Why? If that person recover at 85w then they just keep it at 85w going up and down. Yes it will be slower but still recovery.
Yes something flat would be nice but not required. I have done many recovery rides on hilly routes IRL and on Zwift.
That is a rider problem, the point of recovery is to recover, if you decide to race then it is your own fault. The ride is called recover with a target wattage so if you want to race then go ahead but you will know you did not do what the plan was to recover.
Most people know when I say lets do a recovery ride that is is going to be easy and we are going to chat and have fun.
You know that there is more to it than that correct? 85W at a gradient of 7% would be physically impossible in the real world as the speed required to maintain the upright position of the bike would not be possible without the minimum effective amount of power required to overcome rolling resistance, gradient, etc with the weight of the rider and bike. Even if we understand the speed floor benefit from the physics model in Zwift negates that concern, you are still requiring a VERY high torque requirement due to the forced low inertia. Even at a low execution or power, the forced low cadence can require Type II muscle fiber recruitment which is NOT recovery.
Then you have to get into the argument of trainer difficulty and smart trainers, and that begs the question why force that layer of contingency? Why require someone to adjust their settings to accommodate a ride ādesignedā for recovery, rather than use an appropriate course? Iām not picking the route with 100 feet of climbing per mile or a substantial segment in the middle in the real world to do a Z1 ride, Iām finding something flat to moderate to ensure muscle recruitment, HR and power all support active recovery. The same goes for Zwift.
Youāre taking a contrarian position to defend Zwift for poor choices, and there is no real sense to it. It reads like someone beating their chest and calling people inept for not wanting to force-fit a suboptimal situation to the objectives of a recovery ride. Why should they have to? Thereās no reason for it, period. It adds no physiological value to ride, no utility value to the rider, and only presents an illogical approach and an encumbrance to users, especially those newer to the platform - a number that has come to dwarf veteran users by several orders of magnitude in 2021.
If youāre willing and able to adjust around the constraints, great. Most of us are - and more to the point, have to grin and bear it if we want creditā¦ Doesnāt mean itās not worth the criticism.
Gerrie, thatās not the point. The point is most new riders donāt know recovery is what makes the workouts improve your level of fitness. Rest and recovery make the stress from workouts actually make you faster. If the ZA doesnāt communicate that to participants, then they go out and ride the recovery ride with faster riders thinking sh*tās gonna happen. Doesnāt work that way.
Currently my Wahoo Bike is set up with a 50-34/11-28 setup of 12speed gearing. If I was a 95kg D cat rider, keeping it in Zone 2 on S&S is patently impossible. Like I said, this is entirely a matter of teaching newer riders how to train. In the case of Zwift, not.
The fact that bikes have gears does not eliminate the minimum power required to climb a hill. You could have a 30 tooth in the front and a 40 in the back, a 100kg rider is NOT going up that hill at 85 watts. And on Zwift their cadence will get bogged down without turning TD down or off. Thatās just physics.
No one here is saying itās impossible to make it work, thatās a straw man argument at itās finest. Itās pretty close for big riders pushing 100% TD which was what you rebutted without considering the physiological implications. The premise was that the course was poor for recovery. And itās not as simple asā¦ If your recovery zone is 85 watts, just ride 85 watts. Just that simpleā¦ No, itās not.
That is a different statement than āI have done it at 80w in a 48/26.ā I did it at 120-140w in 34/25 but Iām 66kg. I have NO IDEA how much juice is required for a larger rider. Remember, it AVERAGES 2.2% but most of the pitches along with the rollers are well beyond 2.2%. I usually get my skinny ass dropped in those rollers during a S&S race. IIRC, some of those are well beyond 10% but since Iām old, I donāt zackly remember so correctly.
Oh boyā¦ okā¦ there are areas of the climb that go up to 4%. In the real world, the minimum speed required to maintain an upright orientation is around walking speed ~3.5-4. MPH with some considerations for other elements like tarmac, wind speed, bike geometry etc.that may slightly improve or deteriorate that speed potential. Maximizing your gear ratios or gear inches to accommodate those minimum speeds to the lowest available of 14-15" will NOT in any way reduce the minimum power to elicit that speed, it only ensures the flexibility is there to attain it. The 14-15" gear ratio allows a rider to ride at speeds as low as 3.5 MPH at 60 RPM as long as they have the commensurate power to do so (Your example of a 40/26, regardless of how you think it will function, is not adequate for a real world scenario at just under 50 gear inches - assuming standard 700C wheels). So assume we have the most optimal gearing available, a 100kg rider, riding a 20 lb bike up a gradient of 4% at 85 Watts will hit a MAXIMUM speed of 3.5 MPH, and that is under perfect circumstances. Trying to maintain that output and balance the bike is not something any thinking person is going to do.
