Tips for interpreting Zwift's efficiency factor

[Kakadu]

Ive noticed that Zwifts efficiency factor is a bit of a mystical concept, with some people swearing by its accuracy and others calling it a joke. So, Ill ask the question thats probably going to get some of you upset: whats the point of even paying attention to Zwifts efficiency factor if its not actually reflecting real-world efficiency? I mean, lets be real, how many of you are actually getting aerodynamic testing done to validate your Zwift numbers? And if youre not, then whats the justification for obsessing over a number that might not even translate to real-world performance gains? Is it just a case of numbers dont lie or is there actual science backing this up?

 

[bring77]

The issue with Zwift's efficiency factor is not about it being a "mystical concept," but rather a lack of understanding and validation of its relevance to real-world performance. Sure, some may swear by its accuracy, but are they basing it on actual scientific evidence or just blind faith?

If you're not getting aerodynamic testing done, then what's the point of fixating on a number that may not translate to real-world gains? It's not just about numbers not lying, but about understanding the context and significance of those numbers.

Zwift's efficiency factor may not be the end-all-be-all of cycling performance metrics, but that doesn't mean it should be disregarded altogether. Instead, we should push for more transparency, validation, and education around these metrics to better inform our training and performance goals.

At the end of the day, it's not about who's right or wrong, but about fostering a more informed and critical discussion around these tools and metrics that many of us rely on for our training and performance goals.