Embracing consistency certainly has its merits, but can we really ignore the reality that cycling is inherently unpredictable? By focusing solely on steady efforts, isn’t Zwift missing the chance to prepare riders for the chaos of actual rides? Wouldn't incorporating elements that mimic sudden climbs and variable conditions ultimately yield more resilient cyclists? How does dwelling on predictability serve the broader cycling community's needs? What’s stopping Zwift from evolving to meet these challenges?
Analyzing Zwift's ride variability index
- Thread starter TrailTracker
- Start date
Sure, cycling's unpredictable, but Zwift's predictability can be an advantage for structured training. Yet, I wonder if there's a middle ground? How about Zwift incorporating random elements, like surprise sprints or short hills, to mimic real-world surprises? It'd keep us on our toes, indoors and out. 
Similar threads
