Winter software

mankybianchi

I'm just wondering if anyone else has had a similar dilemma.

I have been using Trainer road for several years and like their easy-to-use setup and the new additions of Trainnow and Adaptive training are good. I use rollers with a separate power meter and it works well but I certainly found over the past couple of years that I don't find that the small gains I've made through intervals translate very well back outside on my !ocal rolling roads.

So I've been considering changing to Zwift or maybe the revamped sufferfest but I'm guessing to get the most out of these I really need to invest in a smarttrainer? I know I can use my current setup, it will work, but obviously there isn't the feedback of gradients. I can "simulate" gradients sort of but which gear low cadence only goes so far. Unfortunately the elite smart rollers are a little out my budget.

Has anyone seen positive returns from simulated smart rides as opposed to just intervals?

pblakeney

I used to use a semi-smart Kurt Kinetic Rock n Roll which would slow your progress down on inclines so you had to change up gear and therefore effort. I had some improvements.
Moving to a Tacx Neo 2T was a massive improvement. There are cheaper alternatives. I think getting the best trainer you can afford is priority if you are going to be doing indoor riding.

singleton

It all depends what you're trying to do, and why you want to ride indoors. For me it is a way to get structured training sessions once a week, or on those days when it really is filthy outside, so that I can get fitter / faster for my real riding - which is outside all year round.

I think that to get the best out of Zwift you need a proper ERG capable smart trainer to simulate the inclines.

I've recently bought a Thinkrider A1 (£279) which is direct drive, quiet and gives you a power reading which is accurate to 3% - good enough for me to train but not good enough to race on Zwift. I use it with sufferfest for structured training sessions and am very happy with it - to adjust the resistance you just change gears.

molteni_man

Hi'
I used a Wattbike Pro (non smart trainer) and Zwift initially so didn't 'feel the hills' although I would need to change the resistance as inclines increased and therefore keep my speed up.
I have now moved to the latest Wattbike Atom (fully smart) and the whole experience has become far more immersive. I now 'feel' the hills increase and have to change gear when I go up them etc. This has had some good benefits. I did the Innsbruck full course which has plenty of climbing. The realism was great.......... if tough! and it gave me a great hour's workout, spending plenty of time out of the saddle.
My next step this Winter is to try a training plan on Zwift so that my riding becomes more structured and hopefully I see even more benefits. At present I get sucked into doing all my riding at about 80% of capacity rather than varying it!
There's a whole range of pros and cons re a set up such as the Wattbike or using your bike and fixing it to a turbo, but I think whichever route you go down you will find the immersive experience using a Smart trainer great.
Incidentally, for anyone reading this I have been really impressed by the latest Atom. Very solid, very easy to set up, quick to change gear and completely reliable. Not cheap, but worth it over the course of several years.

BW
Molteni

daniel_b

RGT is well worth a look, but I don't think you'll see any real world gains beyond what TR can give you to be honest.

RGT has a free membership, so worth a look at that first, and you can stick on the free membership for as long as you want in theory - I went for the £6.99 sub, which means I can ride any of the courses, make magic roads, schedule races etc etc.

They also recently unveiled their latest Real Road which is Leuven (As in part of the recent Worlds course)
https://cyclingnews.com/news/rgt-cycling-announces-new-city-of-leuven-route-for-world-championships/



As mentioned though I would have thought you will struggle with the lack of adjustment to the gradient, although I think RGT would slow your progress down to match the gradient etc, so it would kind of work, but how enjoyable it would be I'm not so sure.

I've never tried Zwift, but the gamification (power ups, invisibility etc) has never appealed to me in anyway, quite the opposite.
RGT on that front scores pretty well, no gamification to speak of, and so people tell me, more realistic drafting etc than Zwift.

mankybianchi

Thanks for all your input. I haven't looked at RGT yet but I certainly will.

What I'm searching for I guess is something to keep me motivated through the dark months ahead and I think I'm coming round to the need of a smart trainer. I really like rollers and the fact they keep your whole body working but a the turbo style trainers are clearly more within budget for me.

pblakeney

If you want to race then Zwift is probably the default.
If you wish to replicate solo rides give Fulgaz a trial. They do group rides as well but it is solo video with dots on an accompanying map.

daniel_b

Zwift is the default, but RGT also has plenty of races and race series/time trials.

OP, I'm sure a chap who races and organises events on RGT has rollers that offer resistance & measure power.

DeVlaeminck

I'm probably a minority of 1 but I think the smart element of trainers where they increase resistance is over rated.

Dorset_Boy

DeVlaeminck said:

I'm probably a minority of 1 but I think the smart element of trainers where they increase resistance is over rated.

You're in a very small minority.

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck said:

I'm probably a minority of 1 but I think the smart element of trainers where they increase resistance is over rated.

Probably depends on whether you are using it as a training tool or going for a virtual pedal when the weather is bad outside.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

I only got around to cancelling Zwift for the first time since around Nov '19 at the end of July, but the sudden change of the weather this week has got me using the turbo and the monthly 25Km free trial.

I was a beta RGT tester and while I like the less arcadey nature compared to Zwift, not taking hairpins at 80Kph and no powerups etc., I reported to them that there was something funky going on with the power data sent to Strava... The best 20min power efforts reported in at the top of the ride page "overview" section by Elevate (formerly Stravistix) were miles higher than reality on some courses despite the analysis section showing the actual figure, but this high figure was being sent to www.crickles.org and generated highly inflated FTP estimates.

