I would respectfully like to put in a plug for Zwift to either (1) apply some pressure to partners Wahoo and Garmin to get them to update the firmware on their current devices (e.g., Kickr v5 and Neo) to use virtual shifting, or (2) implement this in software as in IndieVelo, even if such an implementation is not perfect.
It is frustrating that Zwift partners/insiders like ZwiftInsider and GP Lama indicated that Wahoo would update the Kickr v5 (with Wahoo itself indicating that updates would happen), all causing some of us to buy Plays in anticipation, only to hear now that such updates may never happen.
This is going to result in fewer sales of the controllers and the Ride for Zwift.
It really does seem like the changes to the firmware should be possible/manageable, and that not making the changes is an attempt to stick it to consumers. Even if this is not strictly Zwift’s fault, I think it reflects poorly on all the companies involved.
But there is also the question of why Zwift requires a firmware update at all, given IndieVelo simulates shifting.
Hi @S_SI_D, welcome to Forums. This is Juan from Zwift.
I appreciate you’ve taken ownership on this space to post your concern. I understand how important it is to our community that the virtual shifting feature is compatible with a wider variety of trainers.
There are some strategic moves before taking an important step forward to connect with more trainer brands. To stay in the loop, make sure you’re tuned in to our official channels. Any exciting updates or improvements in this area should be announced there first.
I’d suggest you take a look a this thread, there you can find enthusiastic Zwifters like you.
indieVelo and other apps allow you to increase/decrease the trainer resistance. No firmware changes needed for that. Zwift virtual shifting is different in that it tries to replicate bicycle gearing, and it auto-calibrates to the middle of the gear range at the beginning of your ride. That requires a firmware change. Which one is better is down to rider preference.
Zwift are already trying to get trainer manufacturers to adopt their system. Since they don’t currently sell or direct users to buy Elite or Tacx trainers they probably don’t have a lot of leverage, but those manufacturers are certainly aware of the opportunity.
Increasing trainer resistance is all the firmware is doing as well. Why can this not be implemented Zwift client side vs. trainer firmware side? I assume there is some reason, but do not understand what that would be.
They decided to do something more complicated to create a different experience. It does not simply increase/decrease resistance, though there was nothing stopping them from doing that.
These models were manufactured long before Virtual Shifting was conceived, and the inbuilt chips were not designed to support the more memory-intensive firmware required for VS.
Ok. Care to investigate how Indievelo is doing it for every single trainer under the sun. Controlled with any type of keyboard no less.
Why Zwift VS is so complex and needs special hardware on both ends?
We know any company wants to make more money but there are better ways to milk the customer. I can pay 50 bucks if you enable Indievelo style VS for me. No device, no nothing. Cash into Zwift koffers. I am serious. All this dance around protocols, partners, special remotes are putting people off.
I would really like to see Zwift or one of their paid partners (e.g., GP Lama, Zwiftcast, ZwiftInsider) explain why Zwift cannot make virtual shifting from the client side. If there is a reason it is so hard, Zwift, just explain what that is! A change in resistance is a change in resistance, regardless of whether it comes from the firmware or it comes from the software sending messages to the firmware.
i think the justification from wahoo is that the onboard flash memory of kickrs v2 through v5 (including the original core which i believe is just a kickr 18 with a cheaper build quality) is around 500kb, presumably the newer core “one” and v6 have 1mb
personally i have a very hard time believing that there is no headroom left on these units for another firmware update or two anyway, considering the original kickr core has it and is using the same chip as every other older wahoo trainer except for the v1. i could be wrong about that, but i doubt it seriously
The firmware on the higher end trainer may require more memory or storage due to additional features not present on the mid-range trainer. Personally I don’t care enough to figure it out but it might be possible to compare their sizes.
i bought mine before virtual shifting was ever a consideration and i really think wahoo do good business generally… as far as i care it’s just a PR mistake at worst
Actually, I would like to respectfully apply pressure on “zwift” to release virtual shifting “in game” without the need for firmware update -like other applications.
Maybe not, maybe just circumstantial, but the whole thing of virtual shifting firmware requirement smells like a deal to motivate trainer upgrade… just my two cents!
I also think that gear shifting should be mainly on the side of ZWIFT. Then every trainer would have this option. As you can see, it is not on the way. It will be better to exert pressure through other programs. If such a virtual gear shift appears on Rouvy (MyWoosh), it will give up zwift. I wonder why Rouvy hasn’t done it yet.
We should rather put pressure on Zwift to open up there virtual gear shifting and steering to other apps.
Zwift was build on hardware that was open to any platform but since the STERZO Zwift is trying to monopolize the hardware market to only support them.
This is really bad for us as cyclists removing competition and making it harder for manufacturers to make products tat can be used on any platform.
We can’t expect everyone to jump and buy a new trainer to have virtual shifting or a controller to steer.
These things should be enabled on the platform and open sourced so that more people can benefit, that will grow the software platform more that selling hardware that is locked to one platform.
