Originally Posted by
burnthesheep
Zwift is workout entertainment. I don’t take it seriously. It keeps me entertained indoors, so win.
Road bike riding on Zwift is super flattering for everyone under maybe a 6% grade climb. The aero of having sooooo many riders on a course is a semi infinite draft. I feel Zwift is super generous aero wise on the flatter terrain for high power high weight riders. As height and weight go up, the stack height or hip angle become rather non aero.
TT bike wise Zwift is sooo variable due to fixed bike fit. Real world I bet most folks aren’t that aero fit wise. Then again my TT bike in real life is nicer than anything usable in Zwift, including helmets and skinsuit.
Zwift cda well over .200. Real life it’s under it.
The generous avatar speed in Zwift doesn’t really bother me, but the “sticky” watts thing is pretty annoying, with a much higher reported average power on a rolling course profile. I didn’t realise how distorted this was until comparing average power reported directly from the bike vs Zwift data. But at least it’s fairly accurate on long sustained climbs.
In contrast, the resistance model on the Kickr Bike is a little harsh, which explains why I’m usually in a gear or two lower on the flat than I would be on my road bike, while my Zwift avatar is flying along! It’s not a big deal really and no different in terms of resistance from riding into a slight headwind or false flat.
It would be interesting to see how the Rouvy physics model compared to the Kickr Bike model. I expect they will be a closer match.