Chris is right in that it is more difficult to climb with the trainer at 100% but not for the reason he states, i.e. cadence being lower, because that could be fixed by changing gear like the other dude says. What makes it more difficult is that at a higher resistance, the pedal stroke requires more stabilizer muscles to be involved since you're not getting the inertia of the flywheel to "help" you out. So at a high resistance you're pedaling squares, which makes it harder. You can verify this by loading up trainer road, setting it to ERG mode, and doing a hard interval in the 53/11 and one in 39/25. The 53/11 will be easier due to the flywheel inertia.
fafara , yes we all understand that the power is the same. The point is that power is not everything. Easy to see that it is not the same to do 250W on a 10% hill or on a flat, even at the same cadence. The difference is that on a flat you only need to apply power through a small part of the stroke (where it is most efficient to do so), while on a climb you need to push the pedals around for a longer part of the stroke. What is different on the trainer when changing the difficulty setting, is the speed of the flywheel, which creates the same effect of riding on a flat or up a hill.
fafara well yes it is related to that. But not only you need to apply constantly power on hills or you fall over, it is also the way you apply power that is different. On flats you can move the pedals almost freely from 6 o’clock up to 3 o’clock, press down and repeat. On hills you will start feeling resistance much earlier.
I'm with Chris here. I always run my trainer difficulty on 100% as I think a hill on Zwift should be the same as a hill outside. You don't get any rider preference on hills outside!
@@PersonaN007Grata much easier to go at one given speed on the flat than feel every gradient having changes in resistance and gearing all the time. This is the fun of cycling, taking that away by offering an option to numb down every hill. Nobody is scared of a 16% gradient on zwift, they can just turn down the difficulty. There is a limit to gearing irl
@@daviddanser8011 I agree with you. It's great fun when you feel like you're actually climbing. But not everyone has the gearing to ride Alpe du Zwift. So that's what the difficulty slider is for. (For instance, I have a 52/36 chainset and an 11-25 cassette on one of my bikes. Not easy to climb steep mountains. But my other bike has a 50/34 and 11-28 so it's much better suited for climbing.) And if you don't have the gearing but still want to race, just put down the wattage. Because whether you're on an easy gear, spinning fast or hard gear spinning slowly, you need to sweat to put out the same wattage.
i run 100% as i want to feel the outdoors as much as possible but for fairness i think when you enter the pen ALL racers should get either 0/50/100% depending on the race
NO... Because it is relative to your actual bike gearing, so for your statement to be true, everyone would need the same gearing on their bike... If you and me are at 100% but I have a 32 and you obly have 25, I'm still gonna be able to spin faster.
@@MarkRiddellRacing But that's true in any outdoor race as well. I like to spin, so I run an 11-32 cassette. Other people prefer 11-28 or 26 to get closer ratios. But we all ride up the hills at 100% difficulty when we're out on the road. So I think forcing the Zwift difficulty to 100% for racing makes sense, and from there people can choose the ratios of their cassettes and chainrings for their riding style just like they do out on the road. Artificially allowing riders to spin up climbs on close-ratio cassettes or mondo chainrings is unrealistic.
But the one other issue is not all trainers can simulate the same gradient. A Tacx flux can simulate 10% a Neo 25%. So if 2 riders both set to difficulty 100% and rode Bologna the flux is going to max out at 10% and the Neo at 18% so the experience will still not be the same. Some cheaper trainers are even lower in what they can simulate, so the only way to make it the same for everyone is to race at 0%??
I see the trainer difficulty as a "how much is this like the real world" setting. The term 'difficulty' is the wrong term for this setting as it causes the confusion that Chris is stuck on. If I don't care about the real world, I'll do an ERG workout, but having the %difficulty at 0% does nothing to help me IRL. I'm making the effort to make the zwift race as close to the real world as I can by setting it at 100% to adapt my body to changing gradients (knowing of course that it isn't exact). Others can decide to set it at zero, but when it comes to racing/riding in the real world, I feel I gain the advantage of knowing when to change gears, prep for a hill, and maintain my cadence, rather than just push watts in a set position.
I completely agree!!! In terms of, first of all being usefull IRL, second of all in terms of experiences with actual cycling and strategy. Thats the whole point of cycling, you are not a generator trying to produce power, you are an "athlete" trying to cycle. And thats also where you gain the advantages of your equipement. Having better groupset with either finer adjustments or faster gear changing makes a huge difference IRL and even more so in Hills.
Why? All it's doing is making you shift. The only time it makes a difference is if you actually run out of low gears. In that case it simply means that your bike isn't geared properly for the terrain. I don't really want to have to be shifting all the time. I set the difficulty at 40% most of the time and 10% if I'm racing so that I don't have to be fiddling around looking for gears. The power output is the same.
@@sevenrats No. That is not ALL it's doing! It's exactly how Chris says. The power is the same, but it's how you deliver that power that is different. You'll keep your legs under you much longer at 80 rpm than at 50 with the same power output.
@@Enigma71559 Where did I ever say anything about RPM? Just because the trainer resistance is different for a set wattage, why would you be turning a different RPM? Unless you're on single speed, you control your cadence with your gears. Again, YOU control YOUR cadence with your GEARS. It doesn't matter if you weight 50lbs or 500lbs. It doesn't matter if the gradient is 1% or 100%. You can shift your gearing to what any cadence you want at your wattage UNTIL you run out of gears. This is where the difficulty settings comes into play. It increases your low gear range. So my bike can climb the Alpe du Zwift with ME on it and I can maintain my desired cadence of 75 RPM and not run out of gears. If the slider is at 100% I would not be able to do that with my bikes current gear set up and my old legs.
@@Enigma71559 Stop arguing with me and try it. Set the slider at 30% and ride up the EPIC KOM. Then set it at 100% and do it again. Select your gearing for whatever cadence is comfortable. The only way it should be different is if you run out of gears on 100%, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SLIDER IS FOR!!!!
@@sevenrats Chris' point, and my point is just that riding at 300 watts at 90 rpms FEELS different in your legs than riding 300 watts at 50 rpm. That 50 rpm grind is much more difficult to maintain than the 90 rpm spin. And it's why most set their slider much lower to race. It IS an advantage over someone with the slider at 100%. It's NOT cheating, because anyone can lower their slider. And you're right. The slider is there to basically give you lower gears. It's easier than going out and buying a different cassette just to ride Zwift.
Trainer difficulty setting certainly makes a difference in Zwift. Yes a given watt registered by Zwift is treated the same regardless of the trainer setting but how you produce that watt has a different impact on your body. Case in point if I set my trainer difficulty to 0, then I don't have to worry about gear adjustments to maintain my ideal power to cadence ratio. I can just spin away at a set cadence/gear producing watts. With the trainer difficulty set to 100 I am going to have to be playing with my gear selection to try and narrow in on my ideal cadence/gear ratio. Depending on the grade resistance I may not be able to hit that ideal ratio as closely as when the trainer was set to 0. Also every time there is a grade change, your body is being hit with a different stress load until you can find that ratio. Those stress loads add up over time. To add to the complexity, every trainer will feel different at a given set difficulty setting so just saying, everyone should set their trainer to 100 doesn't make things a level playing field across all riders. My advice, just ride at a setting which you find most enjoyable...
Exactly. My example, my trainer difficulty is set at 100 as I’m training for a cycling trip in the summer (Pyrenees/Alps). When I climb epic KOM, I can put it at small ring/23 and spin up at 85 rpm as that is where I’m comfortable. When I turn up toward the radio tower and you hit 15%, if I tried to spin my 36/28 cog at 85 rpm I’d be pushing 450-500 Watts which isn’t impossible but is very much unsustainable. If I leave it zero, i stay comfortable and spin up. Difficulty 0 gives you a myriad of cadence/gearing options, which is therefore easier. I’ll say this, I end up climbing faster at 100% because I’m forced into it.
@@drm437 I find the same, and just adjust my difficulty level to match my energy levels. Like you say, same as having a wider choice of gears, not cheating, just adapting to what you have in your legs. I love 100% difficulty, but sometimes, lower is better. I would never actually try some of the inclines in the real world on a 28.
Yes, but At my weight, at a certain slope, it requires a certain unsustainable wattage to spin at 85rpm at the gearing I have. Removing an arm to drop weight right before a steep climb is unrealistic (I.e. my weight is a constant- relatively and I’m not comparing to anyone so w/kg doesn’t matter)
I watched this video and decided to do my own experiment. My last 3 times up epic kom were with 3 seconds of each other. 30:12, 30:15, and 30:08. I wear a Whoop band and do my best rides when my recovery is really high and it says I'm ready for "peak" performance. Today indicated a great recovery and rested body. I rode today feeling good and set my trainer to 0% . I've had it at 100% for the life of it. Race st 100% noodle at 100%. I shaved a full minute of that climb29:23! It's really difficult for me to keep my watts up on any downhill section but with the trainer set at minimum it really easy to find a rythm and put your head down. I also have thr kicker climb for added realism. I can literally close my eyes and ride with a perfectly level heartrate no spikes, no bumps in the road. This is completely unfair for racing. I agree with Chris 100%. Races should have a mandatory setting that we all follow. Climbers will get beat by time trialists and so on. Why would anyone pick a hilly climb and set the trainer to minimum? Not fair at all in zwift racing. It's like setting a metronome and riding to it. Not the point of riding at all. Great for guys and gals who ride flat roads all day and want to keep training for that. Hills are supposed to be more difficult. Pfft...
I just don’t get why anyone would ride a route on zwift that has elevation in it at 0%, just ride a flat course surely. If a person does it because they don’t enjoy hills then that’s an advantage in itself regardless of if it’s more difficult or not in terms of effort
Honestly I get Chris's point but he's making his argument on how realistic something is, we are talking here about a game with power ups and driving above lava lakes..
…but there are also leaderboards and races, so it’s not really fair to compare times if they are set at different difficulties. You are right, in that this is a game and everyone should use it however they want, but for everything that is competitive, there should be some ground rules, like trainer difficulty being the same for all.
Trainer Difficulty is simple. I run a 12-25 cassette. With a 25 tooth I will run out of gears to be able to climb at a sensible cadence on climbs like Radio Tower. Lowering the setting to 25-30% is like I changed cassettes to a 12-30 tooth. I still have to produce X watts to go at a certain speed, but now I can pedal at 80 rpm versus leg pressing a 25 tooth at 40-50 rpm up a steep climb.
@@davidshelly5116 Nothing happens. You do the same thing. You shift to the cadence you want to turn. If you're doing a climb like the radio tower for real, you might need to change your cassette for real. You still are going to make the same power, at the same RPM and the same speed.
Chris is definitely right here, while the energy/effort expended is the same, the way the muscles are used is different. The comments about gears actually support his argument: if there was 'no difference' then why do we use different gears to spin up climbs in the first place? Essentially what the trainer difficulty is doing is giving you an unlimited gear range, which is surely an advantage?
I agree with Chris. At least I think so, it's just tough to explain- Although there's a whole spectrum of gears available in the real world you would rarely someone humming along up a 10+ degree gradient seated in a 80+ cadence- most riders are pretty much forced into a low, grinding cadence and he just wants zwift to force riders at home into the same situation for the sake of realism.
Patrick Carney a lot of riders have some different bikes for the real world with different gears, eg. time trial with 55/42 and a 11-23 cassette and a climbing bike with a 50/34 and a 11 32 cassette. But those people may don`t change the bike on the trainer or have an old one on the trainer and therefore the difficulty may level it out again. And zero resistent is not necessary but...
@@chrispritch some people are better climbers than time trialists, and others are vice versa. Zwift's difficulty adjustment feature effectively levels the plain field and enables different kinds of riders compete in the same event only based on their ability to produce watts regardless of the way they do it. For instance, my power curve is distinctly showing my preference for sprint. I can easily do an hour of 500W 30sec intervals, but struggling with a 30 minutes of riding steady at my sub-FTP level. So, while racing on a flat terrain I end up doing a series of sprints with recoveries and finishing with the pack of riders who spin at a steady pace. So, for me 0% is clearly a bad option, as it makes shorter climbs feel almost too easy and then forces me to work my ass of on descents instead of recovering from sprinting efforts.
