Hi all - back on the indoor training after a 5 year hiatus.
I notice Zwift seems to transfer elevation data to Strava so I’m wondering if Sufferfest does? specifically for climbing style work outs?
Hi all - back on the indoor training after a 5 year hiatus.
Would also love to see this. It’s disappointing to do climbing exercises but not have elevation count to strava goals.
This would be great, but it’s a little complicated for us. I’ll simplify a lot here but Zwift can do it because they use a ‘real’ continuous gps route for your ride, which is what Strava requires to do elevation calculations. For our workouts, there is no such route and you’re not doing actual, complete climbs. Having said that, we’ve discussed looking at ways to calculate elevation gain based on grade, weight and power. It’s complicated and would require some flexibility from Strava but hopefully we can get there at some point.
One more thing: When elevation will be added, maybe it’s worth revisiting the digital speed.
If I am not mistaken, the speed calculation doesn’t account for gradient. Depending on the workout, I am literally blasting over some hills even though I should be crawling.
This points back to @David.McQuillen.KoS’s response. If we are going to do this correctly, it will touch a LOT within the app and our systems.
I actually like using Sufferfest as opposed to Zwift because the distances aren’t virtually estimated based on virtual terrain and virtual speed. I do like to use Zwift to ride a virtual course some times, but when I want to do a ride of a specific distance I want to do it in SUF so I know that actual real distance I would have travelled. This was actually more straight forward when I was using a speed sensor on a dumb trainer which would give me real distance. So, if virtual elevation and distance is implemented into SUF I would hope it could be opt-in or opt-out.
If you ever grow tired of riding in a cartoon, taking into account that you want to pay extra to do it, consider switching to BigRingVR or Rouvy. The former has splendid video quality and the ability to load a workout (file) while riding, the latter has poorer video quality, but integrated Zwift cartoon characters, if you miss those and it also support loading your own workout.
The courses - and altimeters - are real and they will count towards your Strava challenges, now that they have finally allowed those to be taken into consideration.
Obviously, you will still receive the occasional remark that your climbing is cheating as f*ck, since it’s all irrelevant if you do not fight against the elements and the car drivers wanting to kill you.
that’s too bad. will need to stick with Zwift until you add this feature
Personally I like the current simple system of “zero elevation, this is the distance your power produced if it was flat with zero wind”. That makes sense to me and is something I can equate to riding outside.
Elevation data from Suf would seem odd because it won’t match what was happened on screen. One of the great things about SUF is that in my head I can be climbing with Mike Cotty or holding my own in a pro team time trial when I know the reality would be very different indeed.
If you do add this, as emacdoug say, please make it optional. More to the point, please don’t end up aping features from Zwift without very good reason. The two platforms are very different and for me at least, Suf as it stands is massively better. I can understand why people stick with it for years and become very passionate about it - from my brief forays into Zwift I just can’t imagine ever feeling the same way about it.
I very much agree with what @JohnK is saying here. Took a couple of weeks getting used to SUF coming off Zwift, but now I am nowhere near going back. Could potentially consider it for custom workouts or racing, but not in a long while I think…
People sometimes ask how fast would you be able to go on the flat? I’ve no idea, I’ve only been riding for the last five years and I’ve never found a flat piece of road yet.
Including elevation / not including elevation, either way does not worry me at all. I tend to compare my years to previous years by total workout time using either Strava or the Elevate Chrome extension for Strava.
This would be a solid addition as there are times of the year I’m training not by miles or time on the saddle, but by elevation gained in a week/10 days. Not interested in a GPS track, but some nifty behind the scenes gains would be sweet.
Indoor climbing is BS. It just is. There’s no real comparison to climbing real hills, against gravity. Yes, I do plenty of indoor low-cadence, high torque work, but it’s just not the same. If I want to “win” a Strava climbing challenge, I will get my lazy ass on the bike outside, and go ride up some hills.
Yes! I totally support the idea to calculate elevation gain based on grade, weight and power and sync to Strava. For people they don’t I understand they could skip/delete information but for many of us, it’s really important when we try to compare our totals YoY. Many thanks!
Hmmmm. Something for us to look at. I agree the actual number is pretty meaningless, but I also get the desire to have something (even if it’s not real) that adds to your meters climbed sums for the week, month, year on Strava etc.
Absolutely David! That’s the idea, as you say, even if it’s not real as it’s not real wind, surface, etc effect when we do indoors so, even an estimation would be great.
Some of us are coming back from Zwift, Rouvy… and we were collecting elevation together with our real rides, so it would be great to continue collecting information to compare progress. Thanks!
Especially on pre-defined “routes/rides” like the ProRides or for example the N. Henderson 4: Superflag training ride you should have the elevation data from the real life routes anyhow. Using this would already a big step in the right direction.
A random numbers generator can be put in place for the elevation, it would be as correct as any other number you calculate/generate.
I think the current speed/distance is OK. No need for elevation because on what would you base it? The climb in the video? The pro rider does this climb at twice the speed you would, why would you get the full elevation then and if you don’t get the full elevation, how much would you get? → random number.
Speed/distance is pretty accurate comparing to outside rides with comparable wattages (and no wind) for me.
Reminds me of the xkcd post
Please don’t prioritise this on your roadmap, I would rather have better insights of how I’ve done on a workout and how the plan is going rather to earn bagdes in Strava.