Lol one of “those” guys that has to argue about the most technical of technicalities. It’s cool, hard to hear the “iNdOoR MiLeS aRe nOt ReAl” super original jokes way back there come summer 
1 Like
For tracking maintenance, keeping it the way it is (ie counting revolutions of the rear cassette) is probably better than some power-based distance estimate. That said, tracking maintenance is approximate anyway, so I don’t think it would be an actual problem.
. Yet the odometer turns over.
3 Likes
I recently watched a YouTube video by GPLama where he averaged just under 34kph riding solo in Zwift at around 2.5 watts/kg (180 watts). He was disconnected from internet, so no drafting whatsoever. IMO, this seems way too quick for that kind of power. I’ve never averaged anything close to that for the same power.
Going back to the discussion about tracking distance. You’d have to question the purpose. What can you take from it?
If you ride solo all year outside then that could be a way of looking at improvements year on year if you didn’t have a power meter, by looking at speed.
However, once you start adding in indoor rides and Zwift then, IMO, the metric becomes meaningless if being used as a comparison tool.
Having said that, I could see how having a larger mileage, even if it’s artificially inflated by indoor rides, could be a huge motivation to some people, and if it gets you riding more, then it must be a good thing.
5 Likes
Zwift is as good as you’re going to get imo, and what I use to partly justify co-running (as well as XP’s!). It seems to be fairly good at predicting chain wear for me, based on those KM’s/ Time.
Is it 100% accurate? Probably not…
- the eternal zwift weight debate (that can’t be fudged outside)
- no wind (works both ways I guess)
- no bottles
- no saddle bag
- this time of year just jersey and shorts v multiple heavier layers
- much more aero bikes than I have the real world (I generally use a TT bike for TR workouts/ tron for events)
- lighter frames and wheels for climbing for those events.
- Trainer/ Power Meter accuracy more an impact
Is it the best you can hope for, probably in my opinion.
Turbo hours not km’s is one of those stupid cycling “rules” - a runner counts treadmill distance (at zero gradient, it is easier than outside), but cyclists aren’t allowed to count inside miles. Basically FRO!
2 Likes
Agreed 
. I think zwift must use a cda number that is a rediculous riding position. They need to adjust it a little to a more real world scenario for the avg rider. Maybe they can add a feature to their phone app where we can put the phone in our jersey pocket and it will measure our upper body angle.
But that’s been exactly my point. When we talk zwift distance, we have to nit pick and talk about small adjustments that need to be made here and there. And zwifts calculation is consistent as its based off their equation.
TR’s number is based off flywheel speed from what I hear. This is both both not consistent and can be wildly inaccurate.
Its sort of like power meters. I want my power meter to be accurate to 1%, but I dont need it to be. But I absolutely need it to be consistent. And not wildly inaccurate.
For the record, I do ride by hours, not distance. But like you mentioned seeing my miles rack up is a good motivator.
For what it’s worth, while the time/ speed might be different, my power output is pretty similar for something like the Zwift Fondo as it would be for a club spin 100km for similar elevation.
It’s quite easy to hide at the back of group on a group spin/ sportive, and (on the flat) it seems easier to do so in real life, especially if it’s not Double Draft in zwift to me. Not too many chances to really compare since I started zwifting in March due to Covid though. 