Bcool - Zwift..Is it `real` cycling?

[bpsmith]

To be pedantic, it should probably be Work (Power x Time).

I can live with that, in fairness.

 

[bpsmith]

Time is the only constant here, a minute is always 60 seconds, the question is what you do with it. Everything else can vary, right down to tyre pressure, ambient temp or amount of chain lube.

Yet, a pedal twiddle for 30 mins or 5min intervals just below FTP for the same time yield different results irrespective of how/where power is measured or calculated

I disagree with Time on its own. It just doesn’t work, as you say, due to the varying effort that could be done.

As @Dogtrousers suggests, Work (Power x Time) is spot on for comparing efforts, indoors or out tbh.

 

[steveindenmark]

the good what?

Food...

 

[Cuchilo]

On strava there is an option to not include trainer rides to your over all mileage .

 

[vickster]

On strava there is an option to not include trainer rides to your over all mileage .

How do you do this? Is it website only or also app?
Thanks

 

[Cuchilo]

How do you do this? Is it website only or also app?
Thanks

Ive only seen it on the website . Above your yearly mileage there are two boxes that allow you to include virtual rides and commutes . I guess you have to opt in rather than opt out .

 

[Asa Post]

If people are going to look at leaderboards and complain that some efforts are more deserving than others, then work in Joules just won't cut it. I might take all day riding 100 miles tootling along at a gentle pace on a relatively level course and amass more joules than someone who has charged up an alpine climb, churning out a monstrous wattage before stylishly sipping an espresso at the top. The climber may be outraged that I've been cheating by taking the easy option, and consider my riding as not "real" cycling, as I wasn't suffering at all.

Intensity Factor should allow a fairer comparison. If you know your power output, you should be able to work out your IF. Many bike computers do it automatically.

Coggan's explanation: IF is simply the ratio of the normalized power as described above to your threshold power. For example, if your normalized power for a long training ride done early in the year is 210 W and your threshold power at the time is 280 W, then the IF for that workout would be 0.75. However, if you did that same exact ride later in the year after your threshold power had risen to 300 W, then the IF would be lower, i.e., 0.70. IF therefore provides a valid and convenient way of comparing the relative intensity of a training session or race either within or between riders, taking into account changes or differences in threshold power.

Using @Dogtrousers example, a long and gentle pootle might rate an IF of .50, and the mountain goat's effort scores .95. Pootler wins on "work done", climber wins on "degree of intensity". Which criterion you prefer to use is a personal choice. There is no right or wrong answer.

As to the original question - if you regard a bike as primarily a mode of transport you wont regard turbo rides (even those done on a smart trainer that mimics the climbs and descents) as valid. On the other hand, if the main reason you ride is to achieve and maintain fitness, then using a turbo is no different to riding on the road.

 

[bpsmith]

But time is the only thing we know with certain. If competitive people are going to complain tha

Now you've got me thinking.

If people are going to look at leaderboards and complain that some efforts are more deserving than others, then work in Joules just won't cut it. I might take all day riding 100 miles tootling along at a gentle pace on a relatively level course and amass more joules than someone who has charged up an alpine climb, churning out a monstrous wattage before stylishly sipping an espresso at the top. The climber may be outraged that I've been cheating by taking the easy option, and consider my riding as not "real" cycling, as I wasn't suffering at all.

Time on its own would have the advantage that it removes other variables like weight (of rider and equipment) hilliness, weather, location, wattage, and so forth. It's easily measured and it's not subjective. But really, that's not all that much of an advantage.

I fear there is no easy way of presenting leader boards without someone taking a subjective view of the entries and declaring some of them (specifically those higher than them on the board) as not being "real".

Time alone is useless as a comparison. Using your points above, with only Time factored in, would mean an hour of flat endurance pace would equal that of flat out sprinting up hefty climbs.

At least long hours in the saddle at slower pace on the flat would come a lot closer to the energy used going faster up climbs for far less time.

Time as a sole measurement is pointless.

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

But it's the only thing we can all agree on. If we introduce factors like distance, inside-outsideness, elevation, power etc, people will start disagreeing about the real ness of others' rides

Sadly it is, as you note, pointless.

I was trying to say this.

 

[HLaB]

To be pedantic, it should probably be Work (Power x Time).

Even power on a turbo isn't exactly comparable to an out doors ride. For most folk on a turbo its fixed (no freewheel) and lack of air cooling means power is down compared to outdoors. Im the opposite though, it might be I used a direct drive turbo which has a free wheel or that I refuel more on the turbo and push more to the edge (without having to worry about crashing/traffic) but my power is higher on my turbo

 

[Jason]

This thread has predictably gone down a rabbit hole.
Cycling outdoors is always preferred,but time constraints,weather and riders tolerance to wind/rain/heat/cold and even daylight may affect their desire to venture outside.
I see nothing wrong with rollers or turbo training.
It could be argued 30 minutes spent indoor cycling is harder than outside as there is no freewheeling at lights etc
Does it count on leader boards? Who cares. Get a life.

 

[fatjel]

If you are a competitive cyclist of any sort whether on Strava or road you have to cheat or lose.
Except Audaxers of course

 

[mythste]

I love indoor training. Zwift races especially. Employing peleton tactics is something most of us can't do in the summer season let alone a snowy December evening.

I think someone on another thread summed it up quite nicely - "Tell me it's not a real ride when I'm hanging out my backside after a race and I'll quite probably punch you".

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

I love indoor training. Zwift races especially. Employing peleton tactics is something most of us can't do in the summer season let alone a snowy December evening.

I think someone on another thread summed it up quite nicely - "Tell me it's not a real ride when I'm hanging out my backside after a race and I'll quite probably punch you".

Simple fact is, if it was easy everyone would be doing it Those most vociferous about my trainer setup and trainer usage are the same people who do very little on a bike and can't understand the difference in fitness...

 

[fatjel]

Every one does that tho Mr Dogtrousers