Can we please have some longer routes?

i’m mixed on this. i think i do want long routes, but i’m not sure i want to be “stuck” on a long route.

for example, one thing that sucks about ven-top and ADZ is that they are both “out and back” – there’s no way to do a nice loop on them. there’s also no way to do less than the full thing as a loop.

i think watopia and makuri are heading in the right direction – you can do a long ride (not yet 100km, but a few more expansions and we’ll be close) in both with minimal repeated roads, but you also have choices somewhat regularly as you go. in my opinion, zwift needs to do more expansions like fuego flats or like the two connector roads between urakazi and neokyo/yumezi – a few km’s that connect loops in an interesting way, and offer choices.


I’d be happy to see more long routes. I’d be more happy to see more long events - I find most rides/races are so short, and the ones that are long tend to be at times that don’t work well for me (I’m weird because I have less time on weekends than I do mid-week). I understand the reason there are not more is because most people don’t have the time for them, I get it.

Anyhow, I love the new Scotland map, but I do also wish it was connected to the other smaller maps (richmond, london, france, paris) somehow. Wattopia is big enough that you can piece together a reasonable long ride without too much overlap, but you can really only do that a few times before you are seeing the same rides over and over - richmond, london, france, and scotland are not really big enough to do that without a ton of overlap on one long ride.

I think the stat that Colin posted above (average ride distance of 17.7 miles) is likely a huge factor here. If Zwift were seeing averages even in the 30-40 mile range we would likely seem more long routes. 17.7 miles isn’t even 7 laps of the Volcano loop. More variety would certainly be nice. Even in the Gran Fondo this past weekend (which was less than 61 miles) I felt like I rode some of the sections far too many times.

1 Like

The Makuri40 is my new favourite “long” ride…3 distinct worlds for variety, some elevation changes and never feel like you’re too far from an intersection if you want to change it up or add an extra loop.

Would love to see a Makuri 60, 80, 100.


But if that is the average, a decent amount of people must ride longer rides than that! Yet all of the routes in Scotland are shorter than that. And of all of the routes in Makuri Islands, only 4 are longer.

So if that stat means anything, it must be, that we need longer routes!


I don’t think the OP mentioned anything about multiple rides posting to Strava nor anything about three 33km rides not being equivalent to one 100km ride, but he did actually mention that you can’t effectively manage a 100 rider, 100 km group ride split between three different routes. There are also many of us, although admittedly likely a Zwift minority, who regularly do longer length training rides (and on Zwift that pathetically means like longer than 20km) and the whole reason we pay for Zwift, instead of just grinding out the miles on the trainer staring at the wall for free, is for visual and mental engagement. Doing 10 laps of the same 10 km course is not very visually or mentally engaging. And stopping and re-starting rides multiple times in order to get in a modest-length ride, without repeating “roads” multiple times, isn’t really a great solution, either…if it were the entire Zwift universe could consist of one 10 km route that we all just ride endlessly every day, right?


I guess I’m misunderstanding then. When OP said that it would cause him to not have a 100km ride on Strava, what exactly is happening there? There are people who are doing group rides, via Strava, but also via Zwift? I can understand how organizing 100s of people on Zwift across three rides would be much harder than on one ride. But how does Strava play into it?

Yeah everyone i actively follow do ride 60+km on weekdays and 100+ every weekend,
Stats can only tell so much about things, we need reasoning behind them.

Tom, this isn’t about strava. that’s a minor inconvenience on top of having to stop riding to change routes ect.

I’m confused that people don’t seem more supportive of this, it’s not like it would impact them negatively, in fact it would mean more route options…

I’m not unsupportive. My original post was limited to the specific statement you made about having the ride recorded on Strava :slight_smile: That’s it. Don’t read into it that I’m not supportive, or that any other reasoning isn’t good. I was literally just making the point that “it won’t be on Strava” is not going to motivate many people. I think much more is being read into what I said than what I said, or meant. :slight_smile: I would like longer routes too.

You’re right, i was hasty and read too much into it, that’s completely on me.
I do that some times.

1 Like

No worries :slight_smile: I can’t count the number of times I do that on a daily basis, lol. It’s all good.

I’m still checking off shorter routes myself, but I would look forward to more long routes waiting. Particularly if they would link up some maps (London + Yorkshire + Scotland?) to make it happen.

Fulgaz. Just sayin’. :grin:

1 Like

It would be nice to get a few more options then the Makuri40 in the 40 or 50km range, other then laps of Tempus Fugit (plus TV/ Video) or Neon Flats.
A 100km single ride gets a grey top on Zwift, 100 miles the black top, but also you get that months Strava Gran Fondo :slight_smile:
Tempus Fugit is the mort popular route, wonder what is so appealing about this route and should Zwift make a longer version…?
We need variations and asking for longer routes is just as valid as the 50kg climbers asking for their favorite moutain pass.


I think the appeal is that it is the flattest route, so people can ride a certain distance as a reasonably quick pace. I get the feeling more people are interested in saying ‘I rode 20 miles’ than ‘I climbed 1,000 ft’ I know there are people who have asked for IM-length routes but, to me, this would be terrible if it was just a flattish route of 100+ miles (or even 50). I’m all for some longer routes, but they need to be interesting at the same time.


I use FulGaz for training on 70.3 routes I’ll be riding in real life. But man…its soul destroying how empty it feels compared to Zwift


Regarding the “no one does long rides on Zwift anyways” argument:

Zwift’s short average ride stat doesn’t prove that people don’t want to do long-distance rides; it shows that Zwift has created a world that subtly discourages people from doing long-distance rides.

Think about it: that’s the exact same logic as when city planners use cycling stats to avoid making safety improvements. If cyclists always go out of their way to avoid a particularly dangerous road, a planner might look at that data and mistakenly think: “Why improve conditions on this road, when obviously no one wants to ride on it?” Saying there’s no demand for longer routes is the same mistake.

And finally just to echo OP: I would love to be able to choose from several 100km, 100-mile, and 200km route options on Zwift, whether they use extensive new roads or are routes intelligently cobbled together from existing roads (Watopia, Makuri).


Having ridden the BMTR 100 on a Saturday with 1000+ participants, there is definitely a market for long rides.

If we were to create a 100 mile route of entirely new roads it would take a very long time.

We normally take approx 3-6 months from creation to testing to release for circa 30k.


This is a good idéa, obviously i don’t know how zwift needs to do it, but surely it should be easy enough to just throw something together?
maby even some reverse options aswell…
entirely new roads would be my prefference but anything is better than tic-toc and tempus for those 3-4 hour stretches.
I would do climbing but it just hurts too much.

@James_Zwift I truly have no insight as to what it takes to create new roads, but I don’t think the OP (or anyone else) is asking for 100 miles of new roads. I think that the ask is for some routes that are that long (or at least close) that don’t cover the same sections over and over again (like PRL Full). Many existing roads could surely be used, along with some new roads added.

Also, do you have any feel for what it takes to create new roads, vs. new roads with scenery? I know that sometimes there is scenery added after the fact (I recall some new trees being added on the Epic KOM descent around the same time as the Epic KOM bypass was added), so would it be possible to just add some new roads at some point, and then add ‘points of interest’ in a later update (Update 1.37: Some new trees and structures added to Milan-San Remo route)?