Honestly, not trying to start a controversial topic! lol (I think I’ve generated some more lengthy topics lately!) So zwift released a version of their ramp test for smaller/newer riders with smaller jumps between steps (and starts off at 50w vs 100w). Would be curious to hear thoughts and experiences from the target group if they want to do a comparison between a more standard ramp test vs the zwift modified one. I should have my 9 year old try it lol
I won’t even dive into the zwift e-sports focused plan, someone else can set off that time bomb!
Doesn’t TR’s already do this? By scaling to the rider’s FTP and having the jumps be based on percentages rather than static wattages it allows everybody to have the same test relative to them.
E.g. My ramp test will start at 140W and then go up 20W for each step but my GF’s test will start at 70W and go up 10W each step.
It seems to me that they are finding a solution to a problem that could have easily been solved in the first place by having the test be based on percentages like every single other workout than static wattage targets.
interesting, I had forgotten the details of TR’s ramp test. In that case, yeah, they could have just made the test scale relative to one’s FTP versus the predefined steps.
What’s the ramp? British cycling MAP test is 100w start and ramp of 20w/min for elite athletes (e.g. Cat 1 to Professional level), 25w/min non-elite men, and women 15w/min. The start is for warmup and not seeing a real need to drop it down as one can warmup independently and then jump to 100w as the first ramp. Is Zwift pulling another one out of the air and sowing confusion like the BS “FTP = 95% of 20 min MMP”? Or better yet, the short FTP test! Only test protocol they haven’t got completely wrong is CTS (or is it using erg?). They need to stay in the game development business.