Change gear Chris! What?... What did you say?... Run out of gears you say? Well put some granny gears on your bike for climbing or if you are on zwift just tweak the trainer difficulty! The main disadvantage is not the resistance or cadence uphill, it's the change of incline which requires more gear changes for those on 100%. By the time you find the right gear you sometimes have to put an effort in to get back on the group.
I agree. Use 100% all day. Except when climbing mont ventoux and alpe du Zwift. In normal live a use a 11-25 cassete. When I go for a big climb I change to 11-32. In zwift I just change to 75% trainer difficulty. Gives the same effect
Well it doesn't give the same result as a cassette change but it deals with the problem of too high gearing - my bottom gear on my trainer bike is 39/25 so no choice for me without changing components
Close enough for most of us... the distinction is screechy/niggling, but it goes like this: Power = Force x Velocity If you take Force and break it down into aero and climbing components (just for simplicity), then: Power = (aeroForce + climbForce) x Velocity A cassette swap acts on aeroForce + climbForce. Trainer difficulty only affects grade, therefore, it only acts on climbForce. Because cassette swap and trainer difficulty usually move in the same direction (their effects are coextensive), trainer difficulty adjustment looks like a cassette swap to normal people. When they move in the same direction, it is like a cassette swap (and that's how many people use the setting). But because they act on different variables, it's not a perfect match, and so it's not a cassette swap. There can also be some fun mathematical oddities, like when you lower the climbForce requirement even though you can comfortably output the power. (It can lead to higher velocity and thereby higher aeroForce.) All of that said, I agree with you all. I'm comfortable explaining it as a virtual cassette swap. It's how most of us use it. The distinction doesn't matter.
While you are correct that a watt is a watt, there is a difference in how it is produced that places more/different stress on the body. This leads to the effort being percieved as more difficult at a higher trainer difficulty: 1. Having to shift gears - this leads to irregularity in power and causes spikes above and below target power, which causes more fatique. Just like workouts where you do Over/Under FTP efforts are harder than keeping power steady at FTP even though the average power is the same. 2. Inertia - Keeping up the same watts, but in a lower gear (which is required for climbing at 100%) means that the trainer's flywheel has a lower rotation speed, thus having less inertia. As a result the way you have to exert force on the pedal changes. The lower inertia of the flywheel means you have to exert force on the pedals over a larger part of the pedal rotation. This may feel unnatural, causing more fatique. In my opinion this is something that should be used in training ERG mode too to get optimal training benefits. Alternating between keeping a certain wattage at a high gear vs a low gear. The lower inertia will better simulate climbing in the real world whilst higher gears will better simulate a TT on the flat.
No dumbass, you put out more power, that is how you make your training "more difficult". Jesus help me. Start pedaling with your hands and be the optimal "victim of inertia".
The difference has to do with fly wheel rpm. Muscle recruitment is slightly different at high speed/flywheel rpm( big gear) than it is at a low speed/flywheel rpm(small gear). Both are difficult in their own way and require specific training to develop. This is one reason why pros motor pace. Try doing two intervals in erg mode at the same power and cadence but do the first one in the biggest gear and the second in the smallest gear = Two different workouts. Those that do flat TT style riding/training will have an easier time with no resistance while climber style riders will have an easier time with 100% resistance. Someone at 0% resistence is riding a different course than someone at 100%.
Spot on, riding a real hill puts different pressure on the full pedal rotation, the power required for a full revolution of the crank is the same but distributed differently. On the flat you can get away with mashing more on the downstroke.
I don't think very many people ride outside with a 32/32 gear, that's basically what a low trainer difficulty does. If you run out of gears then you have to grind and that is 'harder' because it's not as effecient.
Chris you are 90% right everyone should have the resistance set at 100%. Having climbed the Alpe in Zwift more than 100 times , I have the Trainer Difficulty set to 100%. I like to feel the gradient with the Kickr Climb as I would outside but I use the gears on the bike also as I would outside. I love to Climb the Alpe on Zwift out the saddle also I usually ride on the big ring at the front and use 2 or 3 gears on the back , my cadence is really low but it feels to me as I'm riding outside in the real world. Keep the videos coming Chris really appreciate your comments and topics on Zwift.😂🐐🚲💨
Brian Rhoden that just means you are a beast! ✋🏼✋🏼💪🏼💪🏼😃😃 honestly I have discovered that doing lower cadence and medium watts based on FTP up the climbs increases my endurance , as my power keeps a constant rather than trying to climb as fast as I can, but then again depends on the purpose of your climb: Jersey? Endurance? Beat yourself up for fun? Race? Etc 🙁🙄😝😝😄😄😡😡💪🏼😝💪🏼
If 100% is the same as 0% then why does everyone buy bikes with 11 speed and now 12 speed cassettes to keep the gaps small? It's easier to sit in one gear at your ideal cadence. The biggest difference is when cresting a hill, those on 0% just shoot off as those on 100% are producing half the watts before shifting into the big ring. The one problem is, not everyone has a smart trainer, so there needs to be a 0% option
You guys need to look at it from a total energy perspective and not a power perspective. Power is with respect to time. Energy is the power multiplied by the amount of time. So, will a person putting out 300 W on a hill go the same distance as someone putting out 300 on a flat? No. Remember: a calorie is a calorie (joule is a joule), a watt is a watt...but the total amount of energy needed to travel the same distance on a hill vs a flat is different. This is due to potential energy (E_p = mgh) gained while going up a hill. (source: I am an engineer) P.S. Khan Academy has some great entry-level physics courses :D
You have a lot of terrible analogies in this statement. You glaze right past the obvious conclusion withput even bringing it up, as if missing the entire take away. The reason MAX is harder on the meat motor than NONE is because of the flywheel effect. Pulling this into the context of your energy/power reference, and ignoring the irrelevant incline = slow statement. You can deliver say '300' W seconds of energy by delivering 600W every 500ms quite easily without any Trainer difficulty (stomp, stomp, stomp) At MAX difficulty the muscles you need to use are different as your attempt to deliver a 600W pulse typically falls short due to less of a flywheel effect resulting in the need to carry the pedal around. e.g. 300W for 1 decond, or 450W for 0.75 second, etc... MAX basically has a greater potential to take you out of your optimal power delivery muscles. EVEN AT THE SAME CADENCE. Examples are rounded to binary efforts for simplicity. Reality is more analog, and the rendering of that pedal stroke effort would be vastly different at the same cadence and average energy.
For official races, there definitely needs to be a standard and I think for your KOM it should be at 100% as well. I prefer to climb at 100% difficulty. I have had certain workouts that I keep the same cadence but don't feel like I accomplished the KOM like free riding at 100% difficulty
The only limiting factor is the size of the cassette you are prepared to fit. I could spin my way up any Alp or Pyrenean climb as long as I fitted a large enough rear cassette. If Zwift didn't have this have this feature, it would exclude people with smaller cassettes from fully enjoying all the courses in the game, which is I assume, why they did it. Decreasing trainer difficulty simply mimics fitting larger cassette, something we all do these days, compared to the cyclists of the 60's,70's etc.
I agree 100% with you !! Just ride at 100% for racing. The fatigue is different ... for the grinding. In the real world you don't get to go 50% in racing....it comes down to fatigue level at the end regardless of gears
There should be a standard, but it should be variable to some degree, maybe making it so that the lowest you can go is 70 or 80 percent. The zwift hub direct drive trainer comes with a 28 tooth cassette, however, some riders like me prefer using a 34 tooth cassette. I keep my trainer difficulty at 80 percent, which basically simulates me riding with a 34 tooth cog in my lowest gear. All in all, it should be used as a tool for people like me and not abused for people to have easier races.
dylan jones exactly ! 100% should be on races to make it fair. The option to alter difficulty is great so you can amend it around your training. But 0% is not the same loading on your muscles as 100%
On my Neo 2T, I do find that 300W in a deep gear w/MAX trainer difficulty, uses different leg muscles than 300W in a higher gear (at the same cadence) I would describe it as a flywheel effect. Low gear = low flywheel effect and a drag across the entire cadence rotation High gear = huge flywheel effect, and very little drag across the cadence rotation. More of the effort comes from stomping as opposed to carying the pedal around. Analogy: (No trainer difficulty) glue a scale to a low ceiling. See how big of a nunber you can get pushing up against that scale. (lbs are lbs) Analogy: (MAX difficulty) replace scale with a weight equal to your best effort. Now you have to deal with swinging that weight into the optimal position to execute your effort, can you even get it into position? (lbs are lbs) In Summary, I do feel no trainer difficulty gives you an advantage. No messing with gears, no akward power delivery. That said, I still use MAX. Its more enjoyable, realistic and better conditioning.
I agree Chris, I'm a beginner with max settings and old bike (with 11/25 gear) and almost got destroyed by my first climbs because I ran out of gears and started losing cadence. That would also happen in real life and that's why I keep it like this. I might upgrade the cassette though to for climbs in both real and virtual biking.
Chris makes a valid point if we all agree that we want to simulate real world conditions and environment. If you don't care than be at zero all you want. But for those who use zwift as a supplement to their outdoor training/progression, at least put it at 50% if not 100%
Mr. H it’s not a valid point. If I added another gear for you to use on your outside bike... would you be not feeling that gradient when you use my newly added gear?
I totally get what your saying (maybe). Ive done 1 race on 50 % resistance. "Magically" I managed to set a new FTP ive never been close to copy with 100 % resistance. And it wasnt even close. Ive never managed to get closer then 21 watts which is a pretty substansial gain just for changing the resistance. I get what people are saying that watts are watts, but .....
300W is 300W. You don't have to grind harder at 100%, shift down. Less than 100% is like having slightly automatic gearing. If you want everyone to use 100% to make things "even", you also need to force them to have the same gear ratios available. If you shift to keep the same cadence at 300W, you are doing the same thing that 0% does.
It's not about it being absoulety even across the board... It is however about it being even in how the road beneath you feels... If it says 10% on the gradient everyone who is on that gradient should feel the same resistance.... Like a group of riders all climbing the same hill in real life
But if I'm comfortable with 300W @ 90RPM, I can set 0% and hold it, or I can set 100% and shift at gradient changes to match it. Yes, I will feel the gradient change until I perform the shift, and this only works up to certain gradients depending on my available gearing. But stay off the steeper hills, and you can achieve this with an average cassette. I get your point that it is not the same experience, but if you are competent at shifting, I don't think you're at any disadvantage. I keep mine at the default 50%, because I'm too cheap to buy a different cassette for ADZ, and I don't think the last two rings I don't use would cover the jump to 100%. @@chrispritch
You are right Chris, like every calories are not the same, every watts are not the same lol The other guy is being to simple with a "watt is a watt", it's all about the impact on the body.
Calorie is a unit of energy. It's classically defined as the amount of energy needed to raise 1 mL of water by 1 deg C. A calorie can be converted to Joules (another unit of energy) by multiplying by a constant. A Watt however, is a unit of power. Power is defined as the amount of energy per second, actually the number of Joules per second. Mathematically, and physically, a calorie is indeed equal to a calorie of the same magnitude (it's a scalar anyways), and a watt is equal to a watt. The issue is that the amount of energy needed to travel the same distance up a hill relatively to a flat is more. This is because the amount of potential energy increases with respect to your height (E_p = mgh). (source: I am an engineer)
Totally agree in a race it should be 100%,,, i find it much easier doing 300 watts on the flat,,its not about what gearing its because of the resistance on the climb is forcing you to keep pressure all the way through the pedal stroke ,,,,the only people that will say it don't matter is the ones not riding at 100%,,
To make it the same for everyone you would have to enter you gear ratio on your real bike and then have zwift modify trainer difficulty to effectively give everyone the same range of gears in game. The problem with setting everyone up with 100% is that to do a race up Alpe d zwift is those people in the real world who have a bike geared for large mountain would have an advantage. By letting people adjust there own difficulty we get rid of that real world advantage and instead make allow people to have a virtual gear set they like.
Happy New Year Everyone!! Be happy and healthy! :) When I ride in a real world I can prepare myself for a climb, I can speed up, and when the incline starts, I change gears and simply ride on. Same thing when zwifting at 50% set. And it feels pretty REAL. Yes, I lose speed, but I keep on going quite easily. If you set it to 100% it feels like when the incline starts - you hit the wall, and you have to put too much effort to just keep going. Never felt like this on a real road. 50% is set by default, and I think it's done for a reason. If you want more, wanna suffer - this option is available! :) So it's all up to you :) But I do agree that when racing - everyone should be on the same settings!
