"Winter" - Cruzbike Virtual Time Trial Challenge

[RojoRacing]

For the summer challenge I suggest we change from weekly to bi-weekly for those of us who have other weekly obligations we’d like to prioritize from time to time.

 

[ccf]

@LarryOz we just finished Week 7, right?

 

[ccf]

I suggest we change from weekly to bi-weekly

I second that.

 

[RojoRacing]

Also I think for the summer challenge I'll be opting for the hill climb option because if I'm going to commit to half a years worth of improving my time over a segment I'd like to see myself get closer to a sub 40 min of the alp de zwift climb and not two flat loops which has little meaning to me.

 

[benphyr]

My last TT ride also uploaded into the future

I figured it out. It must be due to the time change.

Or maybe your ride was Back to the future?

 

[anotherbrian]

Hear, hear!, for the Alpe du Zwift option. I’ve now ridden it 44 times, and if I have the time it’s my favorite route. If I keep Zwift active over the summer, that’s a route I’d be happy to repeat ... it’s by far the easiest way I’ve found to ride at threshold.

 

[benphyr]

@LarryOz et al. I'm not at all sure I understand all the ins and outs of the time trial. For this type of challenge does it matter what route you choose as long as it is similar length and you use the same one every time?

 

[LarryOz]

@LarryOz we just finished Week 7, right?

Yes we finished week #7 - I have already ridden my week #8 TT, so I had #8 in my brain. I update my results post with the correct week.

 

[Pollock]

Hear, hear!, for the Alpe du Zwift option. I’ve now ridden it 44 times, and if I have the time it’s my favorite route. If I keep Zwift active over the summer, that’s a route I’d be happy to repeat ... it’s by far the easiest way I’ve found to ride at threshold.

Bunch of crazy, fast people it makes sense if your Alpe climbing times are sub-1 hour. For slow pokes like me, it is around 2 hours

That said, if I join the summer TT, I would likely use the Epic KOM. I need to learn how to climb better, I have 20k meters until I unlock the Tron bike, as a climb, it is around 40-45 minutes last time I did it *not* near threshold.

 

[Pollock]

@LarryOz et al. I'm not at all sure I understand all the ins and outs of the time trial. For this type of challenge does it matter what route you choose as long as it is similar length and you use the same one every time?

The consistency of routes is key. The current goal is to get a route somewhere near 15 miles somthe length is similar. Any route works as long as you have a way to track that route. Basically, create a Strava segment you will ride each time and send Larry your Strava ride link and the segment to use.

If you ride in Zwift, use the same TT bike and wheel set each time. If you ride a segment in the real world, just use your bike

We will see if there is a change in rules for climbing vs flat TT going forward.

 

[anotherbrian]

Bunch of crazy, fast people it makes sense if your Alpe climbing times are sub-1 hour. For slow pokes like me, it is around 2 hours

That said, if I join the summer TT, I would likely use the Epic KOM. I need to learn how to climb better, I have 20k meters until I unlock the Tron bike, as a climb, it is around 40-45 minutes last time I did it *not* near threshold.

Good job on the Tron bike. Even using Jason's conservation of energy tips, it was a very very long slog for me.

At my weight (and riding the Emonda with the "Lightweight" wheels you can win at the top of AdZ) it takes 265W to do AdZ in 1hr. That's tempo'ish, so if that's all I'm riding I can do it without stressing. If I go all out (with poor pacing) I finish less than 6min quicker (54m15s) and I'm completely trashed. The super chillax ride I did with a friend after it opened took 1h45m, and that did feel like a really long time (and I remember I made a u-turn part way up when fumbling with the keyboard, so it didn't count towards a spin of the wheel/towards the masochist achievement ... booo).

 

[RojoRacing]

I say if someone wants to go for a hill climb route then the effort should last about 40-50 mins just like a flat 15 miles would. For example I couldn't use the zwift epic KOM climb because that's only a 20 min climb for me but the Alp climb is going to be around 45-47 mins for my first few tries.

 

[LarryOz]

@LarryOz et al. I'm not at all sure I understand all the ins and outs of the time trial. For this type of challenge does it matter what route you choose as long as it is similar length and you use the same one every time?

