Microburst technique (che**ing)

Racing
42

I hear you Gerrie. I think this is one of those grey areas where micro-bursting could actually be quite a natural way of riding. A good example in my eyes, is the sometimes frequent modulation of cadence and power to maintain a good position within a large group. I’m sure this could produce very spikey power and cadence profiles BUT I’m guesing the magnitude of variance in power would not be huge.

I think a dead giveaway for people using this technique to “game” the system is where those repeated power spikes are, say, twice (or more) of their FTP power? This type of suspicious and erratic riding can often be observed when climbing or when trying to bridge (or create) a gap.

I don’t know how easy this would be to police for every rider in a race. It only seems to be addressed when someone is reported and there is sufficient evidence to back it up. WTRL seem quite pro-active with this, ZHQ not so much.

43

I tried to mimic it in testing about a year ago when dealing with another rider doing this. There is a speed affect that I was able to reproduce where I was able to go slightly faster for the same heartrate. But heck, what a nasty thing to do to my legs :joy::joy::joy::joy:

But like anything, would be possible to adapt to. One consistent thing I have noticed is the “best” riders at doing this are Level 50+ and are very accurate at the “pulsing” timing and amplitude

44

[quote=“Aaron Bleakley[NZBRO] , post:43, topic:598905, username:Aaron_Bleakley4665”]
I was able to go slightly faster for the same heartrate
[/quote]

This need to be quantifiable and tested with more detail than comparing HR. I am not saying that this method is not faster than steady power. It must indeed be faster.

what I would like to know is if there are a speed difference using pedals that drop to 0 instantly and a trainer that ramp down. I suspect that the coasting of the bike will make the ramp down power negligible.

[quote=“Aaron Bleakley[NZBRO] , post:43, topic:598905, username:Aaron_Bleakley4665”]
But heck, what a nasty thing to do to my legs :joy::joy::joy::joy:
[/quote]

My legs won’t like this either, high RPM ramps is not my friend.

45

Yes, I think that someone with Eric’s Zwift Insider setup and the ability to send a programmed power and cadence signal would be able to test this.

I used a Direto XR for the test (don’t have one anymore) but was able to get similar effect on crank PM. So potentially less of a trainer affect and more to do with amplitude and frequency of the pulses.

I would love @Eric_Schlange_ZwftIn to do a variety of tests and see if he can find the Sweetspot and expose this in a quantitative way, but I am sure he has his hands full

46

Irrespective of whether it’s cheating or not, if you’re NOT pedalling weirdly, and yet you’re getting jumbled, noisy feedback data like that from your trainer, then you’ve bought a trainer which is clearly not fit for purpose and you should be demanding your money back.

1 Like
47

If you’re using power meter pedals and you suddenly stop pedalling (RPM ->0) then you’re into the realm of sticky watts. If you “stick” at high watts, then you’re also “sticking” at high speed. I’m guessing here, but I think the power/speed advantage would last longer for sticky watts than micro-bursting (though in both instances we’re talking seconds here :smile:).

I’m not sure anyone’s done a systematic study/comparison of these effects (I’m sure Zwift wouldn’t encourage it). But given that the results are probably very hardware dependent, it may be difficult to produce a definitive result, apart from saying they give some degree of advantage.

1 Like
48

A good way to avoid having to code for intention is to code for the result.

Who cares how and why it happens, stop it being effective.

9 Likes
49

And this is the crux of the problem: not the user gaming the system but the game itself.

Microbursting works only because Zwift allows it to work. DQing someone for playing the game as it is designed is rather petty.

2 Likes
50

So what is the issue making microburst effective? Poor acceleration physics?

1 Like
51

Hard to tell. That video just shows something extremely weird that no one outside on a bike would do as it’s ineffective and stupid. More than one person does it within Zwift which indicates there is a benefit with Zwift.

Not sure if he showed instant watts or three second averaging. With the former he does not seem to stop pedalling so then it’s not like the Sticky Watts issue but within the physics of Zwift that gives much more Momentum when kicking up the watts than you’d get in real-life. With the latter it could be that he does stop pedalling and then, even though trainer does not send it (DC Rain Maker showed that elite for instance does send watts for a few seconds even when not pedalling) Zwift does not decrease the speed right away. While it’s not the same as issue shown with power meters but also the Elite trainer(s) the effect is more or less the same. The latter would even exacerbate the issue of sticky watts itself but dragging on the effect longer.