I agree completely. It’s like any other video game - everyone should choose their own difficulty, but when it comes to racing, it should be the same for everyone, preferably 100%.
That was painful to watch! So yes a watt is indeed a watt, however I’m confused as to how the other guy doesn’t seem to get Chris’ point 🤦🏼♂️ Fair enough Zwift is not the real world so different rules apply, however 350 watts up ‘The Burway’ (Steep climb in Church Stretton, UK) would be extremely difficult to do in the tt position. If however it was possible and you could turn the real world difficulty down to zero it wouldn’t be fair compared to climbing it in reality as you would be going up in a more efficient position for the body. Where as real life climbing out of the saddle (even producing the same watts) would be far more taxing on a rider especially at those gradients! Let’s keep hills as hills guys! 👍🏻
Also, notice when Chris rode at 100%, he had to let off at the end to make the times match. Depending on the length of the ride, feeling the extra resistance makes hitting higher watts easier (is that the right word? maybe more 'likely'), and therefore faster up the hill, and therefore an advantage.
The difficulty setting is effectively changing your gearing ratio. Pros have different setups for climbing that allow them to spin up a 7% gradient. Lower the slider to give yourself the same effect. If 100% doesn't allow you to spin up the gradient your on, lower the difficulty until you get your desired cadence.
Chris, maybe this will help you understand the difference between 0% and 100% on your trainer. It is not an unfair advantage because if you move the resistance level down to zero it gets easier on the climb but your speed goes down as well. It would be the equivalent of someone changing the cog on their bike for a climb from a 11-28 and a 53 big ring to a 11-34 and a 50 big ring that day. Keep up the good work. Love the videos.
Wattage is what moves the avatar so even if the slider is set low, unless you generate wattage, the avatar isn’t going any faster. A lower difficulty only means you have to spin that much faster. It’s basically to help the gearing of your bike. If your bike is set up with tall gears, slide the difficulty down so you can make those climbs. If you have a compact crankset and large cassette, set the difficulty higher so you don’t spin out on the downhills.
Yeah but when they have zero difficulty set then when we are recovering on the decent they have to keep peddling. I think the best argument is why did we spend $1000 on a smart trainer to turn it into a dumb trainer.
Chris is 100% correct. What he’s not making clear enough in his argument is that on a steep enough gradient in real life, you will eventually run out of easy gears that would allow for you to have the option of efficiently pedaling at 85-90 rpm. On a big enough hill everyone is eventually grinding. If your trainer difficulty is set to zero, you’ll never notice a difference going up the hill, and yes, while the wattage required to get from point a to point b IS the same, the way in which you produce those watts would be at a very easy breezy 85-90 rpm. With difficulty set to 100 on a steep enough climb you will eventually run out of gears (much like you would in real life) forcing you to grind up at a lower cadence. The lower the cadence, the more torque required to produce the same amount of wattage. It’s more physically demanding to torque (grind) through at a lower cadence. Trainer difficulty at 100 will require you to grind in certain scenarios, because you will eventually run out of gears. Now, if you’re on a mountain bike, that’s a whole other can of worms.
Difficulty mean using the gears more. End of! 300w is 300w at 0 or 100% 1 you can spin the other you can grind as proven in the video. Here is where Chris should be truly triggered. The difficulty also affects downhill. 🤪🤪 And what if someone has a turbo that can only resist 400w/500w and 5% power accuracy vs the kickrs 2000w 1% accuracy???
Alan Hughes 10 minutes at 300watts with 80 rpm is a whole other animal than 10 minutes at 300watts with 40 rpm. Higher cadences translates in aerobic efforts, lower me cadences translates in a more muscular effort...
Chris you right, don't let them get you down. Chainging gear make the effort harder, and sure if you are in a road bike 36 in front 28 in back you you strugle to get good cadence in plus 10% gradients.
Trainer Difficulty is great for those like me coming back from injury and totally unfit. I have it at 50% so I can get some effort but not blow myself to pieces on the 10-15% sections and be unable to finish the ride. As I get fitter, I can increase the difficulty. I tend to agree with Chris about having the Trainer Difficulty at 100% in a race IF WE WANT TO MIMIC OUTDOORS.
I agree, 100% trainer difficulty makes for the most realistic feel... on longer, steadier climbs. However, when you're going fast on rolling sections like titans grove or pretty much anywhere in NYC, then sometimes the massive swings in resistance from -5 to +8 happen quicker than most turbos can keep up with; case in point you can be barrelling along a slight decent and hit a 10% climb with your flywheel spinning at 70 kph, then hit a steep climb, if you only lift off slightly not only does it "fake" your power because as the resistance kicks into a fast flywheel (i've been given power readings of +700 watts when i'm glass cranking) and then you might reach the peak of a short climb and be actually going down again and the resistance it still high. So in these instances the slightly softer setting of 50% can just make your ride smoother with fewer gear changes. So for general riding, it's just a lot less clicking through the gears. Where it's an "advantage" in races is where you turn it right down so that you barely change gear, keeping that smooth rhythm and on descents with trainer difficulty set low you can actually ride faster, dropping people on descents! I think for racing Zwift should automatically set all trainers to the same difficulty e.g. 75%. Thoughts?
Chris, it's just like changing your cassette. It's a bit like in a bike race on the road not everyone has the same cassette. It's so people can make it easier or harder according to their ability without having to go out and buy a new cassette for the trainer.
This was so funny to watch. My stance is that people enjoying Zwift or on a group ride should just do what makes them feel good. If we're talking racing then yes, 100% resistance should really be forced - perhaps it is, I haven't raced on Zwift. I ride at 100% all the time because I want to. But when my 10 year old wanted to climb Alpe du Zwift I set the resistance lower for him. He climbed to the top and the sense of achievement was just as real for him as it is for me - the assistance was probably less than he'd get from an ebike.
Hi I'm new to zwift and after watching your RUclips on this subjectthe I done the 14km Yorkshire ride in 31,47 sec at 100% to day 30,50 sec at 50% I'm not young or fit,Great videos.
Resistance on the trainer increases as flywheel rpm increases - in all cases. As your cadence increases in a given gear, so does your trainer resistance. If you drop back a gear or two, your rpm decreases and your resistance decreases. At 0% trainer difficulty, that's all that happens - increase speed = increase resistance/decrease speed = decrease resistance At any other trainer difficulty, an -increase in speed + increase in gradient = increase resistance above standard speed increases. All Chis wants, is for everybody to feel gradient increases as they ride, but why? Chris believes that there is an advantage on hilly routes when trainer difficulty is set to low. (0%) at 0% trainer difficulty, effectively, every route is a flat TT course. No matches get burnt and those at 0% feel "fresh" for the whole ride, effectively giving them a fatigue advantage when it comes to sprints at the end of a race. Chris would like everybody to ride the same Trainer difficulty so that every body has the same relative fatigue at the finish line. I agree with Chris, but how will you get everybody to ride the same %difficulty and what value will it be set at? Remember that there a very few riders on Zwift who care about trainer difficulty. Chris is speaking for parity between "pro's and heavy hitters" all in the name of fairness..
I agree with Chris here, even with 50/34 - 11/34 gears, some climbs at 12 to 16% can get pretty hard as you're running out of gears. Then if it's a race and you're competing with others who can go at more efficient cadence, or even waste less energy shifting gears it's not fair anymore. So there's a point with enforcing 100% trainer difficulty for races. For training however it's a great tool to be able to choose between simulation accuracy or something else.
I agree w/ Chris. If I'm going up the same 'virtual' hill at 100% difficulty vs someone at 0% difficulty, they will expend less energy to make it up the hill. In a race, that 0% person will have more gas in the tank than I do. Its like a 8,000 lb truck going up a hill vs. a 2000 lb truck. That truck will use more fuel to get up the hill at the same rate as that 2000 pound car. More resistance depletes energy faster. Even if he changed gears he's still using more energy because he can feel the resistance more.
I just ran some calculations based on P=(torque)x(crank arm length)x(Force)x[sin(theta)]x(rpm); solving for Force with Power constant at 300W with 170mm crank arms, and assuming all power is applied at 90° to the crank arm, I varied cadence by 10 rpm from 40 up to 90. As cadence went up the Force required to achieve 300W was lower, also of note the separation in required force decreased with each increase in cadence. Power is power, more force requires significantly more strength, and a point is reached where the force is either unacheivable for an individual or unsustainable relative to endurance. Cadence is king for the same power. This is where bike selection, gearing, components, come into play. It also lends itself to N+1 bikes and a bike for each unique type of riding. I'm leaning toward the 100% camp, and I would encourage which ever camp you choose, select your cassette according to what you want to do with cadence in mind. Some cadences can be unsustainable if resistance is insufficient, or it could just be beyond the capability of a single rider.
Chris is completely right here. When you run out of gears then you can’t choose cadence and it gets a lot tougher. Also, the gradient changes need you to always be on top of selection which means you can’t just stick to an absolute cadence and power.
I’m with Chris. People may have different gears in a real road race, but we’re talking about small changes in gear ratios & max number of teeth in the rear cogs. I get the whole “it’s flattening out the gear ratio” argument to allow someone to make a 25t cassette with a 39t crank feel like a 32t cassette with a 36t crank, but then that difficulty should be set in like the 80%-100% range for that smoothing… not 50% down to 0%.
Cant believe the other guys didnt want to hear what chris said. I mean wait is the point of hills if you can easily flatten them out with this setting. I am ok with this setting in the open world or group rides. But we just need fixed difficulty setting races for people with smarttrainers. Everybody should experience the hills in the same way for races to be fair.
I'm late to this party. Your argument is solid. If you can adjust the "feel" not everyone is racing the same course. One person is riding a hilly course and the other person is riding a flat course, even though they both might be pushing exactly the same watts, they are 100% (see what I did there 😜) not on the same course. Another real world example is one person is riding up Alpe d'Huez, while the other is inside a velodrome. Both can ride the same wattage, but the physiological adaptation is VERY different on each rider on their respective course. I have my trainer set to 100% for the same reason. I don't need a dumbed down experience. If I don't want hills, I go to a velodrome. Hoping the others see the light 🔦😜
YES. FINALLY DOM! although there's a few folk who get it too.... others saying it's like changing your cassette bigger or smaller gears is the same... changing cassettes is the same as changing cassettes. changing trainer difficulty is only fair (in a race) if everyone elses trainers are set the same! you've nailed it mate. bloody nailed it better then i could have!
I’ve gone up the radio tower when tired in a group on 100% and ground to a halt in my easiest gears. I changed the trainer to 50% then proceeded to catch up and overtake the group in front before the top. In my mind that makes the 50% setting easier to ride than the 100%.
I did Alpe dH on zwift at 100 and next day at zero. I can say stats were similar but the effort at zero was tolerable vs at 100 I felt like I ran out of gears. For me zwift races should lock to 100 and all other times you do what you want.... Or another option is no result on zwift power for races where resistance is less than 100. Today I try the third experiment which is back to 100 and see where I end up again. Love the video and channel gents.
Chris is missing the point. Bikes have different group sets and even pro cyclists will change their gears to suit the terrain, so when on a flat course they will use a higher gear ratio than when on a mountain stage. If Chris’s argument is taken literally then all cyclists would have to line up with exactly the same group set. In the real world we all select gears to suit our own riding style. The gradient is the same irrespective of the setting on Zwift you are just using a higher or lower gear ratio.
I agree with Chris. If racing, everyone should be made to have the same setting. IMO, It's easier to keep 300w turning over with low resistance on than it would to be to turn over 300w with resistance included due to the inertia. With little or no resistance, there is less force acting against your pedal stroke. With resistance high, you have to work harder to keep the pedals turning over, even at the same wattage and cadence. To confirm this, a test would be to go up the same gradient on Zwift at the same speed and cadence and stop pedalling. I would expect the flywheel to stop quicker on the higher 100% setting and therefore this would illustrate that it's harder to keep pedalling, even at the same watts and cadence. I've been wrong before though.
