I get your point… you shouldn’t have to buy more cassettes to ride Zwift. Agreed. But this is a question of “is racing fair” which (I think) is different.
I still think a good answer is to give race organizers the option to set the trainer difficulty. Some races would use this option, others wouldn’t.
Another idea is to just simply share the trainer difficulty setting with Zwift Power so it could be used to filter the race results and give transparency. I totally concede that I might be completely wrong on this point and data/ facts could help.
Yes it fair (talking about trainer difficulty here) every one has the option to use the difficulty slider as they want. So they can use it as they please. If you race IRL you have the option to choose your bike setup, no one is telling you what gears to use.
If a race choose to lock it at 100% then they will have to specify what trainer to use, some can only simulate a 7% incline. Some spin the flywheel on downhills. Sound like it will be come an elitist club.
If you want to make racing fair then there is many more important thing to consider, like people on Zwift power that still weigh exactly the same as in 2018 when they started. Or people entering lower categories because it is easier to win and take the fun away from 40 real racer that just want to race fair.
Absolutely right , personally I think the purpose of indoor training is to simulate real road conditions .
I’m about 60 kg and love climbing my trainer difficulty is set to 100% .
Races rarely start with everyone at 200% of FTP for 2 minutes.
You don’t have to over-push when overtaking a slower rider to avoid sticking with him.
You don’t have a 5-second lag between power changes and an impact on your position in the pack.
There’s wind.
You can control which side of the pack you ride in.
The personal data you put on your entry form does not change your performance.
You don’t get new bikes and wheels just by riding around.
When you pass the 200m marker, there is 200m left to go.
You don’t have to get on your bike on the road before you can decide which bike you’re going to ride and what you’re going to wear.
When you finish a ride, you can do another one without putting your bike in the garage, getting undressed and going to sleep.
Crits use the whole width of the streets.
You don’t get dropped when your ANT+/BT connection stutters.
Is everyone here on a really expensive trainer or what? Mine only has 6% max simulation and it stills feel really hard and at the end everything in zwift is about the w/kg… And 250W on a 10% climb are the same as 250W on a flat for your legs so it doesn’t matter…
I am using a Kinetic Road Machine - T-001. Many years old. It is not a smart trainer but it has a sensor on it that when used with the Kinetic app calculates speed, cadence, watts, etc. Combine all of this with Zwift and power to weight ratios are generated. Which leads to other places.
There are some subtly meaningful differences that have been mentioned that are not ‘just’ gearing.
But where it really matters is descending. If you spin out downhill, you can easily lose a race. Lower resistance (my guesstimate is 2/3 or lower) means you can keep pedaling on most descents.
Being able to restrict the difficulty for races would be a nice feature to have.
Spot on Chris.At 100 % the torque exerted in those moments of sharp hill climb pinches creates big spikes in lactate and affects performance markedly. Having trainer difficulty set to a lower setting although it doesn’t change the overall quantum of watts output over the course of the ride, it does smooth out or averages the spikes of lactate build up accordingly. Its akin to the principle of not burning your matches too early when attempting long hill climbs in the real world. Simply put you run the chance of “bonking” much easier at 100% setting.
I guess you could change gears to limit the effect and hold your effort at a constant power output but that totally defeats the object of having gradients in races and also eliminates any of the natural advantages that decide races.
This is not directed at the poster but the whole thread:
This whole chat around the difficulty setting being virtual gears is incorrect. It’s a gross confusion of cause and effect. The setting modulates the cause (gradient) which requires an increase in power to maintain the same level of speed, toggling the setting reduces the gradient and to equalise this Zwift modulates the speed of the avatar, the effect being the feel of a different (gearing).
When one considers the physiological effects of having to achieve the same watts from increased cadence (in the event of a downhill) which has a disproportionate effect on the cardiovascular system and increased power output to the creation of lactic acid (which is neither created or absorbed in a linear way), you can see why producing an average 300w with a 40w variable output (280w>320w) has a lower physiological impact than creating those same 300w with a 100w variation (250w>350w).
Noob question: I am trying to decide between Rouvy and Zwift, my main goal being to improve my cycling in hills and climbs (I have lot of flats around me to train outside).
I’m usually good on flats and can keep up with friends, but I discovered I am really bad on hills and I rapidly fall behind, so I want to train and improve to manage climbs and descents.
My idea was to train and at the same time compare how I perform on “virtual” hills vs others: in Rouvy it’s just about doing races, as there gradient is fixed.
Is there any way in Zwift to filter who is using 100% difficulty setting vs other settings so to check myself against other using same conditions ?
Lowering trainer difficultly to zero absolutely makes racing easier. That’s why many at the absolute top of Zwift racing lower the number. The trend seems to be about 20 to 50 percent. Keeping some gradient allows you to push harder on hills to match the power of the blob. While keeping the benefit of less physiological strain, less gear changing, the ability to push over crests and on downhills.
Trainers vary in their ability to simulate gradient. So, for the time being, it would be almost impossible for everyone to run 100% and have it be perfectly equal across all participants.
The current solution is to find the trainer difficulty that allows you to express your fitness to it’s highest potential. For most, this is a setting below 50%.
In years to come I’m sure there will be events on specific trainers only running 100% gradient simulation. Until then, move the slider to whatever spot makes you fast.
0% will actually limit how much power is available since the harder gears (11-13t) are used at 300+ Watts already in order to get the avatar to go faster. At 100%, di2/32-36t will certainly have an advantage over 25t/manual due to effortless faster shifting. Maybe there should separate categories for di2 and Smart Trainer Difficulty levels for racing. Happy Zwifting regardless of your selections imo, cheers
Reference Zwift Trainer Difficulty: Faster Climbing on Zwift? // 350W Lama Lab Test - YouTube
I think lower trainer difficulty is only “easier” if the hill is steep enough for your bike setup that in real life you would be out of gear to downshift and have to grind at lower RPM. I assume in a way it’s also more efficient in flat/hilly since there are less shifting and easier to find the most efficient gear for you.
But then also some people ride 11-25 (easier to find efficient gear at flat/hilly) some people ride 11-32 (easier on steep climb). I always put my trainer difficulty at Max because I like to climb and want to feel every bit of the suffering lol. If you think you will do better at race by lowering trainer difficulty go ahead. It’s not like I can get some price money by winning race anyways…lol
