Maybe if Strava weighed in on the issue saying that Zwift’s reluctance to act on this is contaminating the integrity of their platform with a threat of excluding Zwift from it. Who knows? Stranger things have happened.
Those who cheat in sport don’t normally go on the defensive in regards to cheats and cheating. In fact, usually the opposite is the case. As such, it is usually people like you who cheat on Zwift who make out what a heinous crime it is so you can cover your own tracks. More pies please!
1 Like
Sadly, Strava’s approach to IRL segment cheating is much like Zwift’s “complete obliviousness” — I wouldn’t expect them to take significant action. The vast majority of their segments are essentially garbage data collectors. They tend to only maintain a few high-profile ones with significant visibility -That is why I cancelled my premium subscription a few years ago and not looking back!
4 Likes
I think one of the main reasons that Zwift put a lot of effort went into developing the roster of pace partners, with a wide range of paces, was in fact to stop weight changing by participants looking to tailor themselves willy-nilly to available rides in the calendar. Likewise, Zwift also attempted and released improved rubberbanding functionality available for ride events.
Before the pace bots existed, if the next group ride in the calendar was only a 1.3 w/kg ‘recovery’ ride, but your preferred recovery pace is 1.7, then adding weight was a solution. Likewise if that next interesting ride was a 2.5 w/kg endurance ride, but you can’t manage that, then dropping 10 or so kgs to enter made sense.
Of course, the other reason Zwift needed custom bot pacers, so as to avoid weight changing for rides, was because CE came around, using zFTP derived from w/kgs achieved during ANY activity.
This all said, Zwift should still develop what I termed a ‘speed bias’ tool, that serves as a means for anyone to legitimately lower their resulting speed (but only slower, not faster) from their own power. This would be a more elegant solution than the ‘rubberband’ setting, even though it appears Zwift has improved the banded experience somewhat.
2 Likes
If Zwift were genuinely interested in promoting fair play, there are several simple steps they could take to address disparities caused by inaccurate power data within their control and beyond weight doping which is out of their control:
Cap Zwift Power Output: To maintain fairness, Zwift should cap the power from Zpower users to a reasonable level, like 250/300 watts. Zpower data isn’t real, it inflates power readings, creating unrealistic results in leaderboards, segments, and such. Don’t record data from those sources.
Categorize Trainers, Not Just Riders: Before categorizing people into divisions, Zwift needs to categorize the trainers themselves. We could have three distinct tiers:
- Tier 3: Wheel-on trainers and lower-end setups, known for inconsistent and unreliable power data.
- Tier 2: Mid-range direct drive trainers, offering more accurate but still varying power metrics.
- Tier 1: High-end direct drive trainers and power meters (e.g., Tacx Neo, Wahoo Kickr), which provide the most accurate and consistent power readings.
The performance discrepancy between a rider on a top-tier direct drive trainer and one on a lower-tier is massive. It’s almost impossible for someone with accurate power readings to go up against overestimated power numbers. By categorizing trainers, Zwift could level the playing field and create more consistent environment.
It’s time for Zwift to recognize that trainer quality and calibration impact performance just as much as fitness levels or weight to power ratios. We need fair data! 
Btw: it would be nice for Zwift to openly show riders BMI and power source 
not just W/kg ratio.
1 Like
I agree with your sentiment but I think there will be issues with the details.
We all are very familiar with the accuracy and limitations of our own set ups but we really don’t have first hand insight to all the other set ups that are used.
For example.
I use a wheel on Kinetic trainer with an Inride power meter and I monitor and compare my power readings to my Assioma pedals.
I calibrate my pedals regularly with temp changes in the garage and always perform trainer spin downs.
Now, it is a dumb trainer so the trainer difficulty is “0”.
Are my numbers inaccurate?
Where you you place me on the curve of accuracy? (This is a rhetorical question)
Do you feel that if Zwift allowed us to connect a second power source, not pair but just monitor, then we could see which set ups are being used for accuracy?
I realize, others could tweak my set up or use power meter pedals to gain an advantage but we need to identify the honest riders.
You can connect your Assioma power meter directly as a power source, which would make your setup as accurate as any direct drive.
1 Like
And so is the difference between a mis-calibrated (mis-configured) power meter and an accurate setup power meter. So it’s no easy task.
Now hardware enforcement is only power meter yes/no. Instead actual meter should be communicated within Zwift and options to block whatever organisers want. If someone only wants Wahoo, let them (or any other brand). Then community driven it will already be a judge on accuracy of meters.
I think performance verification is key to this topic. We could argue all day about purposeful cheating and poor equipment as explanations.
Performance verification meaning the racing community willingly self-report bio/performance metrics and organizers confirm bio/performance metrics are accurate (best they can).
Zwift was not selected for the E-sport World Championship nor 2025 USA E-sport nationals. The platform selected for these events has an equipment and performance verification guide that is worth reading even for us Zwifters.
1 Like
“Low end” trainer. First class results.
Meanwhile, there’s the current Kickr free watts problem.
1 Like
Yes and no.
I do not care for behavior of the powermeter pedals.
They over report accelerations leading to the whole microburst thing and the reading is up/down too much.
Even outdoors, I seldom monitor my power during a ride unless I happen to be sowing intervals on a flat road
I prefer to use my pedals to confirm that my trainer is accurate.
What we need is transparency.
Let people connect a second power source in game.
Then we are not guessing, we don’t need cadence and HRM etc.
forcing an intern to attempt to sell the concept that they should explicitly admit that the bulk of the trainers they sell are inaccurate or “not good enough”, to representatives from every trainer manufacturer who makes a low/mid range trainer model - which is every trainer manufacturer - sounds like a fun hazing ritual
however, there is already an “esports approved” trainer list. it’s a very small and expensive list
edit: zwiftalizer logs show the power source … there are community races out there that do random spot checks for these such as ladder and frr, if you’re that concerned about it. eg
though as someone who races a lot… unless there is some type of prize, in which case i do not want to be in that race anyway, i really couldnt care less what the other racers are doing as long as they are not harshing my mellow
Which of course had nothing to do with money …
2 Likes
Money not invested by zwift? Sure if cherry picking from posts is how we discuss topics here
As an individual company, rather than being backed by an autocratic nation state, Zwift’s available funds pale into insignificance in comparison. So it’s not exactly surprising that MyWash won the UCI championships away from Zwift.
Great thanks for sharing your feelings
Btw, I don’t expect Zwift to take any action because it’s simply not their nature LOL, but the goal of categorizing trainers isn’t about limiting the types of trainers allowed for rides or races (like the “esports approved list”) but just to normalize performance results, to group trainers with similar qualities. Someone riding on a Neo or Kickr stands not a chance against an Elite trainer, even assuming that the athletes’ BMI figures are accurate. Power output from a direct drive should never be compared to the power output of a wheel on.
Facts, not feelings. But to be honest - it’s not only UCI, look at FIFA, UEFA, …
Money rules.
2 Likes
Here’s a fact. My post was about performance verification. Cheers
1 Like