I agree that everyone should feel the terrain. To me this means that everyone will have the same advantage/disadvantage of variable terrain, as opposed to an 'average gradient/average power' situation.
Clearly Chris is on the right side of the argument concerning competitive Zwifting. The inertia inherent in steep inclines puts you at a disadvantage to those flattening out the climbs. But just my own observation, I find the zwift gradients harder than identical gradients in the real world, at least as I percieve them. I haven't ridden Zwift much but I had to abandon Alpe du Zwift at turn 7 (so is that 2/3 complete) because my 65 year old knees were taking a battering at that low cadence. I've not had masses of mountain road experience, but I have done the Fred Whittons, Dragon Rides, and a 4000 mtr Etape du tour, up Mount Teide etc, so I know what the bike feels like pointing uphill, and I find, say a 14% gradient on Zwift (top end Saris), much harder than real world. So next time I am going to turn trainer difficulting down. Interested if that is a more general impression or just me.
A watt is a watt is a watt. Having high difficulty % just ends up resulting in a lot more gear changes. Makes you have to tactically consider gear changes much more
If it would make no difference, then why is it that IRL we always see the big riders in front of a flat (preferably windy) race and the featherweight in front in mountain races? Surely, if it was ONLY a matter of gearing, a big rider like say Peter Sagan or Ian Stannard could just as easily win Alpe d'Huez as Marco Pantani, or Simon Yates, which is NOT the case! What trainer difficulty setting in Zwift does, is give the possibilty of make every course a flat course, so then only output power (W) matters and this is NOT a simulation of IRL climbing. That way everyone becomes a "virtual" climber and this in essence is cheating, when allowing this during an actual race. Also, the non-shifting is an advantage in general.
Stupid test, he should be allowed to change gears in 0/50/100 to show if there is an advantage big enough in zero compared to 100 with the gear range in a typical road bike
You don’t have to grind, just change gears... trainer difficulty simply changes your “gear ratio”. In order to maintain the same wattage at the same cadence, you change the gears. It’s just that you change gears more or less depending on your trainer difficulty setting.
Chris is spot on here. Power is power. But its how its used. Someone spinning out with no resistance will has less fatigue than someone grinding. Its cardiovascular vs muscle power
I’m with Chris on this one...it’s pointless having a smart trainer if there’s no resistance. You might as well race on rollers on velodrome simulator lol .. make max resistance compulsory setting to race on zwift 👍👍👍👍
The thing start to get interesting when you climb Alp du Zwift and you get out of gears... you have to push 3.0 w/kg in order to keep climbing... with less trainer difficulty you are able to pace yourself better...
ok got it at the end lol. the reason why the trainer gets harder in the same gear is so we develop spin , the higher cadence means less watts to maintain same speed as other putting out same power . you need to develop spin
I’m also in the 100% club. Within a mile of my front door there’s a hill with 17% gradient and I have to ride that with whatever is in my cassette. While I might benefit from turning my trainer down to 80% allowing me to increase my cadence, out in the real world I’m going to be grinding up that big hill so I might as well get used to it. To my way of thinking I guess it depends what you’re training for as to whether you go for 100% or not.
2 guys riding up a hill at 100% trainer difficulty, one has a 24 max cog on the rear and the other has a 32 max cog. The one with the 24 max cog is at a disadvantage, so to gain some virtual extra cogs you can turn the difficulty down a bit. I think development along the virtual road gets less as you turn the difficulty down.
If someone is heavier or has strengths in time trial they will do much better on 0% because it will "feel" where they are most comfortable. Those who are more comfortable in cutting time on hills and climbs will do better if everyone is 100%. For mental and rider skill comfort. For testing difference vs wattage they are the same.... however, in race there are other factors and fluctuation in wattage makes a big difference. Also, the out of saddle climb on a hill is valid because equal power is not equal energy exhaustion. A time trial/triathlete will be able to choose any time they like to put out the burst in energy at 0%... Climbers are saving to output the big energy on hills... Chris is correct in the argument, overall energy and power are different... power is a component in energy exertion not the whole.
My main reason for preferring low trainer difficulty has more to do with what happens after the summit. I know I'm going to take forever to get to the top because of *being a fat old hack* ... but if trainer difficulty is low I can at least get decent power on the downhill bits. Try this experiment - Go up Box Hill, then turn around and ride down it with trainer difficulty at 100% - and try to generate 300 watts *for the entire round trip* (you'll have to average about 400 on the way up, I reckon). Better yet, try to average 300W *on the downhill only* - you'll run out of gears (as I do - with a bog-standard Shimano 105 11-28 and 50-34 front... maybe a 53-39 wouldn't). If you can actually get to 300W average on Box Hill downhill, try the same thing doing the Central Park KOM as a downhill. Also: trainer resistance at 100% means you're switching between energy systems a lot - climbs aren't ever a constant gradient, so you're constantly switching from quite anaerobic on sharp kicks, to to [less an-]aerobic on the intermittent flats (and false-flats and declines) during the climb.
On the serious note: Chris is only half wrong. Even if you change your gear for easier on 100% difficulty it will feel different, as there is very little inertia when flywheel is moving slowly (high resistance). Most people will find it more difficult to pedal and more fatiguing. There are some who prefer low inertia riding though, and can produce more power in such conditions.
Interesting argument. One good point: if you are precise with grandient and resistance (100% simulation), at some point if you hit a 20% hill, you would MAY run out of gear at and drop under 60 rpm, but not by choice! Then watts have to be higher, otherwise it does not climb anymore, while rpm goes down! That's why some needs a 28 or 32 cog ... while your friend (0% simulation) is cruising maybe the same watts but spinning at 85 rpm not being obligated to push harder to climb. Is that right? I cannot imagine there was an argument! The holly triangle: Watts-cog-rpm! Gears "flattens" the hill... until you run out of it!!!!
Chris I agree with the resistance across the whole race board people ride with low resistance and you over here with 50% trying your hardest to hang on
totally agree, if you are on a race all should have same settings. 300W on flat is not the same 300W on hill. If someone prefers to race with the "flat feeling" fair enough, however, you are racing a hill, and it should be same and fair for everyone.
I just want to point out the trainer difficulty is not like a virtual cassette adjuster, as some comments are saying. It’s ultimately an elevation adjuster, and that alone. 10% climbs at 50% trainer difficulty becomes 5%, as do the descents as well; therefore influencing your descent speed. Cassettes have nothing to do with your descent, so comparing it to a cassette is inaccurate. 100% will have your legs screaming on the climbs, but praising you on the descents. Unless the race is 100% climb, the trainer difficulty balances itself out.
Watts are watts. How that is produced most efficiently and comfortably for you varies widely. The only real issues involved between the difficulty is the less need to change gears. More gear changes can slow you down vs someone who doesn't need to since there's a momentary lapse of power transmission and the legs need a split second to adjust the rpm change. Mechanically there might also be benefits in which cogs you are in terms of efficiency, so less trainer difficulty you can optimize by using the middle cog majority of the time. Some folks also have less gear ratios to work with. For example, I only have an 8 speed so I got two less optimized gears to choose from but lowering the trainer resistance can negate this factor.
I'm not sure why there's so much debate on this. I totally agree with Chris. It's harder on your legs to grind up a hill at 50 rpm than it is going up the same hill at 80 rpm. YES! The power output is the same, but your legs will give out sooner mashing at that lower cadence. At least I know mine do.
I agree that in a competitive setting, riders should be at the same resistance. But I expected that this was going to be a video about whether the same rider is achieving higher wattages at a higher or lower resistance. Personally I train at no resistance, because if I'm riding inside I'm just trying to get miles in, sometimes I'll use ERG mode but that's about it. I found that resistance does help me on races if my legs can handle it, but mostly because of my riding style--if the hill is short enough I'll keep a somewhat high gear for the hill and push through.
Absolutely 100% all races should be with the SAME resistance for everybody. However, that poses a problem if you choose any higher trainer difficulties (resistance). Newer bikes with more gears and larger rear gears will 100% have an advantage. The classic bikes I ride can't support larger than a 28 tooth in the back. That means I cannot physically spin up many of the climbs on zwift on 75 or 100% difficulty. That gearset is perfectly fine for outdoor riding, but for zwift it's inadequate. No one in their right mind would take on a huge 2000 meter climb with 15% grades without the proper climbing gears. Therefore, I think the resistance should be set at 50% for all races so that there is a bit of "bike leveling" and people don't need the newest 12 speed freewheel with a massive granny gear on the back. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Same cadence and same power is not necessarily the same feeling or difficulty. On a flat you only need to apply power through a small band around the 3 o’clock pedal position (where the stroke is most efficient), momentum caries you through the rest of the stroke. On a hill you are slowed down much sooner and have to apply power much earlier. On the trainer it is the speed of the flywheel that simulates this effect. And setting a low difficulty allows you to quickly spin the flywheel on every incline making it feel like a flat everywhere.
You can choose to run an 11-23 cassette too if you like to grind. It's a cadence preference. As long as the speed and wattage is the same it's fair. I'm going to add one counterargument that I thought of. When resistance changes dramatically it can catch you off guard and not keep up the power
It's like arguing with my friends. Its different skills. It's why some races are on a velodrome and others are on mountains. Tours are great to watch because there is so much going on. In a competition all competitors should be on the same playing field.
I ride at 50 percent . When i ride Central Park on Zwift my speed up that climb is consistent with when I actually ride at the park in real life . So the setting does not change the power our the steepness . If i ride my old crit bike with a straight block 12 - 21 cog set i can get up that climb if i set it to zero as though i had an 11 to 32. The wattage does not change only the cadence which can be achieved through gearing .
My experience is 1) Generally you can get optimal cadence with gear charges with trainer difficulty at 100% BUT you have to change gears a lot more on a hilly course which of course has an efficiency cost and 2) Chris is right, on really steep hills you can run out of gears and then all of a sudden you are in your lowest gear at lower cadence versus the guy next to you on 0% trainer difficulty. 3) 0% trainer difficulty has its own gear change issues in races, as everyone increases watts up the hills and at 0% difficulty you you'll need to change to up to avoid a spike in cadence. Somewhere I read most racers use 25% trainer difficulty... but only Zwift can tell us the real number.
Chris is right in that it is more difficult to climb with the trainer at 100% but not for the reason he states, i.e. cadence being lower, because that could be fixed by changing gear like the other dude says. What makes it more difficult is that at a higher resistance, the pedal stroke requires more stabilizer muscles to be involved since you're not getting the inertia of the flywheel to "help" you out. So at a high resistance you're pedaling squares, which makes it harder.
You can verify this by loading up trainer road, setting it to ERG mode, and doing a hard interval in the 53/11 and one in 39/25. The 53/11 will be easier due to the flywheel inertia.
this
Haha, this is what I was thinking the whole time! 85rpm @ 10% is not the same as 85rpm @ 0% whether indoors or outdoors!
11 months later, but this!! There definitely is a difference but I couldn't put it into words but this is exactly it.
fafara , yes we all understand that the power is the same. The point is that power is not everything. Easy to see that it is not the same to do 250W on a 10% hill or on a flat, even at the same cadence. The difference is that on a flat you only need to apply power through a small part of the stroke (where it is most efficient to do so), while on a climb you need to push the pedals around for a longer part of the stroke. What is different on the trainer when changing the difficulty setting, is the speed of the flywheel, which creates the same effect of riding on a flat or up a hill.
fafara well yes it is related to that. But not only you need to apply constantly power on hills or you fall over, it is also the way you apply power that is different. On flats you can move the pedals almost freely from 6 o’clock up to 3 o’clock, press down and repeat. On hills you will start feeling resistance much earlier.
I'm with Chris here. I always run my trainer difficulty on 100% as I think a hill on Zwift should be the same as a hill outside. You don't get any rider preference on hills outside!
So you don't change gears on hills outside?
@@apond58 so you are saying that as long as you switch gears every hill feels flat in the real world? That is not true.
David Danser that’s what an ideal gearing is supposed to do. The effort you put into those gears is what drives your speed faster or slower.
@@PersonaN007Grata much easier to go at one given speed on the flat than feel every gradient having changes in resistance and gearing all the time. This is the fun of cycling, taking that away by offering an option to numb down every hill. Nobody is scared of a 16% gradient on zwift, they can just turn down the difficulty.