Hard to state what it is. However, we can exclude things. Does for instance RGT have the same oddities? If not, then it’s the Zwift physics (I’ll put some money on that to be honest!).

Nonetheless, with all the weird pedalling within Zwift something is off. There is a reason people don’t do this outside and same can’t be said about Zwift.

1 Like
52

zwift generates and holds on to inertia in a way that doesn’t quite work in real life, particularly on steep gradients which is why in more blatant cases of this you’ll see graphs where people appear to be riding smoothly on the flat and only start doing this crap on hills. if you do 500w for a few seconds on a 10%+ gradient irl and then immediately stop pedalling, the only momentum you’re going to generate is sideways because you’re gonna tip over into a ditch

how beneficial is it actually? i dont know. i do enjoy imagining people looking goofy as hell in their garage doing it when i see it in races though

8 Likes
53

Hard to tell is the problem microbursting how much is it down to crappy trainers or how much is it down to connection to zwift compensation for lag or anything else that zwift is doing in the background.

I’ve seen people microbursting on RGT. I could probably pick out a couple racers that i noticed doing it most races. So they either have developed a goofy riding style for some strange reason or it is also giving them a bonus.

If they are on elite directo i don’t think it will matter what platform you are on as the trainer is sending faulty watts it will be beneficial

54

I don’t think it’s petty if the rules are clearly communicated. Zwift is a complex system, it’s reasonable to expect there to be unintended issues. For the users (race organizers) to have to be bound by whatever unintended uses users manage to find seems too rules-lawyery for me. “You have to let me race this way because the programming allows for it.”

If this is a problem with how the software is written, why shouldn’t the users have the ability to set rules to try to deal with bugs in the system? Why should we automatically just have to accept everything as-is?

This is a result of the system ‘as written’, not the system ‘as intended’.

6 Likes
55

I agree it would be very interesting to test this to understand if it really works or if riders just think it works. There were a couple comments about this in the last discussion. If it’s trainer dependent then simulations wouldn’t help without a mechanical rider. If it’s not then simulation should help.

1 Like
56

Yes, bugs will occur that have to be fixed. However, this particular bug has existed since Jarvis. If it’s a bug, it needs to be fixed after 8 years.

If it’s not a bug, then it’s an intended part of the game - which would tell us why ZHQ don’t see a problem with it. So, if it’s an intended part of the game, it’s not cheating.

Legislating for it - if that’s what they wish to do - needs to be objective and transparent. As said above, how often can a rider suddenly accelerate before it’s deemed to be breaking a race rule? How much extra power before it’s more than just maintaining position? Who decides and with what parameters?

1 Like
57

I don’t think that’s how intention works. The fact that they have not fixed something does not mean that it was intentional. They haven’t fixed the ability to make bikes red on the color slider. Was that therefore intentional? It might be something the people who could fix it have now accepted, but that’s not the same thing at all as being intentional. It might also just be something far down on the list of priority fixes (and it doesn’t take long on these forums to find a whole lot of things people are claiming are top priority fixes.)

That Zwift has chosen not to fix this does not mean that independent race organizers therefore have to accept it. Your claim is that 'users can do this, so they should be allowed to do it." My claim is that ‘race organizers can do what they are doing (not allowing it)’. So why shouldn’t race organizers be allowed to do what they can do within the system? The race organizers also have free choice in this matter, and there is no reason why they have to do what you’re saying they should do. Nothing in Zwift forces the race organizers to accept this, just like nothing in Zwift forces the individual riders to not use microbursting. So it’s one set of users choosing to do something they are allowed to do, and another set of users choosing to do something they are allowed to do.

Your same argument for allowing the riders to use microbursting also leads to the conclusion that the race organizers can ban it. Who decides if it’s allowed? The race organizers. Who decides what the parameters are? The race organizers. Who decides if the race organizers are being unfair? The riders. (Don’t ride in the races of people who are acting unfairly.)

There are plenty of rules in plenty of sports that are left in the hands of subjective judges in specific situations. What counts as ‘holding’ in the NFL? What counts as deviating from your line in a sprint? What counts as a lift in volleyball? All of those are judged case-by-case according to parameters that simply cannot be carved into stone such that humans don’t need to make the call. And they’re all accepted rules of games. No reason why this needs to be any different. Set some rules, be transparent absolutely. But accept that judgment calls need to be made. No different from any other sport.