Yes Ben,
The actual "idea" here was to allow Zwift rides and segments since most of us could not ride outdoors in the winter. By far the best would be to establish an actual "outdoor" segment of about 15 miles to do every week (or whatever). I gave the option of having both an indoor and an outdoor segments to ride (where a personal best on either one would be reflected on the personal best of the other one. i.e If you beat your PB by 10 secs on your outdoor ride, then your indoor PB would also go down by 10 secs to be fair). That was if you could not ride your outdoor segment (for whatever reason), you could still get your TT ride in.

Yes - I understand the it is easier to ride at threshold when you are climbing (whether real or simulated) - just something about "overcoming" that grade (too bad they don't have the Zwift "difficulty" slider that goes up to 200%, then you could "feel" like you are climbing when you are riding on flat ground. haha But this is also "part" of the TT mind over matter thing: Pushing hard when it is just flat. It is a metal game and takes a different level of concentration to master.)

To me it would not really matter if someone picked the "Alpe du Zwift" route for their TT, but to be fair to everyone else who would not want to do it and all other riders doing actual outdoor TTs (out and back or loops or a course), your "Alpe du Zwift" TT should still stop and start at the same point - "meaning out and back". That way you still have 0 net elevation gain for the ride. You could ride up 7.5 miles and down 7.5 miles. Of course the "up" would be 90+% of the time, but that does not matter.
It would not even matter if the "up" or the "down" part of the segment was first or last. Just that it is a "segment" and repeatable.
Someone scope it out for us, create a segment maybe, and let us know how you like it.

 

[LarryOz]

I say if someone wants to go for a hill climb route then the effort should last about 40-50 mins just like a flat 15 miles would. For example I couldn't use the zwift epic KOM climb because that's only a 20 min climb for me but the Alp climb is going to be around 45-47 mins for my first few tries.

The only problem I really see having a steep indoor ride like "Alpe du Zwift" is the "difference" between how long it will take between the "faster" and "slower" rider at the beginner. Right now on a relatively flat Watopia course the difference between fastest and slowest times is about 10 minutes, which is fine. We are all different, different levels of fitness, different time to train and practice, etc. The challenge was designed to take all those things into account and still reward the person who was most constant and improved the most over time. I suspect the time difference on the "Alpe du Zwift" route may be more like 20 or 25, but we would have to "test" it to be sure. Also if we go with Jason's example of "matching" the estimated "time" of the 15 mile flat route, I do not see an equitable way to "match" a real life flat segment and realistically adjust the time on that segment for PB on the "hill" segment, as I can see someone getting stronger for 4-5 months and eventually knocking off much more time on the climbing segment than then could on the flat one. (if that makes any sense). It seems like the distance still needs to match but I could be wrong. We will have to do some testing in the down time between the winter and summer challenges and see what we come up with.

 

[RojoRacing]

Well my only interest in the challenge is to challenge myself and improve, not to win. If I wanted to win that would be easy as I could spread out my efforts to improve steadily over the length of the season, my experience with pacing with easily accomplish that but then I'd be robbing myself of an opportunity to improve. Honestly the challenge favors those with far less experience with riding hard are are bound to make the greatest gains throughout the whole season just like how a new rider will make several big improvements to their ftp over 6 months because they had no idea how to pace themselves or dig deep vs someone like myself who scraps to even gain 2-3 watts.

If you're worried about someone improving their time far more over a longer segment then shorter one then you could change the measurement from a PR in time to a PR in % of time. You could also change the weekly finishing positions from pure highest PR value to who came within the closet % to their PR favoring those who went slightly faster over those who didn't. 1st place is the person who sets a PR by the smallest margin, 2nd place missed their PR by the smallest margin, 3rd place the 2nd closest PR and 4th place is the 2nd closest missed PR. You then continue to hop back and forth distributing points. This will reward those who are able to quickly establish their absolute limit and try and continue to make those marginal gains. This method of scoring would as not throw off the weekly placings when a late challenger shows up and starts making huge improvements to their time over their first 3 weeks.

This doesn't keep someone who just want to pace themselves at the exact same 80% effort each week from having the best chance to win but we have to have faith that people would rather improve then win an internet challenge.

 

[LarryOz]

Well my only interest in the challenge is to challenge myself and improve, not to win. If I wanted to win that would be easy as I could spread out my efforts to improve steadily over the length of the season, my experience with pacing with easily accomplish that but then I'd be robbing myself of an opportunity to improve. Honestly the challenge favors those with far less experience with riding hard are are bound to make the greatest gains throughout the whole season just like how a new rider will make several big improvements to their ftp over 6 months because they had no idea how to pace themselves or dig deep vs someone like myself who scraps to even gain 2-3 watts.