Of of curiousity, I had a quick look at the Rouvy route list last night and found that the cat2 climb I still want to climb as my first real hill bigger than the cat3s I've done around Petersfield and the Mendips, namely Road To Hell out of Denbigh to Alwen Reservoir (~6.9 miles, ~1200 feet elevation gain) up the B4501 is an "augmented reality" video route.
https://my.rouvy.com/virtual-routes/detail/36075

singleton

DeVlaeminck said:

I'm probably a minority of 1 but I think the smart element of trainers where they increase resistance is over rated.

Having a trainer that is smart enough to give me an accurate power figure and connect to an app (in my case sufferfest) is a good thing for me.

Having a trainer that is smart enough to increase resistance is unnecessary for what I want / need and I can get great structured workouts without that.

kingstongraham

DeVlaeminck said:

I'm probably a minority of 1 but I think the smart element of trainers where they increase resistance is over rated.

I think the smart element where they increase resistance to mimic going up a hill while training is overrated. You just change gears and go slower with the same power. It makes more sense in a race, obviously.

ERG mode, however, is great. Increasing resistance for a training purpose is very helpful.

DeVlaeminck

pblakeney said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I'm probably a minority of 1 but I think the smart element of trainers where they increase resistance is over rated.

Probably depends on whether you are using it as a training tool or going for a virtual pedal when the weather is bad outside.

I use it as a training tool when the weather is bad - I tend either to race, do a structured session or a steady ride below a certain percentage of FTP.

I do have a smart trainer and do use the variable resistance - I generally have it set around 50% just because in races that seems the sweet spot between letting me respond to everyone else upping the power on a hill and not having to drop into the small chain ring - but when I've tried it with it off (this is with zwift) it seems perfectly useable.

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck said:

I use it as a training tool when the weather is bad - I tend either to race, do a structured session or a steady ride below a certain percentage of FTP.

Each to their own. See, I never, ever race. 😉
I can't even claim structured training, I just like cycling.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

I started the 14 day free trial of Rouvy last night and did Road To Hell, so far I like the idea of being able to virtually ride some new tarmac.

Wheelspinner

pblakeney said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I use it as a training tool when the weather is bad - I tend either to race, do a structured session or a steady ride below a certain percentage of FTP.

Each to their own. See, I never, ever race. 😉
I can't even claim structured training, I just like cycling.

^^
This, exactly.

elbowloh

Wheelspinner said:

pblakeney said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I use it as a training tool when the weather is bad - I tend either to race, do a structured session or a steady ride below a certain percentage of FTP.

Each to their own. See, I never, ever race. 😉
I can't even claim structured training, I just like cycling.

^^
This, exactly.

Same.

JimD666

If you're not bothered about racing there is another option: Use any ride planner to generate a GPX file, load onto anything that can control a "smart" turbo trainer (Most Garmins do unsure about Wahoo/Hammerhead etc) and allow that to do the donkey work controlling gradient etc. Stick on music of your choice and zone out.

+side: No additional cost involved if you've already got the bike computer. Can plot any route in the world.

-side: No fancy graphics. Can take a while doing the route planning. Can get occasional "blips" in the GPX data that sends you up a 30% incline when you're not expecting it....

mankybianchi

It's the smart trainer element that I don't currently have but think it's what I'm looking for to get the variety of efforts more akin to actual riding.

For me on rollers, trying to recreate climbs is a compromise since the wattage required and lower cadences means high gears and speed so not at all like for like. Obviously there is a training benefit from the effort but it's different.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

Thought I'd post a follow up to me using Rouvy to ride Road To Hell on my Direto (max simulated gradient 14%) compared to riding the real thing on Saturday.

Bare in mind the weight I set in Rouvy didn't account for kit, stuff in Jersey pockets or two water bottles (3+Kg on top of my 83-84Kg). No idea of weight of Rouvy bike compared to my Cube ~8.75Kg and I had a 3-4mph headwind up the real climb, plus I dithered at the crossroads junction where I didn't have way for almost 20secs due to lack of preparation of remembering said junction!

Rouvy (with bit before and after climb) https://www.strava.com/activities/6044411929/analysis

Real life https://www.strava.com/activities/6087111135/analysis/5005/7178

Rouvy was pretty good prep for the real deal, weather was great for early October and I got my goal of a sub 40min climb for my first real life cat2 (1050+ foot) climb.

bobmcstuff

mankybianchi said:

It's the smart trainer element that I don't currently have but think it's what I'm looking for to get the variety of efforts more akin to actual riding.

For me on rollers, trying to recreate climbs is a compromise since the wattage required and lower cadences means high gears and speed so not at all like for like. Obviously there is a training benefit from the effort but it's different.

That might translate well to TR with a smart trainer though as you'd be able to use a comfortable cadence/flywheel speed - I find that my TR work translates well to riding outside, there's usually efforts of a range of durations in the TR plans and that has always worked out well for me.

Personally I primarily use TR for training and Zwift for background (with the controllable trainer turned off in Zwift, so TR controls the trainer and Zwift just takes my wattage). Plus also a bit of Zwift racing with my club, and the odd longer Zwift endurance ride if the weather's really bad. I find that a good mix.

Zwift's workout/plan catalogue is nowhere near as good as TRs, plus I'd been using TR since 2016 so I feel like I know what I'm doing with it. But like you say you can't really free ride in TR etc and I quite like riding around the Zwift world etc.

mankybianchi

I'm just beginning to try out Zwift having just gotten myself a Zumo trainer. It's enjoyable enough to make me want to ride so that's good and its varied courses work fairly well with the trainer although not exactly true to life.

I tried Fulgaz too and had a few teething problems connection-wise. Once sorted I had a go at the Beach climb. In some ways it was too realistic - just as in real life, I was going so slow I was able to see every crack in the road surface and also because there were cars included on the video, I'd be hoping they would pull in at the passing places!

So i quite enjoy that although Zwift is animated, it's realistic enough.