I think people gaming the system to stay in the Cat limits is a bigger problem. I guess we all see it from different points.
the main thing to remember is 6year ago we had to pay $$ and go outside to race only a few times a year, now we can race a few times a month.
for over £150 a year too though
Yes but if you race 2x a month it will be less than £10 per race. LOL
This depends on the interpretation of “more of an issue”.
One is deliberate and trivial to do, the other more likely to be accidental or harder for someone to do deliberately, I’d say. Particularly bearing in mind that some trainers don’t even have a calibration mode, and no one takes notice of Z-Power “winners”.
Could someone educate me and briefly explain what a Z-power winner is please?
I see the term knocking about but don’t understand it.
Dumb trainer with speed sensor. Zwift calculate power based on wheel speed and a fixed power curve. Many of these are trainers with no known power curve or people selecting the wrong trainer or racers using a different resistance setting.
Merci beaucoup.
Definitely worth looking at the alpe du Zwift leader board and checking their Strava accounts 
IRL racing I typically have a chance to at least break even. No chances here. 
Why bother? People can totally lie about their weight to begin with. You have no guarantee anyone is being honest about their weight. If people have to lie about their weight to do better in a virtual race I feel sorry for them. This is all virtual. It’s easy to lie. If you really want to test yourself, enter regular outdoor races. Or maybe a smaller race on Zwift with people you know and trust. If I weigh 180 lbs (82 kg) and get on Zwift saying I weigh 140 lbs (62.5 kb), what good will the weekly restriction do? It’s all based on trust. You’re going to have to take your accomplishments on here with a grain of salt…
I think the idea is that sure, you could put in the wrong weight from the beginning, but at least you can’t easily weekly be adjusting your weight to suit a specific race, event, category, or modify to maintain the same wkg result if your performance improves or declines.
Sure, I understand. I don’t plan to ever compete so it doesn’t matter to me. I had my years of road racing at a younger age.
I think it’s a different order…
Two of these seem to being addressed. Hopefully, weight, watt floors and race weight manipulations can be addressed in future.
Removing ZPower users from some races is a good first step but how much further are they willing to go for community racing?
I’m sure they have stats for how many racers are using their Smart Trainer versus an alternative power source (pedals, crank) as the primary power source. Maybe, they could insist that the trainer must be the primary source for certain races? That would remove the possibility of Sticky Watts cheating and deliberate (easy) miscalibration of the power source?
I’m sure something like this wouldn’t be very popular though, from ZHQ and racers alike 
Disagree - In my case, weight >110kg, weight can changing more than +2kg per week if I don’t look at it 
This thread (request and comments) are completely outside of the reality of being female. Weight variations are significant throughout the course of the month/weeks for women. See how this request/feature can get even more tricky than the reasons mentioned above?
I believe it’s possible to arrive at a generous limit based on the available science. It would have to be gender specific. I don’t think the specific values discussed in this thread are useful, but the concept still seems sound to me. A generous limit would not rule out manipulation, but it should be able to handle egregious offenders.
I have had days where I have lost a bit more than 2kg of weight on a very big ride (outside).
At one point I had got down to 57.5kg. I was doing training during the week and some huge IRL rides at high intensity on the weekends both days.
I miss those days. Being some years older the body doesn’t respond so well to those efforts. I had at lot of power and light weight. Still light but power not as much these days. 
I’m not sure whether the reality of losing or gaining more than x amount is that important, more that zwift should only allow a gradual change. If that means it takes 2 weeks to get it completely accurate, so be it.
It would seem to me that if Zwift were to implement a weight change restriction and part of that reason was the issue of healthy vs unhealthy weight loss, I’d think that the amount or amounts (plural if Zwift decided to treat women and men as possibly different) of that restriction should possibly be determined via consultation with nutritionists and medical professionals, rather than using a number decided in a forum by a bunch of well-meaning people who ‘have read some stuff about it’. 
I’ve heard the ‘2 lbs/week’ rule too…or was it 2kg? It was lbs when I heard it. I do know that you’re not supposed to go swimming for a half hour after you eat. Or was that an hour? And that eating fat is what makes you fat, or was that sugar? High fructose corn syrup? No, wait–it’s the paleo diet. You can only safely lose more than 2lbs/week if you reject the notion that humans continue to evolve and eat like people thousands of years ago, that’s it. No, wait, carbs, they’re the thing. Heck, maybe, instead…an appeal to actual expertise in a field would be a good idea. (Said as someone who often has read some stuff about things, and and gotten out over his skis because he’s not an expert.)
That said…disordered eating is a significant problem in cycling and endurance sports in general, for both men and women. And if Zwift wanted to (in consultation with health care experts) do something positive to confront the issue if possible, that might be cool. If that could be done while also moving the needle somewhat against cheating? Even better.
2kgs? 4kgs? 10kgs? Let’s talk to some doctors, yeah?