But letās take it to Zwift, the absolute speed floor on even the steepest gradients and lowest power outputs is 3 MPH. It doesnāt matter what you do, you canāt go slower than 3 MPH as long as you keep pedaling. BUTā¦ your trainer WILL be provided with the full effect of the hill. If a rider has their TD set to 100% and common compact gearing - 34/28ā¦ they are at 32.3". Given that the 85 Watts they are producing is just tickling the lowest speed available, that means the inertia is going to force that rider into the easiest gear to generate that speed. But remember, you need a 15" gear ratio to attain that speed at 60 RPM, meaning, the required cadence will be below 60 RPMā¦ that is UNLESS you adjust your Trainer difficulty settings down to 50% or lower. And considering Trainer difficulty is not just a gearing slider, there are secondary and tertiary consequences to that for ride feel and performance.
Not sure why you want to die on this hill, but it is not as simple as hand waving this away. This is a boneheaded move by Zwift.
Of course, now youāre pulling the ZC verbiage that about 10% of the participants have read. Remember, for a successful event, you want to speak to the Lowest Common Denominator. Obviously 10% is not the LCD.
Last time I checked this is not a reading comprehension exercise nor is it a āhow well can you navigate Zwift exerciseā. This is the crux of the matter: Teach inexperienced Zwifters how to implement a successful training program. By all metrics, Zwift has failedā¦
I know. And your PRās are still way faster up all of the climbs than mine, which is BTW, extremely annoying. You are a very strong 94kg rider. If youāve been picking up heavy things (weight lifting) on a regular basis, you probably a pretty impressive specimen of the human male.
That said, for the new 95kg Zwifter, S&S at 80w is quite a challenge.
94kg doing less than 1w/kg up the KOM
A 100kg rider with a FTP of 1.8w/kg should recover at 65% of FTP that is 1.17w.kg or 117w.
So I should have done the test closer to 110w. But 87w was fun.
A few years ago on a completely unrelated forum, in the off topic section, some asked, āIf someone from the 1950ās suddenly showed up in your life, what would be the hardest thing to explain to them?ā
Post #32 said: āHere in my pocket is a device with which I access The Entirety of Human Knowledge. I use it to look at pictures of cats and argue with people I donāt know.ā
Well Gerrie, we appear to be operating in the latter since Iāve not seen pictures of cats on the Zwift Forum.
Not sure what you think this provesā¦ But youāve clearly missed the pointā¦
For the scienceā¦ you didnāt really address the average 53 RPM there now did youā¦ precisely my pointā¦ I donāt care what the power output isā¦ 53 RPM is NOT RECOVERY.
In case anyone else doesnāt think a Strava snip is āscienceā here are some articles discussing cadence and physiological impact - you will need to google search them because of course, this forum doesnāt allow links:
Muscle fiber type effects on energetically optimal cadences in cycling - Umberger Et Al
Optimal cadence selection during cyclin - Abbiss Et Al
Effects of Low- vs. High-Cadence Interval Training on Cycling Performance - Paton Et Al
Determinants of āoptimalā cadence during cycling - Ansley & Kangley (Paywalled, but a good article)
The difference in the required torque to produce a given power between 53 and 80 RPM is 1.5X/ That is a considerable difference and strain on the muscles irrespective of raw power values. No coach in the world is recommending recovery at 53 RPM. No coach is prescribing recovery below 80 RPM for this very reason. This is why cherry picking data points to feed a narrative and try to āwin the internetā is short-sighted and leads people astray. For anyone reading this thread and wanting to actually understand the science, please ignore that type of chest-beating narrative. If you would like to calculate torque on your own, all you need to know is your power in watts and your cadence which will be converted to CV or Circumfrential Velocity using the formula below:
Torque(nM) = Power (watts) / (cadence * crank length in mm * 2 * Ļ ) / 60
Apologies for the poor formatting, the forum lacks the tools to stack the numerator and denominator vertically
