Zwift vs TrainerRoad Virtual Power differences

2»

Comments

  • bianchimoon
    bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    amaferanga wrote:
    bianchimoon wrote:
    Very interesting to see difference between the 2 non smart trainers, have you ever used zwift with Zpower to quantify real life v virtual power difference?
    As a Zpower user would love to know how close zwift actually comes to the real thing?
    PS Sorry, realise i have hijacked thread if you do reply, could you do on 'Zwift on a non smart trainer thread'

    Sorry, I don't use Zwift nor any other power estimating software (no PC capable of running it).
    OK, thanks for posting the other charts
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • Websta24
    Websta24 Posts: 162
    Nobody is saying that virtual power it will replace a power meter, its actually a question of how one piece of software differs to another!
  • denkfaul
    denkfaul Posts: 39
    I've got a trainer road ride planned for this evening, I'll record it from my real power meter alongside zpower from zwift and virtual power from trainerroad and share the graph here.
  • bianchimoon
    bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    denkfaul wrote:
    I've got a trainer road ride planned for this evening, I'll record it from my real power meter alongside zpower from zwift and virtual power from trainerroad and share the graph here.
    cool, that would be interesting to see - thanks
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • davidof
    davidof Posts: 3,095
    bianchimoon wrote:
    Very interesting to see difference between the 2 non smart trainers, have you ever used zwift with Zpower to quantify real life v virtual power difference?

    did you look at the graph I posted comparing a power meter with zwift?

    That answer is: certain trainers are better than others for getting reproducible virtual power.
    BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
    Instagramme
  • bianchimoon
    bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    GfuSkf-KU0P84u8OnQet6g.png
    Ahh, trees-wood, yes trying to see a correlation between certain outputs and zwift v PM differences, If we take the P2M as obviously being 'accurate' around the 250w area the zwift trace is quiet inconsistent even against itself, all things being equal, even if zwift is wildly out from an accuracy point of view, would you expect it to be consistent?
    Could it be to temperature changes in the trainer fluid? or am I totally misreading it?
    PS I take on board if you want accuracy get a PM, just interested
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • timothyw
    timothyw Posts: 2,482
    bianchimoon wrote:
    Could it be to temperature changes in the trainer fluid? or am I totally misreading it?
    PS I take on board if you want accuracy get a PM, just interested
    Bingo. Fluid viscosity tends to increase with temperature, meaning the rotor can spin more easily, meaning the speed being reported to zwift is higher, meaning that zwift thinks that you are putting in more power than you are.
  • davidof
    davidof Posts: 3,095
    TimothyW wrote:
    bianchimoon wrote:
    Could it be to temperature changes in the trainer fluid? or am I totally misreading it?
    PS I take on board if you want accuracy get a PM, just interested
    Bingo. Fluid viscosity tends to increase with temperature, meaning the rotor can spin more easily, meaning the speed being reported to zwift is higher, meaning that zwift thinks that you are putting in more power than you are.

    I would say viscosity decreases with temperature (time) - I imagine that is a typo?
    BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
    Instagramme
  • bianchimoon
    bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    davidof wrote:
    TimothyW wrote:
    bianchimoon wrote:
    Could it be to temperature changes in the trainer fluid? or am I totally misreading it?
    PS I take on board if you want accuracy get a PM, just interested
    Bingo. Fluid viscosity tends to increase with temperature, meaning the rotor can spin more easily, meaning the speed being reported to zwift is higher, meaning that zwift thinks that you are putting in more power than you are.

    I would say viscosity decreases with temperature (time) - I imagine that is a typo?
    from an anecdotal point of view, my cyclops fluid2 does seem to get harder to pedal as it warms up?
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • bianchimoon
    bianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    Out of interest, tried a google search to see what kind of fluid is in a fluid trainer, and having no luck, anybody know the answer?
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • timothyw
    timothyw Posts: 2,482
    Yep, mistake there, getting my viscosity and fluidity the wrong way round.
  • davidof
    davidof Posts: 3,095
    bianchimoon wrote:
    from an anecdotal point of view, my cyclops fluid2 does seem to get harder to pedal as it warms up?

    maybe parts expanding causing "more" resistance?
    BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
    Instagramme
  • amaferanga
    amaferanga Posts: 6,789
    My Fluid2 offers little resistance for the first couple of minutes then within the space of just tens of seconds the resistance ramps up and plateaus. I'd say after about 5 minutes it's fairly consistent (unlike the Elite fluid thing).
    More problems but still living....
  • davidof
    davidof Posts: 3,095
    amaferanga wrote:

    Sorry, I don't use Zwift nor any other power estimating software (no PC capable of running it).

    What kind of PC do you have? Or is it just No Computer and that's it?
    BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
    Instagramme
  • amaferanga
    amaferanga Posts: 6,789
    davidof wrote:
    amaferanga wrote:

    Sorry, I don't use Zwift nor any other power estimating software (no PC capable of running it).

    What kind of PC do you have? Or is it just No Computer and that's it?

    I only have a chromebook (and a work laptop) so I'd have to buy a desktop just for Zwift.
    More problems but still living....
  • cgfw201
    cgfw201 Posts: 680
    So 600km into my Zwifting career I’m more baffled than ever before as to what my actual FTP may be.

    I know the solution is to buy a power meter, but that’s still a couple of months saving up away.

    My TrainerRoad FTP was 284 which I had gradually built up from 230 over a couple of years.
    Day one on Zwift in a workout I did 320W or so for 25 mins which gave me a new FTP of 304.
    Yesterday I did my first proper Zwift race (Kiss B) and managed to average 340W for an hour, with TP thinking my new FTP is 341!

    No idea what to believe. Have gone with the new one on Zwift for the sake of workouts being consistent. My LTHR also gone up from 164-171 after the race! Definitely gave everything I had on FTP tests and other workouts previously, or so I thought. But racing really gets those extra last bits of effort out.
  • AK_jnr
    AK_jnr Posts: 717
    Believe neither. They are both lying.

    I tried using TR virtual power on an Elite crono turbo before I got a PM and it was ridiculously over inflated not to mention completely inconsistent as the resistance would ramp up after half hour.

    TR FTP - 370
    RL with a power meter - 307.

    Complete waste of time trying to train with virtual power.
  • jgsi
    jgsi Posts: 5,062
    Virtual - training with it ... as long as you stick to not really believing you are capable of a place in a Pro Conti team... its a metric you can use.
    My main issue is with virtual // aka Z power is the timber laden sods who race with it, weighing over 100kg and going up a mountain at 4 w/kg + .. cheating ba stards -- thats the utter silliness of it.
    Thats why I and my training partners organise our own things on Zwift.

Categories