justinhorne wrote:
NordicSkier wrote:
As for Everesting... it's a complete arbitrary challenge. Everesting on Zwift is nowhere near as difficult as real life, so if someone wants to keep records, they should be separate challenges.
All of cycling is a completely arbitrary challenge. Using a compact with 32 is harder than using an extended range AXS which is harder than using a triple with a granny gear or an MTB with super low gearing. Which one of those doesn't count to Everest on?
Here's another hypothetical for people: For those of you who are opposed to turning TDS down, are you also in favor of minimum grade requirements for an IRL Everest? Because that's the same thing. A 3% grade will allow you to spin up even with normal road gearing, but you're going to be on that 3% a long damn time. I don't think anyone really thinks that 175W at 90rpm feels the same as at 45rpm, but if we're comparing irl to virtual, it has to go both ways too. There are always tradeoffs. What, should irl everesting have maximal cadence and minimal grade average now too?
If you make one aspect easier, you make another aspect harder. TDS might allow you to spin a lower wattage at a more comfortable cadence, but that lower wattage is going to necessitate additional time. That's no different than choosing a shallow grade to climb. Every rider will optimize for their strengths, irl or not.
While I agree with your general take, the argument you should be making is that setting trainer difficulty to 50% is not appreciably different from choosing to climb using a 30x50t in lieu of a 30x25t IRL. Both allows one to utilize a much higher cadence (basically double) to tackle the same hill (I'll grant that using a cassette with a 50t lowest gear may come as the expense of 200 grams over a cassette with a 25t lowest gear).
More importantly, if one were to slap on a cassette with a 50t lowest gear on the trainer at 100% difficulty, then there is no difference to using a cassette with a 25t lowest gear and difficulty at 50% (minus whatever minuscule difference attributable to a few extra chain links) . The OP just assumed that 125 or 150 W is done at 50% difficulty setting, without accounting for the fact that whatever one could do outdoors to ease the gearing could also be applied indoors.
The whole ridiculousness of someone setting rules for indoor Everesting is that there are a whole slew of factors on what to enforce, and the anointed one picked trainer difficulty as the one (at least for now). Outdoors, especially during summer time, temperature will also slow down ascents later on in the day. Indoors, one can do all of that effort in a temperature controlled setting. There are charts for estimating effects of heat, and it's rather significant, (especially going from a cool 60 F in the morning to 85 F in the afternoon). If one chooses to do it on a big hill (say 1000 m per ascent), then pretty soon, availability of oxygen also has an effect. On the trainer, one is at the same atmospheric oxygen pressure the whole time.
To get worked up over the fact that someone choose to do virtual Eversting on 50% difficulty (or gasp, 25%) and ignore the fact that someone bothered to spend about 12 hours doing it just seems petty, not to mention it's tempest in a teapot. Par for the course for roadies I guess (and I speak as a former road racer).