There is a limit to gearing irl
@@daviddanser8011 I agree with you. It's great fun when you feel like you're actually climbing. But not everyone has the gearing to ride Alpe du Zwift. So that's what the difficulty slider is for. (For instance, I have a 52/36 chainset and an 11-25 cassette on one of my bikes. Not easy to climb steep mountains. But my other bike has a 50/34 and 11-28 so it's much better suited for climbing.) And if you don't have the gearing but still want to race, just put down the wattage. Because whether you're on an easy gear, spinning fast or hard gear spinning slowly, you need to sweat to put out the same wattage.
i run 100% as i want to feel the outdoors as much as possible but for fairness i think when you enter the pen ALL racers should get either 0/50/100% depending on the race
The TimeWarp Cyclist that would only be fair!
NO... Because it is relative to your actual bike gearing, so for your statement to be true, everyone would need the same gearing on their bike... If you and me are at 100% but I have a 32 and you obly have 25, I'm still gonna be able to spin faster.
@@MarkRiddellRacing But that's true in any outdoor race as well. I like to spin, so I run an 11-32 cassette. Other people prefer 11-28 or 26 to get closer ratios. But we all ride up the hills at 100% difficulty when we're out on the road. So I think forcing the Zwift difficulty to 100% for racing makes sense, and from there people can choose the ratios of their cassettes and chainrings for their riding style just like they do out on the road. Artificially allowing riders to spin up climbs on close-ratio cassettes or mondo chainrings is unrealistic.
@@8342345 no we don't all ride at same difficulty, because rider weight!
But the one other issue is not all trainers can simulate the same gradient. A Tacx flux can simulate 10% a Neo 25%. So if 2 riders both set to difficulty 100% and rode Bologna the flux is going to max out at 10% and the Neo at 18% so the experience will still not be the same. Some cheaper trainers are even lower in what they can simulate, so the only way to make it the same for everyone is to race at 0%??
I see the trainer difficulty as a "how much is this like the real world" setting. The term 'difficulty' is the wrong term for this setting as it causes the confusion that Chris is stuck on.
If I don't care about the real world, I'll do an ERG workout, but having the %difficulty at 0% does nothing to help me IRL. I'm making the effort to make the zwift race as close to the real world as I can by setting it at 100% to adapt my body to changing gradients (knowing of course that it isn't exact). Others can decide to set it at zero, but when it comes to racing/riding in the real world, I feel I gain the advantage of knowing when to change gears, prep for a hill, and maintain my cadence, rather than just push watts in a set position.
I completely agree!!! In terms of, first of all being usefull IRL, second of all in terms of experiences with actual cycling and strategy. Thats the whole point of cycling, you are not a generator trying to produce power, you are an "athlete" trying to cycle. And thats also where you gain the advantages of your equipement. Having better groupset with either finer adjustments or faster gear changing makes a huge difference IRL and even more so in Hills.
Totally agree that in a race everyone should have to feel the terrain in exactly the same way and should have to use their gears in the same way.
Why? All it's doing is making you shift. The only time it makes a difference is if you actually run out of low gears. In that case it simply means that your bike isn't geared properly for the terrain. I don't really want to have to be shifting all the time. I set the difficulty at 40% most of the time and 10% if I'm racing so that I don't have to be fiddling around looking for gears. The power output is the same.
@@sevenrats No. That is not ALL it's doing! It's exactly how Chris says. The power is the same, but it's how you deliver that power that is different. You'll keep your legs under you much longer at 80 rpm than at 50 with the same power output.
@@Enigma71559 Where did I ever say anything about RPM? Just because the trainer resistance is different for a set wattage, why would you be turning a different RPM? Unless you're on single speed, you control your cadence with your gears. Again, YOU control YOUR cadence with your GEARS. It doesn't matter if you weight 50lbs or 500lbs. It doesn't matter if the gradient is 1% or 100%. You can shift your gearing to what any cadence you want at your wattage UNTIL you run out of gears. This is where the difficulty settings comes into play. It increases your low gear range. So my bike can climb the Alpe du Zwift with ME on it and I can maintain my desired cadence of 75 RPM and not run out of gears. If the slider is at 100% I would not be able to do that with my bikes current gear set up and my old legs.
@@Enigma71559 Stop arguing with me and try it. Set the slider at 30% and ride up the EPIC KOM. Then set it at 100% and do it again. Select your gearing for whatever cadence is comfortable. The only way it should be different is if you run out of gears on 100%, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SLIDER IS FOR!!!!
@@sevenrats Chris' point, and my point is just that riding at 300 watts at 90 rpms FEELS different in your legs than riding 300 watts at 50 rpm. That 50 rpm grind is much more difficult to maintain than the 90 rpm spin. And it's why most set their slider much lower to race. It IS an advantage over someone with the slider at 100%. It's NOT cheating, because anyone can lower their slider. And you're right. The slider is there to basically give you lower gears. It's easier than going out and buying a different cassette just to ride Zwift.
Trainer difficulty setting certainly makes a difference in Zwift. Yes a given watt registered by Zwift is treated the same regardless of the trainer setting but how you produce that watt has a different impact on your body. Case in point if I set my trainer difficulty to 0, then I don't have to worry about gear adjustments to maintain my ideal power to cadence ratio. I can just spin away at a set cadence/gear producing watts. With the trainer difficulty set to 100 I am going to have to be playing with my gear selection to try and narrow in on my ideal cadence/gear ratio. Depending on the grade resistance I may not be able to hit that ideal ratio as closely as when the trainer was set to 0. Also every time there is a grade change, your body is being hit with a different stress load until you can find that ratio. Those stress loads add up over time. To add to the complexity, every trainer will feel different at a given set difficulty setting so just saying, everyone should set their trainer to 100 doesn't make things a level playing field across all riders. My advice, just ride at a setting which you find most enjoyable...
Spot on, one of the best explanations of it I have seen to date.
Exactly. My example, my trainer difficulty is set at 100 as I’m training for a cycling trip in the summer (Pyrenees/Alps). When I climb epic KOM, I can put it at small ring/23 and spin up at 85 rpm as that is where I’m comfortable. When I turn up toward the radio tower and you hit 15%, if I tried to spin my 36/28 cog at 85 rpm I’d be pushing 450-500 Watts which isn’t impossible but is very much unsustainable. If I leave it zero, i stay comfortable and spin up.
Difficulty 0 gives you a myriad of cadence/gearing options, which is therefore easier. I’ll say this, I end up climbing faster at 100% because I’m forced into it.
@@drm437 I find the same, and just adjust my difficulty level to match my energy levels. Like you say, same as having a wider choice of gears, not cheating, just adapting to what you have in your legs.
I love 100% difficulty, but sometimes, lower is better.
I would never actually try some of the inclines in the real world on a 28.
incorrect zwift doesn't use watts.... it uses watts per kg.... so 4w/kg is the same for me at 240 watts as it is for someone @320w that is 80 kilos
Yes, but At my weight, at a certain slope, it requires a certain unsustainable wattage to spin at 85rpm at the gearing I have. Removing an arm to drop weight right before a steep climb is unrealistic (I.e. my weight is a constant- relatively and I’m not comparing to anyone so w/kg doesn’t matter)
I watched this video and decided to do my own experiment. My last 3 times up epic kom were with 3 seconds of each other. 30:12, 30:15, and 30:08. I wear a Whoop band and do my best rides when my recovery is really high and it says I'm ready for "peak" performance. Today indicated a great recovery and rested body. I rode today feeling good and set my trainer to 0% . I've had it at 100% for the life of it. Race st 100% noodle at 100%. I shaved a full minute of that climb29:23! It's really difficult for me to keep my watts up on any downhill section but with the trainer set at minimum it really easy to find a rythm and put your head down. I also have thr kicker climb for added realism. I can literally close my eyes and ride with a perfectly level heartrate no spikes, no bumps in the road. This is completely unfair for racing. I agree with Chris 100%. Races should have a mandatory setting that we all follow. Climbers will get beat by time trialists and so on. Why would anyone pick a hilly climb and set the trainer to minimum? Not fair at all in zwift racing. It's like setting a metronome and riding to it. Not the point of riding at all. Great for guys and gals who ride flat roads all day and want to keep training for that. Hills are supposed to be more difficult. Pfft...
I just don’t get why anyone would ride a route on zwift that has elevation in it at 0%, just ride a flat course surely. If a person does it because they don’t enjoy hills then that’s an advantage in itself regardless of if it’s more difficult or not in terms of effort
Honestly I get Chris's point but he's making his argument on how realistic something is, we are talking here about a game with power ups and driving above lava lakes..
…but there are also leaderboards and races, so it’s not really fair to compare times if they are set at different difficulties.
You are right, in that this is a game and everyone should use it however they want, but for everything that is competitive, there should be some ground rules, like trainer difficulty being the same for all.
Trainer Difficulty is simple. I run a 12-25 cassette. With a 25 tooth I will run out of gears to be able to climb at a sensible cadence on climbs like Radio Tower. Lowering the setting to 25-30% is like I changed cassettes to a 12-30 tooth. I still have to produce X watts to go at a certain speed, but now I can pedal at 80 rpm versus leg pressing a 25 tooth at 40-50 rpm up a steep climb.
What happens when you go outside
@@davidshelly5116 Nothing happens. You do the same thing. You shift to the cadence you want to turn. If you're doing a climb like the radio tower for real, you might need to change your cassette for real. You still are going to make the same power, at the same RPM and the same speed.
sevenrats Nah, outside is much faster
Chris is definitely right here, while the energy/effort expended is the same, the way the muscles are used is different. The comments about gears actually support his argument: if there was 'no difference' then why do we use different gears to spin up climbs in the first place? Essentially what the trainer difficulty is doing is giving you an unlimited gear range, which is surely an advantage?
The issue I have is the "flattening" of climbs essential removing the gradient...
I agree with Chris. At least I think so, it's just tough to explain- Although there's a whole spectrum of gears available in the real world you would rarely someone humming along up a 10+ degree gradient seated in a 80+ cadence- most riders are pretty much forced into a low, grinding cadence and he just wants zwift to force riders at home into the same situation for the sake of realism.
Patrick Carney a lot of riders have some different bikes for the real world with different gears, eg. time trial with 55/42 and a 11-23 cassette and a climbing bike with a 50/34 and a 11 32 cassette. But those people may don`t change the bike on the trainer or have an old one on the trainer and therefore the difficulty may level it out again. And zero resistent is not necessary but...
@@chrispritch If you don't want to flatten the climbs then everyone should ride a 53x11 fixie.
@@chrispritch some people are better climbers than time trialists, and others are vice versa. Zwift's difficulty adjustment feature effectively levels the plain field and enables different kinds of riders compete in the same event only based on their ability to produce watts regardless of the way they do it.
For instance, my power curve is distinctly showing my preference for sprint. I can easily do an hour of 500W 30sec intervals, but struggling with a 30 minutes of riding steady at my sub-FTP level. So, while racing on a flat terrain I end up doing a series of sprints with recoveries and finishing with the pack of riders who spin at a steady pace. So, for me 0% is clearly a bad option, as it makes shorter climbs feel almost too easy and then forces me to work my ass of on descents instead of recovering from sprinting efforts.
Change gear Chris! What?... What did you say?... Run out of gears you say? Well put some granny gears on your bike for climbing or if you are on zwift just tweak the trainer difficulty!
The main disadvantage is not the resistance or cadence uphill, it's the change of incline which requires more gear changes for those on 100%. By the time you find the right gear you sometimes have to put an effort in to get back on the group.
I just think of the difficulty setting as a way of "virtually" modifying your cassette.
George A. Goebel Jr. ugh, exactly. Gear selector. This is a tired conversation.
I agree. Use 100% all day. Except when climbing mont ventoux and alpe du Zwift. In normal live a use a 11-25 cassete. When I go for a big climb I change to 11-32. In zwift I just change to 75% trainer difficulty. Gives the same effect
Well it doesn't give the same result as a cassette change but it deals with the problem of too high gearing - my bottom gear on my trainer bike is 39/25 so no choice for me without changing components
Close enough for most of us... the distinction is screechy/niggling, but it goes like this:
Power = Force x Velocity
If you take Force and break it down into aero and climbing components (just for simplicity), then:
Power = (aeroForce + climbForce) x Velocity
A cassette swap acts on aeroForce + climbForce.
