No. It’s about correcting the distance/making it as realistic as possible regardless of settings for wheel size or gearing etc.
So for you, your settings are apparently pretty close to the model. Perhaps underestimating your aerodynamics, or perhaps your settings aren’t quite right for your height and weight etc.
It’s particularly useful for erg users. I also find it awesome for my trainer that doesn’t provide any speed.
As others, I’d like it to do Garmin too, but it’s a great addition as it is for Strava.
Great feature! Before I was picking my casette ring based on the speed I wanted to average so the discrepancy with my outdoor rides wouldn’t be too big, say ~28-30 km/h. This is much better!
However, there seems to be some kind of bug where the laps reported by Strava are totally wrong now, esp. the lap duration.
Ahh, the Stravafication of cycling. Good Lord, you’re on an indoor trainer, speed/distance don’t matter. Much rather TR sorted getting outdoor rides to work with adaptive training, until that happens it’s not really adaptive for me.
“Oh look, he’s done 25mph, KUDOS” give me strength.
Hey there – I just want to make sure everyone knows that work on this feature didn’t take any engineers or developers off the ongoing project to equip Adaptive Training to incorporate unstructured outdoor rides. This feature was created by a different team here at TrainerRoad in response to a long-standing request from our athletes. Our data scientists and engineers continue working full-time on supporting unstructured rides!
I run my workouts on my Kickr Core in the small chainring, midway down the cassette for fast resistance adjustment and straight chain lines. This resulted in very short trainer-speed related distances on Strava, which were one reason why I typically preferred to use the Zwift (passive) recording of a workout to post. I guess its a win-win for TR as well, since now there will be more of my posts with the new TR graphic and workout titling!
Did my first ride with this last night, and either the physics model needs work or my real-world aerodynamics and rolling resistance is a serious outlier from whatever averages feed the model. No way my average of 166W during Pettit would have taken this clydesdale cyclist 18 miles!
I guess i can use it as an excuse to buy new gear. “The TR physics model says I can go faster if I get tires with lower rolling resistance and an aero helmet.” Need to practice the spiel a bit before my wife finds the receipts.
Do we know that for a fact? I can’t say that I have seen it clearly stated either way.
It may be possible for TR to be using the rider weight from TR or even Strava.
But considering that the FAQ above mentions the following:
Virtual Speed and Distance uses your workout’s power data, along with average aerodynamic and rolling resistance values, to estimate the speed at which you’d have ridden your workout on relatively flat terrain outdoors.
… with the “relatively flat terrain outdoors” aspect, weight may be a minor consideration with their current calculation? It’s possible the aero aspect is more of an issue here that may be missed between riders outside the nominal values they use.
It does use your weight. It’s getting that from what you have entered.
From the FAQ:
" If your Speed Readings seem off, first double-check that your weight is set correctly in the Account tab of the TrainerRoad app. If your Virtual Speed readings still seem off after double checking that your weight in TrainerRoad is correct reach out to support@trainerroad.com."
Looks good to me.
That makes no sense at all…