Should Turbo miles for your years final total?

[CXRAndy]

I don't doubt that Zwift (and other indoor training thingummies) are an excellent form of exercise. Especially if you're a bit sensitive to the cold.

I'm just trying to think of all the factors that have to be simulated to make the effort comparable to a real bike. Even if drivetrain losses and rear wheel rolling resistance are identical that still leaves:

- aerodynamic drag dependent on your "tuck"
- front tyre rolling resistance
- climbs and descents
- inertia / kinetic energy
- drafting

I can see how a combination of hardware and software can simulate these. Flywheels and variable resistance, computer control, kinect sensors to assess tuck, a motor for downhill acceleration.

But from what I read in reviews, the simulation is limited both in range and granularity. OF course it only has to be good enough, and I can see that the correct software could be a brilliant training tool for professional cyclists.

Does it count towards annual mileage? Don't see why not if the modelling makes the energy expenditure comparable to a real bike, but it seems a weak substitute for the joy of being out in the real world.

I took up indoor cycling/training as a way to recovery from an accident. I took to it instantly. It initially offered an environment, where I could concentrate on my recovery. When I began to get stronger, I wanted more, so I improved the display from laptop to large monitor, also changing training platforms from BKool to Zwift. Riding indoor was still a static affair, until last year when the simple but easy to construct rocker boards started to appear. These allowed side to side motion, relieving static contact points allowing 1-2 hour rides into 3-4 hour sessions. Recently you can also get a device which allows the bikes forks to be elevated or lowered with the gradient changes within the Zwift software- even more comfortable added realism. More recently forward/rear motion has been added to rocker boards, complimenting the natural feel of outdoor riding. The setups now are so close that indoor training is booming in popularity. It's a fantastic environment to keep/ build fitness in safe, easy to go setup at anytime

 

[Venod]

I wonder if he will count these.

http://fal.cn/rGZy

 

[berty bassett]

Much harder when it is cold and wet outside.

i wouldn't have said harder when cold and wet - just not fun ! headwind i will admit is hard , but on a circular route you get tail wind somewhere - hopefully .
given the choice of going out in cold and wet , more than likely in the dark for me at this time of year , being blinded by car lights and not knowing if the next puddle is concealing a foot deep pot hole , getting soaked and froze and then having to clean bike , doing your bike no favours with the grit mud and salt
OR running to the shed , turning the music on , racing with 1000 + at full tilt ( i wouldn't have thought advisable through cold and wet on road) , even on the coldest of nights it is shirt off door open fan on and heart rate damn near at max so i know i am definitely working harder
i will agree it improves road skills on the road but its not harder just because its cold - and i didn't even mention ice !

 

[huwsparky]

Have you ridden a bike connected to a good smart trainer on Zwift or similar software?

Yes, I'm currently cycling about 6 hours a week on an elite direct drive trainer. Why you ask?

 

[huwsparky]

Hmmm. Most of my routes are circular, ending up where they started. That means that when I go out for a ride I actually don't go anywhere. How depressing. That's just invalidated all my accumulated distance.

Oh dear....

 

[CXRAndy]

Ah, that's where you're wrong. You may well do 1500miles outdoors but you don't indoors because you don't go anywhere.

Indoors, that's all that really matters is time and intensity. No one ever says they jumped on a spin bike and did 20 miles, being on a trainer on zwift or whatever is no different. They are both effectively static training bikes.

You may have a self justification thing going on but that doesn't change what's fact.

Ive nothing to justify. Pedals turns, chain rotates, to an accurate device which counts, miles, km or whatever your preferred measurement is. I actually prefer time/TSS score. Sometimes average power. Seen as most outdoor riding is measured in distance or time. Its just easier to talk to those who derive benefits and enjoyment from indoor training in those facts. We could talk in calories burnt, time at threshold.

 

[johnblack]

I use a spin bike for most of my indoor training, it only registers time, cadence and power and at this time of year I probably spend more time on that than outdoors, so I'm in the "it doesn't count" corner.