Trainer difficulty only affects grade, therefore, it only acts on climbForce.
Because cassette swap and trainer difficulty usually move in the same direction (their effects are coextensive), trainer difficulty adjustment looks like a cassette swap to normal people.
When they move in the same direction, it is like a cassette swap (and that's how many people use the setting).
But because they act on different variables, it's not a perfect match, and so it's not a cassette swap. There can also be some fun mathematical oddities, like when you lower the climbForce requirement even though you can comfortably output the power. (It can lead to higher velocity and thereby higher aeroForce.)
All of that said, I agree with you all. I'm comfortable explaining it as a virtual cassette swap. It's how most of us use it. The distinction doesn't matter.
Why don't you change your gears Chris, for the love of god?
michwoz you’re right as it should be 80 rpm at zero percent. 100 rpm at 100%
He had it backwards😜
Trackie
While you are correct that a watt is a watt, there is a difference in how it is produced that places more/different stress on the body. This leads to the effort being percieved as more difficult at a higher trainer difficulty:
1. Having to shift gears - this leads to irregularity in power and causes spikes above and below target power, which causes more fatique. Just like workouts where you do Over/Under FTP efforts are harder than keeping power steady at FTP even though the average power is the same.
2. Inertia - Keeping up the same watts, but in a lower gear (which is required for climbing at 100%) means that the trainer's flywheel has a lower rotation speed, thus having less inertia. As a result the way you have to exert force on the pedal changes. The lower inertia of the flywheel means you have to exert force on the pedals over a larger part of the pedal rotation. This may feel unnatural, causing more fatique. In my opinion this is something that should be used in training ERG mode too to get optimal training benefits. Alternating between keeping a certain wattage at a high gear vs a low gear. The lower inertia will better simulate climbing in the real world whilst higher gears will better simulate a TT on the flat.
No dumbass, you put out more power, that is how you make your training "more difficult". Jesus help me. Start pedaling with your hands and be the optimal "victim of inertia".
Try going up a 15% hill in your TT position at threshold.
SaltKing98 yea that other guy is bloody useless and has no idea what he is going on about.
"just change gears"
The difference has to do with fly wheel rpm. Muscle recruitment is slightly different at high speed/flywheel rpm( big gear) than it is at a low speed/flywheel rpm(small gear). Both are difficult in their own way and require specific training to develop. This is one reason why pros motor pace. Try doing two intervals in erg mode at the same power and cadence but do the first one in the biggest gear and the second in the smallest gear = Two different workouts. Those that do flat TT style riding/training will have an easier time with no resistance while climber style riders will have an easier time with 100% resistance. Someone at 0% resistence is riding a different course than someone at 100%.
Spot on, riding a real hill puts different pressure on the full pedal rotation, the power required for a full revolution of the crank is the same but distributed differently. On the flat you can get away with mashing more on the downstroke.
I don't think very many people ride outside with a 32/32 gear, that's basically what a low trainer difficulty does. If you run out of gears then you have to grind and that is 'harder' because it's not as effecient.
Chris you are 90% right everyone should have the resistance set at 100%. Having climbed the Alpe in Zwift more than 100 times , I have the Trainer Difficulty set to 100%.
I like to feel the gradient with the Kickr Climb as I would outside but I use the gears on the bike also as I would outside. I love to Climb the Alpe on Zwift out the saddle also I usually ride on the big ring at the front and use 2 or 3 gears on the back , my cadence is really low but it feels to me as I'm riding outside in the real world. Keep the videos coming Chris really appreciate your comments and topics on Zwift.😂🐐🚲💨
Brian Rhoden that just means you are a beast! ✋🏼✋🏼💪🏼💪🏼😃😃 honestly I have discovered that doing lower cadence and medium watts based on FTP up the climbs increases my endurance , as my power keeps a constant rather than trying to climb as fast as I can, but then again depends on the purpose of your climb: Jersey? Endurance? Beat yourself up for fun? Race? Etc 🙁🙄😝😝😄😄😡😡💪🏼😝💪🏼
If 100% is the same as 0% then why does everyone buy bikes with 11 speed and now 12 speed cassettes to keep the gaps small? It's easier to sit in one gear at your ideal cadence.
The biggest difference is when cresting a hill, those on 0% just shoot off as those on 100% are producing half the watts before shifting into the big ring.
The one problem is, not everyone has a smart trainer, so there needs to be a 0% option
You guys need to look at it from a total energy perspective and not a power perspective. Power is with respect to time. Energy is the power multiplied by the amount of time. So, will a person putting out 300 W on a hill go the same distance as someone putting out 300 on a flat? No.
Remember: a calorie is a calorie (joule is a joule), a watt is a watt...but the total amount of energy needed to travel the same distance on a hill vs a flat is different. This is due to potential energy (E_p = mgh) gained while going up a hill.
(source: I am an engineer)
P.S. Khan Academy has some great entry-level physics courses :D
You have a lot of terrible analogies in this statement. You glaze right past the obvious conclusion withput even bringing it up, as if missing the entire take away.
The reason MAX is harder on the meat motor than NONE is because of the flywheel effect. Pulling this into the context of your energy/power reference, and ignoring the irrelevant incline = slow statement. You can deliver say '300' W seconds of energy by delivering 600W every 500ms quite easily without any Trainer difficulty (stomp, stomp, stomp)
At MAX difficulty the muscles you need to use are different as your attempt to deliver a 600W pulse typically falls short due to less of a flywheel effect resulting in the need to carry the pedal around.
e.g. 300W for 1 decond, or 450W for 0.75 second, etc...
MAX basically has a greater potential to take you out of your optimal power delivery muscles. EVEN AT THE SAME CADENCE.
Examples are rounded to binary efforts for simplicity.
Reality is more analog, and the rendering of that pedal stroke effort would be vastly different at the same cadence and average energy.
For official races, there definitely needs to be a standard and I think for your KOM it should be at 100% as well. I prefer to climb at 100% difficulty. I have had certain workouts that I keep the same cadence but don't feel like I accomplished the KOM like free riding at 100% difficulty
The only limiting factor is the size of the cassette you are prepared to fit. I could spin my way up any Alp or Pyrenean climb as long as I fitted a large enough rear cassette. If Zwift didn't have this have this feature, it would exclude people with smaller cassettes from fully enjoying all the courses in the game, which is I assume, why they did it.
Decreasing trainer difficulty simply mimics fitting larger cassette, something we all do these days, compared to the cyclists of the 60's,70's etc.
I agree 100% with you !! Just ride at 100% for racing. The fatigue is different ... for the grinding. In the real world you don't get to go 50% in racing....it comes down to fatigue level at the end regardless of gears
There should be a standard, but it should be variable to some degree, maybe making it so that the lowest you can go is 70 or 80 percent. The zwift hub direct drive trainer comes with a 28 tooth cassette, however, some riders like me prefer using a 34 tooth cassette. I keep my trainer difficulty at 80 percent, which basically simulates me riding with a 34 tooth cog in my lowest gear. All in all, it should be used as a tool for people like me and not abused for people to have easier races.
Looking to do an easy IRL this weekend , setting will be at 0% to make the climbs easier on my muscles
dylan jones exactly ! 100% should be on races to make it fair. The option to alter difficulty is great so you can amend it around your training. But 0% is not the same loading on your muscles as 100%
Good point.
I’ll prepare for my Everesting at 0% IRL.
Should be interesting (and fair for everyone that actually did the real thing)...
On my Neo 2T, I do find that 300W in a deep gear w/MAX trainer difficulty, uses different leg muscles than 300W in a higher gear (at the same cadence)
I would describe it as a flywheel effect.
Low gear = low flywheel effect and a drag across the entire cadence rotation
High gear = huge flywheel effect, and very little drag across the cadence rotation.
More of the effort comes from stomping as opposed to carying the pedal around.
Analogy: (No trainer difficulty) glue a scale to a low ceiling. See how big of a nunber you can get pushing up against that scale. (lbs are lbs)
Analogy: (MAX difficulty) replace scale with a weight equal to your best effort. Now you have to deal with swinging that weight into the optimal position to execute your effort, can you even get it into position? (lbs are lbs)
In Summary, I do feel no trainer difficulty gives you an advantage. No messing with gears, no akward power delivery.
That said, I still use MAX. Its more enjoyable, realistic and better conditioning.
I agree Chris, I'm a beginner with max settings and old bike (with 11/25 gear) and almost got destroyed by my first climbs because I ran out of gears and started losing cadence. That would also happen in real life and that's why I keep it like this. I might upgrade the cassette though to for climbs in both real and virtual biking.
I think another difference is the decent, that's where the 100 % setting shines 😆
Chris makes a valid point if we all agree that we want to simulate real world conditions and environment. If you don't care than be at zero all you want. But for those who use zwift as a supplement to their outdoor training/progression, at least put it at 50% if not 100%
Mr. H it’s not a valid point. If I added another gear for you to use on your outside bike... would you be not feeling that gradient when you use my newly added gear?
I totally get what your saying (maybe). Ive done 1 race on 50 % resistance. "Magically" I managed to set a new FTP ive never been close to copy with 100 % resistance. And it wasnt even close. Ive never managed to get closer then 21 watts which is a pretty substansial gain just for changing the resistance. I get what people are saying that watts are watts, but .....
300W is 300W. You don't have to grind harder at 100%, shift down. Less than 100% is like having slightly automatic gearing. If you want everyone to use 100% to make things "even", you also need to force them to have the same gear ratios available. If you shift to keep the same cadence at 300W, you are doing the same thing that 0% does.
It's not about it being absoulety even across the board... It is however about it being even in how the road beneath you feels... If it says 10% on the gradient everyone who is on that gradient should feel the same resistance.... Like a group of riders all climbing the same hill in real life
But if I'm comfortable with 300W @ 90RPM, I can set 0% and hold it, or I can set 100% and shift at gradient changes to match it. Yes, I will feel the gradient change until I perform the shift, and this only works up to certain gradients depending on my available gearing. But stay off the steeper hills, and you can achieve this with an average cassette.
I get your point that it is not the same experience, but if you are competent at shifting, I don't think you're at any disadvantage.
I keep mine at the default 50%, because I'm too cheap to buy a different cassette for ADZ, and I don't think the last two rings I don't use would cover the jump to 100%. @@chrispritch
You are right Chris, like every calories are not the same, every watts are not the same lol
The other guy is being to simple with a "watt is a watt", it's all about the impact on the body.
Calorie is a unit of energy. It's classically defined as the amount of energy needed to raise 1 mL of water by 1 deg C. A calorie can be converted to Joules (another unit of energy) by multiplying by a constant.
A Watt however, is a unit of power. Power is defined as the amount of energy per second, actually the number of Joules per second.
Mathematically, and physically, a calorie is indeed equal to a calorie of the same magnitude (it's a scalar anyways), and a watt is equal to a watt.
The issue is that the amount of energy needed to travel the same distance up a hill relatively to a flat is more. This is because the amount of potential energy increases with respect to your height (E_p = mgh).
(source: I am an engineer)
Omg... IQ below 80. And for your knowledge: a calorie is a calorie. #SJW
Totally agree in a race it should be 100%,,, i find it much easier doing 300 watts on the flat,,its not about what gearing its because of the resistance on the climb is forcing you to keep pressure all the way through the pedal stroke ,,,,the only people that will say it don't matter is the ones not riding at 100%,,
Even the smoothest gear changes lose power on an undulating course. You gain an unfair advantage in a race by cutting out the gear changes.
To make it the same for everyone you would have to enter you gear ratio on your real bike and then have zwift modify trainer difficulty to effectively give everyone the same range of gears in game. The problem with setting everyone up with 100% is that to do a race up Alpe d zwift is those people in the real world who have a bike geared for large mountain would have an advantage. By letting people adjust there own difficulty we get rid of that real world advantage and instead make allow people to have a virtual gear set they like.
Have definitely been through the range of thoughts Chris does here while trying to settle this in my own mind!
