The amount of times I have to explain to someone what ERG mode is and why the “speed is so low” is too high, and I’d prefer if these workouts didn’t count towards my milage.
Thanks for the request @mlunin!
While this isn’t a priority at the moment, I will pass your feedback onto the team. I have also tagged this thread with #feature-request so that we can find it in the future.
What might be better is if a realistic mileage could be estimated given the power/time and some user inputs about weight, bike, riding position, and so on. I myself WOULD like for my trainer mileage to be included in my Strava stats, just more realistically. And without having to use a different gear or leave ERG mode.
Not to be “that guy”, but you can turn off auto-sync to strava and never have to deal with this problem again if it is such an issue.
Would it be possible to change the request to add maybe 5mph to the uploaded speed?
it goes beyond a single app. Zwift, mileage and elevation. Is it real, or not? I don’t know. RGT, etc. as well?
How should these (all) be handled? 0 everything? I have no real stance, as I don’t really care, but would be curious to know where others stand on this.
I like the feature as I always ride in the same gear and also always in erg. As I only ride indoors it allows me to track my training volume as well as intensity.
What this guy is suggesting. Or also you could just make all these “rides” private so these “friends” don’t see it.
Cant you just set the wheel circumference to 0?? Not sure if that fixes it.
Everyone always asks @Nate_Pearson about his very high speed on his Strava comments too, to which he usually responds with an explanation. I feel like it would be easy to just approximate a distance based on the rider’s power output (assume totally flat terrain and constant wind), rather than use the speed of the flywheel which is totally arbitrary in ERG mode. Their basic explanation for why they don’t do something like that is “it doesn’t make you faster.” That is true, but it’s been such a confusing issue for people I would have thought they’d do something about it rather than keeping taking time to explain it. It seems like an easy change…but I could be (and probably am) missing something.
This is what i’m saying. Thinking twice about it though, it may be something that needs to change on strava’s end. They could ignore the reported distance and generate the estimated distance on user inputs. Maybe this is all to much fuss if nobody cares. I, for one, would like to have realistic distances from my training in my strava history.
I care, but it’s more from a software engineering perspective than me actually needing really accurate distances.
I love doing ERG workout in my fastest gear so I’m putting up stupid big numbers on Strava. Hopefully my rivals all see that and when we get to the start line once racing resumes, they look at me and instantly feel intimidated.
+1 I do all my workouts in the granny gear so my speeds are embarrassingly low and also totally meaningless. My strava mileage is complete junk because of it.
In my case, its too high! When people see my 30mph indoor rides, they seem impressed!
its is not
yes… remove this please (or actually maybe give us the option to not record the speed…since it doesn’t matter)
Pretty sure I suggested the 0 (zero) tire size = zero distance option, that someone tried and confirmed worked to give not distance. (Can’t find the post at the moment to confirm.)
For those that want a “different” distance, you could manipulate that size up or down to give you an average result closer to what you think is appropriate.
will try that! thanks!
If they don’t understand erg mode, they’re not my real friends anyway.
I want to share my thoughts on this, I’ve been so conflicted over the years on this feature.
In all honesty I wish all indoor platforms would send 0 for distance/speed because you’re not actually going anywhere. I did that for just a little bit of time many years ago and we were flooded with support tickets .
The other idea we’ve played with is to use a basic physics model and then on flat terrain estimate speed/distance.
The three issues I’ve had with this are:
- We’re not going to be able to make this completely accurate. I’m positive that people will be upset with the way we implement it. IE: on 200 watts I actually go 19 mph not 18 mph, please update the model.
- People are used to the way it is. There are a good amount of people who will get upset if we change it.
- Does it make anyone faster?
I know the answer to #1 and #2 is probably build out a physics model where people can tweak their inputs and terrain type and rolling resistance until they get something they like.
But, distance/speed tracking goes against our belief system of what makes you faster. So if we’re going to spend the effort, why not focus on the efforts that we believe will make you faster.
But…I’ve gone as far as asking universities querying us about projects to have them build us a microservice that accepts a .FIT file, height and weight and returns the fit files with virtual speed/distance. No one has accepted that project yet though :-D.
If anyone wants to build this and open source it (running it on Azure Functions would make it easy for us to integrate) that would be awesome. Maybe other companies could leverage it too and we’d all output the same numbers (which would be awesome).