What Zwift has never understood, and still doesn’t, is that if you want to use a robopacer for zone 2 training, you do not want surges due to pack dynamics and terrain changes. Zone 2 training needs to be kept separate and constant from high intensity efforts to be most effective. While the surges do not equate to Zone 4 efforts, they do take you out of Zone 2, depending on the pack size, terrain and power range of the dynamically paced bot. Because they are called robopacers riders new to Zwift may not realise this. There is also no engaging alternative provided by Zwift, for sustained Zone 2 rides unlike on other platforms. When I originally raised this issue 2 years ago I was told to stick my trainer in erg mode by a Zwift staffer!
I am now returning to Zwift from RGT which is being shut down. I have been provided with 12 months free Zwift by Wahoo to compensate. It is disappointing to see that little has changed on Zwift.
Everyone wants different things, have different goals, etc… The majority of users want the dynamic paced bots, and yes there is data to support that conclusion. You have other options on Zwift to get a pure zone 2 ride, as you mentioned the best option is an ERG mode workout that forces you to ride zone 2. Other options are finding a group ride event that is within your zone 2 pace, as long as the leader keeps to the prescribed pace, or create your own ride/meetup/group workout with your friends/club.
Welcome back!
Exactly this.
Here was the poll on static vs dynamic. More votes for dynamic, but static was not an insignificant number either.
I think the point is UP TO 80% of training should be in Zone 2. I think that Zwift should offer better and more engaging options for this than erg mode or finding/creating a group ride and hoping it sticks to your Zone 2 pace.
Only 83 respondents too, a very small sample of just us forum users. I think the better data is from when James did tests a few summers ago and the dynamic pace bots had much larger use than the static paced ones. The bottom line, if you want a pure zone 2 ride then that can be accomplished in a number of ways. Another good point from that other thread was from Lebasi who pointed out that the most popular routes are the flat routes, so effectively making the bots static anyway (but flat routes are the most popular regardless of where the bots are).
I find this argument unpersuasive. Zone 2 rides can be done any number of ways, but some people enjoy doing it in a pace partner group and should not be forced out of that format. But it’s exactly the same critique to say that dynamic non-zone 2 rides can be done any number of ways. You could just as easily say that people who want dynamic pacing should do a free ride. The reason this debate will never end is because there are significant adherents to both configurations. I respect them both.
No. His data from “before” was ahead of them adding all the new pacer bots. You can’t conflate correlation and causation in that case.
Edit; I know this because I recall him making that statement, and he was comparing the use of bots ahead of them leaving future works to the full new set of bots.
Not if you only ride 4 or 5 hours per week. Not if you’re just exercising or riding for general health or fun rather than purposefully training.
I think you’re in danger of assuming (as I also do, sometimes - mea culpa) that your motivation to be on Zwift is representative of the whole.
With PD4.1 across the board and the Pacers being affected by draft effects, you can’t rely on having a static pace anyway.
Riding with Coco in those first few weeks was interesting, certainly not static for the blob with the Washing Machine churn, was it PD2 or 3 at the time ?
Dynamic was needed as you could run away from the bot on a climb or the bot would run away when decending, the light weight riders would have had it worse.
A bot on Tempus is basically running at a static pace anyway.
What I’m asking for is a pacing option suitable for Zone 2 training. I am not asking for the removal of the existing dynamically pacing bots. It is unfortunate that there are so many people on this forum who do not seem to think that any option they do not plan to use themselves, should be implemented.
Some, all or none of this may be true but it’s not relevant to the point I made in the post you’ve quoted.
suitable for your zone 2 training…
For me, I use a combination of freeride and teleport, I’ve been into polarized training for over 5 years long before it became fasionable 
cheers old Fast Talk podcasts !
I want a series of pace bots (and resulting groups) that go for bunch sprints at every sprint marker, and then spin easy in-between.
You could have the bots ranked by what their sprint wattage is–7/8/9/10/etc w/kg–and then have them all drop down to 1.5 or so between the sprints. Stick a few of them in Makuri routes–city, countryside, and islands–I’d use those regularly.
The running away was solved by learning correct riding “techniques” as we were all told by one of the old forum members who loved the pace partners. 
I was one of those light riders who didn’t have a problem with the Anquetil bot (and group) running away from me on the Epic KOM descent. I was lighter than Anquetil. It was nice with 65kg bot and 4.2w/kg fixed the whole time.
That would be great for coco group, every lap of Tempus the bot pushes for 4.8w/kg+ for Fuego Flats Reverse. and a 30 second sprint effort.
It might be fun for the folk who are quicker than C grade but for others not so. But it is typical C group behaviour that I’ve seen.
I ride up ADZ only so none of this affects me. It is the best training - 1.5h there daily has given me much more benefit than spending large amounts of time drafting the robopacer groups for hours.
I don’t know why category would matter. Cat isn’t based at all on someone’s sprinting ability. It’s probably true that there’s a general correlation between someone’s FTP and their sprinting wattage, but that’s why you’d have Sprint Bots who sprint at all ranges of wattage. If someone’s peak watts for a 20 second sprint is 5w/kg, they can jump in with that bot. If someone’s at 10w/kg, there would be a sprint bot for them.
That way, even if you get people sandbagging in bot training rides (which, yeah…that would probably happen because some people are sad), the bot, and presumably a large part of the group, would still be sprinting at the appropriate range. So even if one bro shoots off the front, you’re still in a bunch sprint and can still test yourself against the range you wanted.
I pretty regularly go for green jerseys on my rides–both free riding, and with pace bots. I’m a C with a pretty good sprint, but I regularly see people who are clearly sprinting during sprint segments and are at lower watts. In fact…given the number of green jerseys I’m able to get when I jersey hunt, I suspect that the really fast people aren’t bothering with them at all. If they were, I wouldn’t be getting them, that’s for sure. I think this would be more popular at lower levels, tbh.
In another thread, I put in a feature request for simply 2 Pacerbots, that instead of leading a group ride, are each running a 24/7 Group Workout – 1 bot fixed in the middle of zone2, the other in the middle of zone3. With ability to +/- adjust your ftp bias in a group workout, pretty much any requested steady-state/undynamic pace requested should be satisfied by this.
Not a bad idea to have on-demand group workouts and you wouldn’t even need a pacer. It would just happen with whoever was there. I suspect this would be popular. It could also cycle between zones on a certain interval.
I thought the bot might be a tech necessity as means for each new joiner to find the group. Aren’t these bot events sorta rides with Late Join enabled without the half hour limit?