😂😂😂
Happy New Year Everyone!! Be happy and healthy! :)
When I ride in a real world I can prepare myself for a climb, I can speed up, and when the incline starts, I change gears and simply ride on. Same thing when zwifting at 50% set. And it feels pretty REAL. Yes, I lose speed, but I keep on going quite easily. If you set it to 100% it feels like when the incline starts - you hit the wall, and you have to put too much effort to just keep going. Never felt like this on a real road. 50% is set by default, and I think it's done for a reason. If you want more, wanna suffer - this option is available! :) So it's all up to you :) But I do agree that when racing - everyone should be on the same settings!
I agree completely. It’s like any other video game - everyone should choose their own difficulty, but when it comes to racing, it should be the same for everyone, preferably 100%.
That was painful to watch! So yes a watt is indeed a watt, however I’m confused as to how the other guy doesn’t seem to get Chris’ point 🤦🏼♂️ Fair enough Zwift is not the real world so different rules apply, however 350 watts up ‘The Burway’ (Steep climb in Church Stretton, UK) would be extremely difficult to do in the tt position. If however it was possible and you could turn the real world difficulty down to zero it wouldn’t be fair compared to climbing it in reality as you would be going up in a more efficient position for the body. Where as real life climbing out of the saddle (even producing the same watts) would be far more taxing on a rider especially at those gradients! Let’s keep hills as hills guys! 👍🏻
Also, notice when Chris rode at 100%, he had to let off at the end to make the times match. Depending on the length of the ride, feeling the extra resistance makes hitting higher watts easier (is that the right word? maybe more 'likely'), and therefore faster up the hill, and therefore an advantage.
Pure form of stupidity boss level how does he even know how to put his eye glasses on the correct way
The difficulty setting is effectively changing your gearing ratio. Pros have different setups for climbing that allow them to spin up a 7% gradient. Lower the slider to give yourself the same effect. If 100% doesn't allow you to spin up the gradient your on, lower the difficulty until you get your desired cadence.
Exactly. Why purchase 10 cassettes when you have a slider that changes your gear ratio built in to the price of the trainer/smart bike.
Chris, maybe this will help you understand the difference between 0% and 100% on your trainer. It is not an unfair advantage because if you move the resistance level down to zero it gets easier on the climb but your speed goes down as well. It would be the equivalent of someone changing the cog on their bike for a climb from a 11-28 and a 53 big ring to a 11-34 and a 50 big ring that day. Keep up the good work. Love the videos.
Or perhaps fit the correct gearing on your bike / smart trainer and ride @ 100% trainer diff
Wattage is what moves the avatar so even if the slider is set low, unless you generate wattage, the avatar isn’t going any faster. A lower difficulty only means you have to spin that much faster. It’s basically to help the gearing of your bike. If your bike is set up with tall gears, slide the difficulty down so you can make those climbs. If you have a compact crankset and large cassette, set the difficulty higher so you don’t spin out on the downhills.
Yeah but when they have zero difficulty set then when we are recovering on the decent they have to keep peddling. I think the best argument is why did we spend $1000 on a smart trainer to turn it into a dumb trainer.
🤣
Chris is 100% correct. What he’s not making clear enough in his argument is that on a steep enough gradient in real life, you will eventually run out of easy gears that would allow for you to have the option of efficiently pedaling at 85-90 rpm. On a big enough hill everyone is eventually grinding. If your trainer difficulty is set to zero, you’ll never notice a difference going up the hill, and yes, while the wattage required to get from point a to point b IS the same, the way in which you produce those watts would be at a very easy breezy 85-90 rpm. With difficulty set to 100 on a steep enough climb you will eventually run out of gears (much like you would in real life) forcing you to grind up at a lower cadence. The lower the cadence, the more torque required to produce the same amount of wattage. It’s more physically demanding to torque (grind) through at a lower cadence. Trainer difficulty at 100 will require you to grind in certain scenarios, because you will eventually run out of gears. Now, if you’re on a mountain bike, that’s a whole other can of worms.
Chris is always 100% correct... 😂
Difficulty mean using the gears more. End of!
300w is 300w at 0 or 100%
1 you can spin the other you can grind as proven in the video.
Here is where Chris should be truly triggered. The difficulty also affects downhill. 🤪🤪
And what if someone has a turbo that can only resist 400w/500w and 5% power accuracy vs the kickrs 2000w 1% accuracy???
Alan Hughes 10 minutes at 300watts with 80 rpm is a whole other animal than 10 minutes at 300watts with 40 rpm. Higher cadences translates in aerobic efforts, lower me cadences translates in a more muscular effort...
I totally agree with you. First day I got on Zwift I set it to 100% and haven't changed it. Don't know why I would.
Chris you right, don't let them get you down. Chainging gear make the effort harder, and sure if you are in a road bike 36 in front 28 in back you you strugle to get good cadence in plus 10% gradients.
Trainer Difficulty is great for those like me coming back from injury and totally unfit. I have it at 50% so I can get some effort but not blow myself to pieces on the 10-15% sections and be unable to finish the ride. As I get fitter, I can increase the difficulty. I tend to agree with Chris about having the Trainer Difficulty at 100% in a race IF WE WANT TO MIMIC OUTDOORS.
Some how I completely understand where you are coming from and agree. 😂
I agree, 100% trainer difficulty makes for the most realistic feel... on longer, steadier climbs. However, when you're going fast on rolling sections like titans grove or pretty much anywhere in NYC, then sometimes the massive swings in resistance from -5 to +8 happen quicker than most turbos can keep up with; case in point you can be barrelling along a slight decent and hit a 10% climb with your flywheel spinning at 70 kph, then hit a steep climb, if you only lift off slightly not only does it "fake" your power because as the resistance kicks into a fast flywheel (i've been given power readings of +700 watts when i'm glass cranking) and then you might reach the peak of a short climb and be actually going down again and the resistance it still high. So in these instances the slightly softer setting of 50% can just make your ride smoother with fewer gear changes. So for general riding, it's just a lot less clicking through the gears. Where it's an "advantage" in races is where you turn it right down so that you barely change gear, keeping that smooth rhythm and on descents with trainer difficulty set low you can actually ride faster, dropping people on descents! I think for racing Zwift should automatically set all trainers to the same difficulty e.g. 75%. Thoughts?
Chris, it's just like changing your cassette. It's a bit like in a bike race on the road not everyone has the same cassette. It's so people can make it easier or harder according to their ability without having to go out and buy a new cassette for the trainer.
This was so funny to watch. My stance is that people enjoying Zwift or on a group ride should just do what makes them feel good. If we're talking racing then yes, 100% resistance should really be forced - perhaps it is, I haven't raced on Zwift.
I ride at 100% all the time because I want to. But when my 10 year old wanted to climb Alpe du Zwift I set the resistance lower for him. He climbed to the top and the sense of achievement was just as real for him as it is for me - the assistance was probably less than he'd get from an ebike.
Hi I'm new to zwift and after watching your RUclips on this subjectthe I done the 14km Yorkshire ride in 31,47 sec at 100% to day 30,50 sec at 50% I'm not young or fit,Great videos.
Resistance on the trainer increases as flywheel rpm increases - in all cases.
As your cadence increases in a given gear, so does your trainer resistance. If you drop back a gear or two, your rpm decreases and your resistance decreases.
At 0% trainer difficulty, that's all that happens - increase speed = increase resistance/decrease speed = decrease resistance
At any other trainer difficulty, an -increase in speed + increase in gradient = increase resistance above standard speed increases.
All Chis wants, is for everybody to feel gradient increases as they ride, but why?
Chris believes that there is an advantage on hilly routes when trainer difficulty is set to low. (0%)
at 0% trainer difficulty, effectively, every route is a flat TT course. No matches get burnt and those at 0% feel "fresh" for the whole ride, effectively giving them a fatigue advantage when it comes to sprints at the end of a race.
Chris would like everybody to ride the same Trainer difficulty so that every body has the same relative fatigue at the finish line.
I agree with Chris, but how will you get everybody to ride the same %difficulty and what value will it be set at?
Remember that there a very few riders on Zwift who care about trainer difficulty.
Chris is speaking for parity between "pro's and heavy hitters" all in the name of fairness..
But then again, you can just change gears to ignore the gradient changes. so why does it really matter...? just to feel the resistance for a. moment?
I agree with Chris here, even with 50/34 - 11/34 gears, some climbs at 12 to 16% can get pretty hard as you're running out of gears.
Then if it's a race and you're competing with others who can go at more efficient cadence, or even waste less energy shifting gears it's not fair anymore.
So there's a point with enforcing 100% trainer difficulty for races.
For training however it's a great tool to be able to choose between simulation accuracy or something else.
I agree w/ Chris. If I'm going up the same 'virtual' hill at 100% difficulty vs someone at 0% difficulty, they will expend less energy to make it up the hill. In a race, that 0% person will have more gas in the tank than I do. Its like a 8,000 lb truck going up a hill vs. a 2000 lb truck. That truck will use more fuel to get up the hill at the same rate as that 2000 pound car. More resistance depletes energy faster. Even if he changed gears he's still using more energy because he can feel the resistance more.
I just ran some calculations based on P=(torque)x(crank arm length)x(Force)x[sin(theta)]x(rpm); solving for Force with Power constant at 300W with 170mm crank arms, and assuming all power is applied at 90° to the crank arm, I varied cadence by 10 rpm from 40 up to 90. As cadence went up the Force required to achieve 300W was lower, also of note the separation in required force decreased with each increase in cadence. Power is power, more force requires significantly more strength, and a point is reached where the force is either unacheivable for an individual or unsustainable relative to endurance. Cadence is king for the same power. This is where bike selection, gearing, components, come into play. It also lends itself to N+1 bikes and a bike for each unique type of riding. I'm leaning toward the 100% camp, and I would encourage which ever camp you choose, select your cassette according to what you want to do with cadence in mind. Some cadences can be unsustainable if resistance is insufficient, or it could just be beyond the capability of a single rider.
Chris is completely right here. When you run out of gears then you can’t choose cadence and it gets a lot tougher. Also, the gradient changes need you to always be on top of selection which means you can’t just stick to an absolute cadence and power.
I’m with Chris. People may have different gears in a real road race, but we’re talking about small changes in gear ratios & max number of teeth in the rear cogs. I get the whole “it’s flattening out the gear ratio” argument to allow someone to make a 25t cassette with a 39t crank feel like a 32t cassette with a 36t crank, but then that difficulty should be set in like the 80%-100% range for that smoothing… not 50% down to 0%.
Let's compromise and all have it set to 50%, it is the default afterall!!
Cant believe the other guys didnt want to hear what chris said. I mean wait is the point of hills if you can easily flatten them out with this setting.
I am ok with this setting in the open world or group rides.
But we just need fixed difficulty setting races for people with smarttrainers. Everybody should experience the hills in the same way for races to be fair.
On the Bologna TT there is a 20% grade, if someone can have a steady cadence then it will be a lot easier.
I'm late to this party. Your argument is solid. If you can adjust the "feel" not everyone is racing the same course. One person is riding a hilly course and the other person is riding a flat course, even though they both might be pushing exactly the same watts, they are 100% (see what I did there 😜) not on the same course. Another real world example is one person is riding up Alpe d'Huez, while the other is inside a velodrome. Both can ride the same wattage, but the physiological adaptation is VERY different on each rider on their respective course. I have my trainer set to 100% for the same reason. I don't need a dumbed down experience. If I don't want hills, I go to a velodrome. Hoping the others see the light 🔦😜
YES. FINALLY DOM! although there's a few folk who get it too.... others saying it's like changing your cassette bigger or smaller gears is the same... changing cassettes is the same as changing cassettes. changing trainer difficulty is only fair (in a race) if everyone elses trainers are set the same! you've nailed it mate. bloody nailed it better then i could have!
I’ve gone up the radio tower when tired in a group on 100% and ground to a halt in my easiest gears. I changed the trainer to 50% then proceeded to catch up and overtake the group in front before the top. In my mind that makes the 50% setting easier to ride than the 100%.
Trainer difficulty 100% matters especially up climbs. Having to adjust your gears on a all out effort definitely drains energy
I did Alpe dH on zwift at 100 and next day at zero. I can say stats were similar but the effort at zero was tolerable vs at 100 I felt like I ran out of gears. For me zwift races should lock to 100 and all other times you do what you want.... Or another option is no result on zwift power for races where resistance is less than 100. Today I try the third experiment which is back to 100 and see where I end up again. Love the video and channel gents.