 

[JuhaL]

For me indoor cycling or should i say indoor training is real cycling enough and it's a gods bless to me because Finlands winter is too cold for outdoor rides to me. Some says there is no head wind, there is no tail wind either so calm weather is a good compromise. But do we know is there differnt kind of physics simulate for example in Zwift, something like density of air etc... At least something is calculate, riders weight matters, who knows maybe height as well, but do we know. Maybe we should ask from Team Zwift what element of physics is simulated.

 

[fossyant]

From Saturday to Wednesday I did about 90 miles. 45 off road, 45 on the turbo. That equated in time to about 4 hours off road, and two hours on the turbo. I use 'hours' on strava as an indication of the amount of time I'm training/keeping fit.

If folk are getting upset about 'indoor miles' then those of us doing 'off road' miles should get at least 'double' !

Hence 'time' is the best measurement. I have routes that are a killer 2 hours on the bike, are just 10 miles long, but climb 2500ft - but it's off road.

 

[Sharky]

Combine or keep separately, doesn't really matter, but when you look back over a season and reflect on the effectiveness of training routines to achieve PB's etc, it is probably better to keep the data separate. Along side the cycling, you might include records of gym work, swimming, walking or jogging and year on year you may want to tweak the balance of each activity. You might also want to include the number/frequency of rest days in your stats as well, especially in the days leading up to significant events.

 

[Milkfloat]

Power or TSS would be the closest to a global measurement of effort I think. Time is as meaningless as miles.

 

[bridgy]

Yes, I'm currently cycling about 6 hours a week on an elite direct drive trainer. Why you ask?

Because you seemed to be comparing this with spin bikes, and I've done spinning as well as Zwift/Bkool on a Smart trainer and I find them very different. The whole point of smart trainers/Zwift is to replicate reality as much as possible with regards how your power relates to speed on a virtual road, and to adjust resistance to match the terrain etc - as you know. Spin bikes don't do this, or try to do this, so yes recording "mileage" done in a spin class for example would be a bit pointless and I wouldn't do this personally. Different thing to what we're talking about.

Obviously not the case with you, but I get the impression some people arguing against counting turbo miles are imagining spin bikes or spinning away on a dumb turbo trainer staring at a wall, rather than the much more realistic (both in terms of feel and measurement of virtual distance travelled) smart trainer/Zwift set up that I think most if not all people arguing they should be counted, are talking about.

 

[huwsparky]

Ive nothing to justify. Pedals turns, chain rotates, to an accurate device which counts, miles, km or whatever your preferred measurement is. I actually prefer time/TSS score. Sometimes average power. Seen as most outdoor riding is measured in distance or time. Its just easier to talk to those who derive benefits and enjoyment from indoor training in those facts. We could talk in calories burnt, time at threshold.

Insult edited out - Mods

Well, we are in agreement then. That's all really there is to go off indoors is time and intensity or TSS.

Of course I see riding a bike as cycling, when have I said other wise. You're a bit confused old boy.

Oh, and thanks for the insult, real classy guy you must be

 

[fossyant]

Now now kids !!

 

[huwsparky]

Because you seemed to be comparing this with spin bikes, and I've done spinning as well as Zwift/Bkool on a Smart trainer and I find them very different. The whole point of smart trainers/Zwift is to replicate reality as much as possible with regards how your power relates to speed on a virtual road, and to adjust resistance to match the terrain etc - as you know. Spin bikes don't do this, or try to do this, so yes recording "mileage" done in a spin class for example would be a bit pointless and I wouldn't do this personally. Different thing to what we're talking about.

Obviously not the case with you, but I get the impression some people arguing against counting turbo miles are imagining spin bikes or spinning away on a dumb turbo trainer staring at a wall, rather than the much more realistic (both in terms of feel and measurement of virtual distance travelled) smart trainer/Zwift set up that I think most if not all people arguing they should be counted, are talking about.

I occasionally use a spin bike and a Wattbike weekly too. Riding on zwift doesnt make me think automatically I should be counting milage just because I can. I'm just saying why I don't count milage on a static bike and why. That's what we're talking about here right....?