3 Likes
58

That’s not what I said and you know it.

Race organisers can set whatever rules they wish. But accusing riders who use microbursts of cheating is dangerous territory.

Cheating is lying about weight, miscalibrating a power meter, using an ANT+ simulator, etc.

Microbursts are a riding technique; it is no more cheating than using a wheel-on trainer. You can make rules barring them but it is not cheating. Or are riders who are too young to ride a Masters race “cheating” if they take part?

Don’t confuse something being against the rules of a race vs actual cheating that applies to ALL races. You can make rules that only riders called John are allowed to enter; doesn’t give you the right to call everyone else a cheat.

3 Likes
59

It’s a riding technique which exploits aspects of the trainer that don’t crop up in more “nornal” pedalling techniques (i.e. as you’d ride outside).

It’s exploiting anomalies in the trainer (or power meter).

The technique has no benefits to the rider other to exploit these anomalies to achieve performance that couldn’t be achieved with “nornal” pedalling.

So it’s cheating.

5 Likes
60

I dislike it when people tell me what I’m supposed to know. I did not intentionally misinterpret what you’re saying, I’m arguing in good faith. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. But don’t read maliciousness into this, or the conversation won’t go well at all.

You’re calling it ‘petty’ to disqualify someone for breaking the rules set down by that specific race. I’m arguing that the race organizers are within their rights to set those rules, as users of the system. If those rules are communicated transparently, I don’t see why it’s ‘petty’ at all.

If the rules aren’t being communicated well, that definitely is an issue, we’ve both agreed on that.

Cheating is breaking the rules of a game for competitive advantage. Individual races on Zwift have rules that are not part of the Zwift software. Like age or gender restrictions. So yes, breaking the rules of an event is cheating.

Your own qualifications for cheating are seemingly arbitrary if you’re going to include lying about weight. Nothing in Zwift’s software stops someone from putting in the wrong weight, just like nothing in the software stops them from microbursting. Why is one cheating and not the other? Nothing in the software stops me from registering as female and gaining advantages that way. Youth is also an advantage at some point–so if a race says “no one under X age”, why is it not cheating to lie about your age? Why is it cheating to lie about your weight, but not about your age in situations where age has been made a rule?

For some reason, you’ve decided that ‘cheating’ is only a breaking of the rules of ‘All of Zwift’. I have no idea why you’ve decided to define cheating in that limited way. When you sign up for Zwift, you read a set of rules. If you intentionally break those rules for advantage, you are cheating.

Why doesn’t the same definition apply when you sign up for a race, read the rules, and intentionally break those rules for competitive advantage? Why do those rules not matter? Just because you can get away with it?

Cheating is cheating–if there are rules in place when you sign up for a game, intentionally breaking those rules for competitive advantage is cheating. Whether that game is ‘Zwift as a whole’ or ‘this particular race’.

Analogy: some friends and I years ago made up alternate rules for Chess–different pieces moving in different ways. We wouldn’t always use those rules, but sometimes we would. We called it Chess 2000…because back then 2000 was futuristic :smiley: If we decided to play a game of Chess 2000, and someone moved a piece intentionally against those rules, it would be cheating. Even though the rules of Chess as codified in other places don’t say so, and even if the physical construction of the chess board and pieces allowed them to do it. It would have been cheating because they sat down for a game that they knew was to be governed by a different set of rules. Just like an individual event on Zwift.

SECOND SNEAKY EDIT: Maybe what you’re objecting to is lumping all kinds of cheating together. If so, I think that’s a reasonable point. In IRL pro racing for example, I think there’s a distinction worth making between someone taking EPO and someone taking too long of a draft off their team car when they’re getting brought back to the peloton. They’re both cheating–breaking of the rules for competitive advantage. But it’s worth pointing out that there are still differences. I don’t stop being a fan of a rider if they get too long of a tow, or if they deviate from a sprint line. I do stop being a fan if they take EPO. I don’t know where microbursting fits for me personally, but it certainly seems at the moment not as bad as weight cheating or using a watt bot. But it’s still cheating.

7 Likes
61

But wait, do we know it’s a trainer or power meter anomaly? Previously someone suggested it’s related to how Zwift handles ‘inertia’, so maybe it’s in the software modelling?

2 Likes