower on the road?
When I ride outside, I have no power meter or bike computer but ride with my phone and run Strava to record my numbers.
The difference between what Zwift says I'm doing and what Strava records is way off. My Zwift numbers are way higher than my real life numbers. Does anyone else notice this? Am I just getting a very inaccurate reading because of my equipment (or lack there of)?
I know there's a big difference between riding all out on Zwift with no cars, no stop signs, lights or people to worry about compared to outside riding but am i really going that much slower on the road?
#22
Senior Member
I just put a stages power meter on my road bike and I'm running around 20% less in the real world than I expected based on my tacx flow + Zwift. It was a bit humbling.
Likes For Canker:
#23
Hack
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,265
Bikes: TrueNorth CX bike, 88 Bianchi Strada (currently Sturmey'd), Yess World Cup race BMX, Pure Cruiser race BMX, RSD Mayor v3 Fatbike
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 347 Post(s)
Liked 191 Times
in
132 Posts
With the stages - have you tried putting the bike with the Stages on the trainer and dual-recording the same ride? https://zwiftinsider.com/zwiftpower-dual-recording/
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,025
Bikes: Blur / Ibis Hakka MX / team machince alr2 / topstone 1
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 426 Post(s)
Liked 274 Times
in
201 Posts
My saris H3 it's very close to real life when going up hill not drafting anyone etc.... say 10% grade over 5 miles = x mount of time etc... steep grade is mostly power to ratio. flats & down hill is more aero
and rolling resistance.
Down hill is a joke. zwift must give you unlimited gears. How on earth I can pedal at 50+ mph and also do 50rpm + on 15% grade ? That must a rear cassette 5 to 50.
On the flats zwift must assume the most perfect smooth road, zero wind, best bike, game must also assume I am in the best possible aero postion etc.. I am good 2 to 3 mph if not more in zwift vs real life then of course there's so many people you can draft in zwift unlike real life. At home you could be riding on the hoods are even no hands with very bad aero position while on the flats doing 25+ mph.
and rolling resistance.
Down hill is a joke. zwift must give you unlimited gears. How on earth I can pedal at 50+ mph and also do 50rpm + on 15% grade ? That must a rear cassette 5 to 50.
On the flats zwift must assume the most perfect smooth road, zero wind, best bike, game must also assume I am in the best possible aero postion etc.. I am good 2 to 3 mph if not more in zwift vs real life then of course there's so many people you can draft in zwift unlike real life. At home you could be riding on the hoods are even no hands with very bad aero position while on the flats doing 25+ mph.
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,957
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix, Canyon Inflite AL SLX, Ibis Ripley AF, Priority Continuum Onyx, Santana Vision, Kent Dual-Drive Tandem
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 878 Post(s)
Liked 726 Times
in
436 Posts
Zwift halves downhill grades even before adjusting further for lower trainer difficulty setting.