If you're worried about someone improving their time far more over a longer segment then shorter one then you could change the measurement from a PR in time to a PR in % of time. You could also change the weekly finishing positions from pure highest PR value to who came within the closet % to their PR favoring those who went slightly faster over those who didn't. 1st place is the person who sets a PR by the smallest margin, 2nd place missed their PR by the smallest margin, 3rd place the 2nd closest PR and 4th place is the 2nd closest missed PR. You then continue to hop back and forth distributing points. This will reward those who are able to quickly establish their absolute limit and try and continue to make those marginal gains. This method of scoring would as not throw off the weekly placings when a late challenger shows up and starts making huge improvements to their time over their first 3 weeks.

This doesn't keep someone who just want to pace themselves at the exact same 80% effort each week from having the best chance to win but we have to have faith that people would rather improve then win an internet challenge.

All super good points Jason - lets take this off this thread and email some ideas back and forth to see if we can come up with something "better" for the Summer Challenge. - Larry

 

[anotherbrian]

I appreciate the effort by y’all.

I’m looking for a structured/trackable way I can raise my FTP this year, more than a position in the results. If I’m on the hook to upload my progress I’m more likely to keep with it.

 

[RojoRacing]

Another week and another PR https://www.strava.com/activities/2212059777/analysis/1251/3309

Tried to pair my trainer to the phone app for slope mode via blutooth and zwift via ant+ but somehow during the ride the trainer overwrote my slope mode connection and because I my trainer setting in zwift was last set to 0 for a recovery ride I didn't notice I couldn't increase the slope until like 10 mins in. I did a high cadence drill during my warmup at about 108 rpms for a few minutes so when I started the TT I was decently comfortable at 92 rpms which was just shy of 300 watts just like previous weeks. I tried add 1% and I thought I felt an slight increase as my average watts on the garmin were holding just above 300. A few ore mins in I was still spinning at over 90 rpms and it was starting to feel a little high and even though my garmin was still at an average of 305 I kept seeing my live power bounch around between 280-300 so I added another 0.5% and then another 0.5% and then after a few more minutes I added 2%. That's when I realized something was wrong because I wasn't feeling any increase in slope and I couldn't check my device pairs in game because it would stop my avatar. I opened the menu and saw my trainer setting slider at 0% so I moved it to 100% and then continued on. I was feeling pretty good since I had started at a higher cadence lower evffort vs the previous weeks so I thought I could keep in going. I was still in an odd stop with my cog choice like previous weeks but I was more comfortable holding the higher cadence in the lower option so I focused on keeping myself over 92 rpms in that gear with shorter efforts in the high cog option. I finished the first lap in 17:08 and the second lap in 17:07 for a 2 lap PR of 34:18, that's a 25 second improvement. I'm now inside of 1 min of my PR for this segment during a zwift race drafting with 30 other riders.

One odd thing I recorded was I set zwift to my Tacx Neo like always but my garmin to my vector pedals to see if one of my legs labors more then the other when I get that leg pump issue which didn't happen this week, go figure. My Neo recorded an avg of 298 watts and my pedals recorded 305 which is a 2.3% which when you consider drive train loss in still within 1%. Also max power was also 505 and 518 so also very close. Maybe I'll start connecting zwift to my pedals for zwift races to gain that 2%

 

[anotherbrian]

I’m using a Powertap hub — just say no to Watt inflation through pedals. My Powertap pedals, until one fell off the spindle, reported higher than the hub, so I had to be cognizant of what I was using and if my power was really improving.

I tried riding in “sim mode” with my Wahoo this evening as well (Zwift power/cadence always comes from my PT, so I just unpair the trainer from Zwift and control it completely from my phone). With default parameters, there was a 30-40W difference between a single gear for the same cadence. . If I try again I’ll aim to match 300W at 90rpm with the best chainline, and then twiddle with the settings to get +/- 10W per adjacent gear.

[And my smilies got stripped — there were some in the above, but exercise to reader to decide where they were at. ]

 

[benphyr]

[[I think the Cruzbike smilies work on a computer interface, but I noticed the same issue of the emoji on my phone "keyboard" not working (Android-MotoE2).]]