Chris is missing the point. Bikes have different group sets and even pro cyclists will change their gears to suit the terrain, so when on a flat course they will use a higher gear ratio than when on a mountain stage. If Chris’s argument is taken literally then all cyclists would have to line up with exactly the same group set. In the real world we all select gears to suit our own riding style. The gradient is the same irrespective of the setting on Zwift you are just using a higher or lower gear ratio.
Nope.
I agree with Chris. If racing, everyone should be made to have the same setting.
IMO, It's easier to keep 300w turning over with low resistance on than it would to be to turn over 300w with resistance included due to the inertia. With little or no resistance, there is less force acting against your pedal stroke. With resistance high, you have to work harder to keep the pedals turning over, even at the same wattage and cadence.
To confirm this, a test would be to go up the same gradient on Zwift at the same speed and cadence and stop pedalling. I would expect the flywheel to stop quicker on the higher 100% setting and therefore this would illustrate that it's harder to keep pedalling, even at the same watts and cadence.
I've been wrong before though.
I agree that everyone should feel the terrain. To me this means that everyone will have the same advantage/disadvantage of variable terrain, as opposed to an 'average gradient/average power' situation.
"All watts are equal, but some watts are more equal than others."
- George Orwell
Clearly Chris is on the right side of the argument concerning competitive Zwifting. The inertia inherent in steep inclines puts you at a disadvantage to those flattening out the climbs. But just my own observation, I find the zwift gradients harder than identical gradients in the real world, at least as I percieve them. I haven't ridden Zwift much but I had to abandon Alpe du Zwift at turn 7 (so is that 2/3 complete) because my 65 year old knees were taking a battering at that low cadence. I've not had masses of mountain road experience, but I have done the Fred Whittons, Dragon Rides, and a 4000 mtr Etape du tour, up Mount Teide etc, so I know what the bike feels like pointing uphill, and I find, say a 14% gradient on Zwift (top end Saris), much harder than real world. So next time I am going to turn trainer difficulting down. Interested if that is a more general impression or just me.
A watt is a watt is a watt. Having high difficulty % just ends up resulting in a lot more gear changes. Makes you have to tactically consider gear changes much more
So if you are racing up the hill, will you get up as quickly if you are changing gear all the time and spinning slower?
THIS is true. Other than this, it makes no difference in performance unless you run out of low gears.
If it would make no difference, then why is it that IRL we always see the big riders in front of a flat (preferably windy) race and the featherweight in front in mountain races?
Surely, if it was ONLY a matter of gearing, a big rider like say Peter Sagan or Ian Stannard could just as easily win Alpe d'Huez as Marco Pantani, or Simon Yates, which is NOT the case!
What trainer difficulty setting in Zwift does, is give the possibilty of make every course a flat course, so then only output power (W) matters and this is NOT a simulation of IRL climbing.
That way everyone becomes a "virtual" climber and this in essence is cheating, when allowing this during an actual race. Also, the non-shifting is an advantage in general.
finally one of the few that understood what I meant!! and explained it way better than i could have!!
Stupid test, he should be allowed to change gears in 0/50/100 to show if there is an advantage big enough in zero compared to 100 with the gear range in a typical road bike
You don’t have to grind, just change gears... trainer difficulty simply changes your “gear ratio”. In order to maintain the same wattage at the same cadence, you change the gears. It’s just that you change gears more or less depending on your trainer difficulty setting.
Chris is spot on here. Power is power. But its how its used. Someone spinning out with no resistance will has less fatigue than someone grinding. Its cardiovascular vs muscle power
I’m with Chris on this one...it’s pointless having a smart trainer if there’s no resistance. You might as well race on rollers on velodrome simulator lol .. make max resistance compulsory setting to race on zwift 👍👍👍👍
The thing start to get interesting when you climb Alp du Zwift and you get out of gears... you have to push 3.0 w/kg in order to keep climbing... with less trainer difficulty you are able to pace yourself better...
Did Alpe du Zwift this WE at 100% after a 30K Paris-Roubais workout.
No legs afterward... But fell asleep easily !
ok got it at the end lol. the reason why the trainer gets harder in the same gear is so we develop spin , the higher cadence means less watts to maintain same speed as other putting out same power . you need to develop spin
Just change your gear.
If your out of gears buy different gears -or- change the setting which should just be re-branded 'virtual CVT gearing'
Chris is doing the Fred Whitton on a fixed gear bike so he "can really feel it". :)
I’m also in the 100% club. Within a mile of my front door there’s a hill with 17% gradient and I have to ride that with whatever is in my cassette. While I might benefit from turning my trainer down to 80% allowing me to increase my cadence, out in the real world I’m going to be grinding up that big hill so I might as well get used to it. To my way of thinking I guess it depends what you’re training for as to whether you go for 100% or not.
2 guys riding up a hill at 100% trainer difficulty, one has a 24 max cog on the rear and the other has a 32 max cog. The one with the 24 max cog is at a disadvantage, so to gain some virtual extra cogs you can turn the difficulty down a bit. I think development along the virtual road gets less as you turn the difficulty down.
If someone is heavier or has strengths in time trial they will do much better on 0% because it will "feel" where they are most comfortable. Those who are more comfortable in cutting time on hills and climbs will do better if everyone is 100%. For mental and rider skill comfort. For testing difference vs wattage they are the same.... however, in race there are other factors and fluctuation in wattage makes a big difference. Also, the out of saddle climb on a hill is valid because equal power is not equal energy exhaustion. A time trial/triathlete will be able to choose any time they like to put out the burst in energy at 0%... Climbers are saving to output the big energy on hills... Chris is correct in the argument, overall energy and power are different... power is a component in energy exertion not the whole.
Just start using RGT..MUCH better graphics and real life bike experience..None of this bs..
My main reason for preferring low trainer difficulty has more to do with what happens after the summit. I know I'm going to take forever to get to the top because of *being a fat old hack* ... but if trainer difficulty is low I can at least get decent power on the downhill bits.
Try this experiment -
Go up Box Hill, then turn around and ride down it with trainer difficulty at 100% - and try to generate 300 watts *for the entire round trip* (you'll have to average about 400 on the way up, I reckon).
Better yet, try to average 300W *on the downhill only* - you'll run out of gears (as I do - with a bog-standard Shimano 105 11-28 and 50-34 front... maybe a 53-39 wouldn't).
If you can actually get to 300W average on Box Hill downhill, try the same thing doing the Central Park KOM as a downhill.
Also: trainer resistance at 100% means you're switching between energy systems a lot - climbs aren't ever a constant gradient, so you're constantly switching from quite anaerobic on sharp kicks, to to [less an-]aerobic on the intermittent flats (and false-flats and declines) during the climb.
On the serious note: Chris is only half wrong. Even if you change your gear for easier on 100% difficulty it will feel different, as there is very little inertia when flywheel is moving slowly (high resistance). Most people will find it more difficult to pedal and more fatiguing. There are some who prefer low inertia riding though, and can produce more power in such conditions.
Interesting argument. One good point: if you are precise with grandient and resistance (100% simulation), at some point if you hit a 20% hill, you would MAY run out of gear at and drop under 60 rpm, but not by choice! Then watts have to be higher, otherwise it does not climb anymore, while rpm goes down! That's why some needs a 28 or 32 cog ... while your friend (0% simulation) is cruising maybe the same watts but spinning at 85 rpm not being obligated to push harder to climb. Is that right? I cannot imagine there was an argument! The holly triangle: Watts-cog-rpm! Gears "flattens" the hill... until you run out of it!!!!
Chris I agree with the resistance across the whole race board people ride with low resistance and you over here with 50% trying your hardest to hang on
totally agree, if you are on a race all should have same settings. 300W on flat is not the same 300W on hill. If someone prefers to race with the "flat feeling" fair enough, however, you are racing a hill, and it should be same and fair for everyone.
I just want to point out the trainer difficulty is not like a virtual cassette adjuster, as some comments are saying. It’s ultimately an elevation adjuster, and that alone. 10% climbs at 50% trainer difficulty becomes 5%, as do the descents as well; therefore influencing your descent speed. Cassettes have nothing to do with your descent, so comparing it to a cassette is inaccurate. 100% will have your legs screaming on the climbs, but praising you on the descents. Unless the race is 100% climb, the trainer difficulty balances itself out.
Watts are watts. How that is produced most efficiently and comfortably for you varies widely. The only real issues involved between the difficulty is the less need to change gears. More gear changes can slow you down vs someone who doesn't need to since there's a momentary lapse of power transmission and the legs need a split second to adjust the rpm change. Mechanically there might also be benefits in which cogs you are in terms of efficiency, so less trainer difficulty you can optimize by using the middle cog majority of the time. Some folks also have less gear ratios to work with. For example, I only have an 8 speed so I got two less optimized gears to choose from but lowering the trainer resistance can negate this factor.
I'm not sure why there's so much debate on this. I totally agree with Chris. It's harder on your legs to grind up a hill at 50 rpm than it is going up the same hill at 80 rpm. YES! The power output is the same, but your legs will give out sooner mashing at that lower cadence. At least I know mine do.
I agree that in a competitive setting, riders should be at the same resistance. But I expected that this was going to be a video about whether the same rider is achieving higher wattages at a higher or lower resistance. Personally I train at no resistance, because if I'm riding inside I'm just trying to get miles in, sometimes I'll use ERG mode but that's about it. I found that resistance does help me on races if my legs can handle it, but mostly because of my riding style--if the hill is short enough I'll keep a somewhat high gear for the hill and push through.
The slider should be called hill realism. It about involvement and gear changes over the power output.
Absolutely 100% all races should be with the SAME resistance for everybody. However, that poses a problem if you choose any higher trainer difficulties (resistance). Newer bikes with more gears and larger rear gears will 100% have an advantage. The classic bikes I ride can't support larger than a 28 tooth in the back. That means I cannot physically spin up many of the climbs on zwift on 75 or 100% difficulty. That gearset is perfectly fine for outdoor riding, but for zwift it's inadequate. No one in their right mind would take on a huge 2000 meter climb with 15% grades without the proper climbing gears. Therefore, I think the resistance should be set at 50% for all races so that there is a bit of "bike leveling" and people don't need the newest 12 speed freewheel with a massive granny gear on the back. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Same cadence and same power is not necessarily the same feeling or difficulty. On a flat you only need to apply power through a small band around the 3 o’clock pedal position (where the stroke is most efficient), momentum caries you through the rest of the stroke. On a hill you are slowed down much sooner and have to apply power much earlier. On the trainer it is the speed of the flywheel that simulates this effect. And setting a low difficulty allows you to quickly spin the flywheel on every incline making it feel like a flat everywhere.
You can choose to run an 11-23 cassette too if you like to grind. It's a cadence preference. As long as the speed and wattage is the same it's fair.
I'm going to add one counterargument that I thought of. When resistance changes dramatically it can catch you off guard and not keep up the power
So it makes a race unfair of one person has to work against that resistance and another rider doesn't... Right?
@@chrispritch only on rolling sections, if it's gradual changes, flat, or consistent hill, then I would say it's still fair.
It's like arguing with my friends. Its different skills. It's why some races are on a velodrome and others are on mountains. Tours are great to watch because there is so much going on. In a competition all competitors should be on the same playing field.
I ride at 50 percent . When i ride Central Park on Zwift my speed up that climb is consistent with when I actually ride at the park in real life . So the setting does not change the power our the steepness . If i ride my old crit bike with a straight block 12 - 21 cog set i can get up that climb if i set it to zero as though i had an 11 to 32. The wattage does not change only the cadence which can be achieved through gearing .
My experience is 1) Generally you can get optimal cadence with gear charges with trainer difficulty at 100% BUT you have to change gears a lot more on a hilly course which of course has an efficiency cost and 2) Chris is right, on really steep hills you can run out of gears and then all of a sudden you are in your lowest gear at lower cadence versus the guy next to you on 0% trainer difficulty. 3) 0% trainer difficulty has its own gear change issues in races, as everyone increases watts up the hills and at 0% difficulty you you'll need to change to up to avoid a spike in cadence. Somewhere I read most racers use 25% trainer difficulty... but only Zwift can tell us the real number.