Hi all,
Is Zwift really serious about the suggested tomes for these routes.? One needs to average over 33km/hr on a hilly course… Er… a bit far fetched.
While these suggested times are on the aspirational side, they’re not that far-fetched. I did Glyph Heights yesterday in 53:06 and averaged 172 watts, which for me is 3.2 w/kg and solidly within tempo pace. Considering I’m C category in Zwift, I don’t think I’m anywhere near pro!
Wow! Do you realise that is an average of nearly 38km/hr for that route with 618m of climbing? That is impressive for a C category.
I’m a Cat B/A rider and my time was 63 minutes (average 33km/hr). Admittedly it’s the first ride after a break. So you beat my time by 10 minutes.
It would be interesting to know of other times for that course.
I’m going to try that route again in 4 weeks time to see If I can get to 53 minutes
I suspect you’re talking at cross-purposes. The Strava segment is 25.31km. There’s a long lead-in. The Strava segment was 51:31 at 3wkg for me on my climbing setup. Z2 on the flats. Sweetspot on the climbs. The lead-in was another 15:30ish.
Ah…
Thanks David. Yeah, I think mary! was talking about the segment, where I was talking about the entire route. Nevertheless <60 is a bit rich for the entire route.
Yep, I’m talking about the route minus any lead-in. Even though the lead-in distance is obviously required to get to the start of the route, itself, I’ve always assumed that Zwift’s time suggestions are based on the length of the actual route (minus lead-in).
1 Like
Thanks for clarifying that mary!
Interesting, I had never thought of it that way. On the routes page, there is no indication of the lead in distance or time, which might be nothing or it might be Innsbruck KOM before the route starts. Probably room for improvement in the UI. Even better would be an estimate based on the known power profile and weight of the rider. There’s no way these durations will be universal.
I should add that I hadn’t really noticed that the distance shown in the screenshot shared by Stephan includes the lead-in, and the user won’t know this unless they drill down into the expanded info about the route. Because of this, I do agree that the time suggestion should take into consideration the lead-in. (Or Zwift should make it clear that the time suggestion does not factor in the lead-in distance.)
To be honest, I never look at those time suggestions - I always look at the route profile and make my own assumption about how long it will take, based on my planned intensity. But if Zwift is going to provide this info to users it should be 100% clear if the lead-in is supposed to be reflected!
I would have thought - to make it simple, the time suggestion is the entire route. But what do I know having been a cyclist for 60 years!
Yes, I agree that including the lead-in would make it simpler, especially when newer users (who have to learn about lead-ins) are concerned. This does get complicated when the route is a loop and subsequent laps don’t include the lead-in (for example, Glyph Heights), but I’d think that any user who’s planning to do multiple laps will realize that they won’t be re-doing the lead-in.