Trainer at zero I would think would be challenging with a dynamic PP – you’ll never feel a hill so have to pay attention to gradient % to have an idea when you’ll need to increase power? Also perhaps necessitates gear changes moreso – with trainer at higher percentage, you might be able to focus more on keeping the same cadence when you hit a hill to yield the additional power that dynamic PP will as for?
Yes you do have to react to dynamic pacing, but when I’m with the easier pace partners, it’s more important to level out the differences in the steady state (< 3% grade) and react only to the infrequent climbs. Usually the problem is I’m getting too far ahead, and this helps. With the harder pace partners, it’s not helpful, and I don’t have the problem of getting too far ahead with them.
Trying pace Partners for sometime can’t comment on the dynamics yes but finding Difficult to stay with diesel on downhills, i m heavy and went ahead,but had frustrating time trying to select a paste partner on the Apple TV would not scroll down but kept going to the next box
To scroll, put your thumb at the top of the touch pad, wait a sec, and then gently slide it to the bottom. This works for up as well. Don’t flick or quick swipe like you normally do to move around or change selections.
1 Like
I totally agree.
It’s because a vast portion of Zwift’s user base simply doesn’t understand the value of quality steady Z2 work. They think they need to or simply prefer to go harder when they climb then recover on the downhill. This is almost the opposite of what most amateur cyclists should be doing.
Coasting or recovering on downhills is literally a complete waste of time indoors. That is best left to actual interval workouts.
Previously, it was very easy to do Z2 endurance rides with pace partners. It’s still possible, just less smooth.
Zwift is not a training platform, it’s an engagement platform. Having your trainer vary the resistance to simulate hills obviously stimulates many people. Personally, I simply don’t understand why messing with gear changes constantly while indoors is necessary.
I just turn the trainer difficulty to near zero and simply pedal. 2hrs on the trainer, 2hrs pedaling. Incredibly efficient.
I think it would make it far simpler for everyone concerned if the trainer difficulty which should actually be called, hill simulation, was simply reduced to 10% ish on everyone’s trainer automatically…
Join a pace partner, trainer automatically set the same for everyone. Then this course, hills, rolling terrain etc discussion becomes mostly irrelevant.
With a billion group rides and races that surge up hills, the pace partners were one of the only steady group rides available. It’s a shame they too are heading towards variable power.
I wish Zwift was a little more physiology focused and helped educate their customers.
I’m obviously dreaming, but they are free after all 
6 Likes
I just wanted to point out something more related to dynamic pacing and my skepticism about it (probably not many would care anyway given the apparent largely positive feedback on dynamic pacing though). We’ve already pointed out the fact that “static” pace partners were one of the only steady group rides on Zwift, the value of sharing the effort with a group vs a solo ride even with a static pace, and the feeling that many may not understand the value of quality steady work.
I would like here to remind that “static” pace partners already had that dynamic pace feature embedded.
For example, a steady Bowie rides at 3.2 but most people were staying in the pack drafting at about 2.5 or even less. On the hills the pace indeed increases to 3.2 in order to stay with the group.
Dynamic pacing amplifies this difference and makes it harder to stay with the group. Indeed the range is now about 2.5 to 3.6 instead of 2.5 to 3.2.
A fully steady workout (Z2, SS, etc) with static pace partners was therefore possible at the advertised pace. We were hardly shooting at the front of the group at that advertised pace.
With dynamic pacing a fully steady workout is still possible by holding a steady +10% (3.6 in this example). However at this pace the drawback is we’re most of the time pulling the whole group on the flats and therefore not really riding with the group anymore.
The more I am thinking about dynamic pacing, the less it makes sense to me.
As an example I may throw in my particular current situation. I am building back from surgery. As such I shouldn’t go higher than a given HR threshold at the moment. In order to select the appropriate pace partner, I am therefore adding by default the 10% (e.g. Bowie at 3.6 would be too much but 3.2 would be ok, therefore I am falling back to Charlie at 3.3 - which is by the way no fun because the Makuri groups are usually tiny) and at this pace I am always at the front of the group pulling during the steady workout. This is not what riding in a group is like.
As a final thought, I wonder what would be the outcome of a popularity test of dynamic vs static pace partners. Indeed it seemed to me back then that users had a bias towards easier routes / efforts, i.e. for example groups on Tempus were bigger compared to those when riding on Sand & Sequoias with the same pace partner. I therefore wonder if dynamic pace partners – which are a bit harder to follow - would be the choice of most users at all. What would be the outcome in terms of popularity of having at the same time on the same route (e.g. one of them on a reverse loop) both pace partners, one being static and one dynamic?
4 Likes
Can’t think of reason why there couldn’t/shouldn’t be both types available, other than to prevent ending up with… lots of them.
1 Like
Iv’e been trying the pace rides this week.
Why is it I always get dropped going downhill despite my Pace being higher than the pace partner?
I can never seem to catch up again.
I’m guessing that you’re relatively light in weight?
That’s my usual problem too. Or it was.
Now I pre-empt reaching the summit of the climb, get it in a nice big gear and get some decent speed going before the PP can come barrelling past me. It’s much easier to do that and have to back it off a bit than reacting to the PP riding away from you while you’re still spinning away.
It’s just a matter of getting into the rhythm of the thing as well, really.
Since the latest changes it’s back to being very difficult to stay with Pace Partner group on descents for lighter riders was much better previously
Define “latest changes” please.
Morning I can’t find the post from yourself a week or so which stated there would be a change to PP speed on gradients.
I haven’t made any changes in the last month or so to gradient pacing until today (from 8am UK).
It’s still the same +10/-20% on up and down, but it’s more incremental (3/6/10% for 1/2/3% gradient increase).
it is relatively difficult, but i don’t think dynamic pacing has anything to do with it, since descending in any group of riders is a pain in the ■■■■ when you are sub 60kg. and i say relatively because i’ve only ever used sub 3wkg pace partners
ok my mistake the last two rides with Coco have felt much harder especially descending than previously since dynamic pacing was introduced and for reference I’m a light CAT A
Which route(s)?
I did a 90 min ride with Coco on “Figure 8” on Saturday (2nd July).
I averaged 2.58 W/kg @ 57.8 kg/127.4 lbs (~80% FTP) and 136 bpm (~85% LTHR) and I’m a low-C cat.
Granted “Figure” 8 isn’t all that hilly, but I never struggled to keep up.
It would of also been Figure 8 Watopia it’s not so much a case of not being able to keep up but having to push efforts above 4 w/kg to stay with the group should not be required in my opinion to stay with C Bot.
To stay with the group, or to stay with the bot (big difference). Every time I’ve ridden with Coco there is invariably a big group that always wants to push the pace off-the-front, and sometimes they can end up way ahead of the bot.
Even with Dynamic Pacing, Coco’s output should only vary between 2.75 W/kg (uphill) and 2 W/kg (downhill), that’s roughly 179 W to 130W.
I always stay with the BOT don’t see the point of joining a BOT then creating a breaking away group