Yeah, I agree with Flint, the value proposition of the pace partners is quite clear: a group ride on demand. The bot itself is really just an anchor around which a group forms, not really something like motopacing or anything. (Of course it depends on the bot and everything.) I personally prefer to ride in front of Coco as it is generally easier to draft there, plus far enough forward you also get rid of the distance to pace partner nagging… Zwift’s pack dynamics add a fair amount of unpredictability to the experience especially behind the bot, as can be seen from the random surges the bot makes (at constant power) every now and then.
As for the social aspect, I for one certainly find the chat around Coco active enough, even to the point that I sometimes turn it off. (The inane comments from the bot itself and frustration from the inability to follow the chat anyway because of the messages obscuring each other certainly contribute to this.)
Right, the pace bots are more social than just doing a workout or riding on your own. So I don’t see how they would water down the Zwift brand… They are using technology to make biking more interesting - and anything Zwift can do in that regards is fair game in my opinion. You can jump in and out whenever you want, no scheduling issues and there will always be a lot of people there (except in A Bot where you might be on yer own :)).
Now we can argue on whether the bots should pace themselves a certain way or not etc, but from what I’ve read here, the consensus is folks would rather more bots than fewer.
So my feedback if you are asking is none of the below .
I would like a pure pace bot that just set me a pace I could use in a workout context .
Fully apprecaite that is not actually what we have and tryanny of popularity means it was inevitable that it would become what is it and like you I think it has as a result found itself a niche as you say as an easy to join up group ride and perhaps what should happen it is properly named , call it what it is . Because even users like me who would want a pure pace bot feature see this feature as valuable , engaging and fun ( its just not pacing) .
Otherwise any feature discussion to build a training focused pace bot , as opposed to this populist community thing is going to be derailed before it even starts .
In the past it was easy to dismiss training features because Zwift had a single core objective , turbo training in a social context . But does that mean anything that cant be slotting into social is dismissed or perverted into a “social” doppleganger of the original idea ? If that is the case then Zwift acquiring Traineroad is going to see any value in that quickly lost . Zwift IS at least attempting to go beyond its original single product appeal , certainly putting effort into training type features . So suggest here the answer probably lies in catering as broad a specturn of platform uses as possible . If Zwift just relies on feature support by democracy , the 51% wins and we all have to buy into that and the 49% who wanted something else get nought … sooner or later everyone finds themselves accumulating a lot of experience being one of the 49% , and its always the case that get 100 things right and then 1 think wrong and its the 1 think wrong that rises to the surface .
In short , just because popular use of the pace bot is to do X , that does not mean it should be morphed into that “by popular demand” .
I guess the architecture choice of client-side rider positioning makes personal pace bots a lot more difficult to implement in Zwift compared to other platforms.
You haven’t been Zwifting long enough Back when Zwift debuted, there were blue guys or bots everywhere, not every cyclist was a “real person.” That is the “DNA of Zwift”.
Does it ? You can have meet ups which you ride with another real rider , in “reasonable” isolation ( Yes I know that its just hiding the rest of the riders and suspect you probably still get draft effects etc ) . Nonethe less Its not difficult to conceive for example to make a meet up with a virtual rider who holds a set pace or output .
It’s not the isolation that is the issue, but rather that you basically need a full instance of the Zwift client running somewhere (yours on your own computer, your friends each on their computers etc.) for each avatar you see on-screen. (Of course in a world where Zwift could do multi-threading, running more than one of those on a single machine would be no big deal, but…)
For the same reason, aren’t the bots still being run on actual Zwift clients, only now in a server room somewhere instead of some employee’s personal machine like in the beginning?
On that note, they are not a finite resource, we just only have 4 now.
I don’t see why zwift couldn’t (try) to hit all the wants from people with multiple bots or bots doing different things in different worlds, we could have 10 or 15 different bits, some social, some training (course or variable pace) some doing recovery.
How we are 3 or 4 years into the pace partners being used and there is not a sub hour PP for the Alpe il never know - talking about missing an open goal.
I’d love to see a PP that gradually increased pace over an hour, going up .2 or .5 every 10mins and then resetting on the hour…
You take the challenges that people seem to want to achieve and build PP to help them doing that, it doesn’t have to just be social… at times I’d rather there was less social interaction with the some of the inane chat that we have to witness (yes I know i can disable it, but why should I lose all chat because some people think they are ride leader/captain on a virtual platform)
I think they were back in the early day but surely they are running on Simulant or something at least now if not properly embedded . I remember they did have to get “restarted” after a while , but dont think they do that now they run 24/7 ?
This is a brilliant idea. I love the concept of Pace Partners as a training tool to help achieve a particular cycling goal. I think a lot of people would have benefited from that on their first attempt at Alpe or their first really long ride in Zwift. I think that is what I fundamentally dislike about the feature today- it feels like a half baked feature rather than a workout tool with a clear reason to exist.
Imagine if the annoying chat was replaced with helpful suggestions for achieving the goal and advance notice of any pace changes. There could even be Welcome Partners for those new to Zwift that could highlight how to use certain elements of the UI and maybe even some fun things about the inspiration for a course.
You got me there Lin. I joined Zwift after Jarvis Island. I had forgotten about the blue ‘people’.
I still would argue one of the most compelling parts of Zwift are the real people on the other side of the screen from around the world. I’ve really come to value that in the past few years due to the pandemic.
I started riding on Zwift when I broke my collarbone just to keep fit. I soon discovered the amazing community of riders and some exceptional real ride leaders. I know people have different reasons for using Zwift and sometimes that reason may change with each session. I just really think Zwift has something amazing with all the group rides and ride leaders- and I feel they aren’t celebrated enough.
I personally love riding with the C and B pace bots.
The vast majority of my zwifting is either workout/ structured training for fitness or race improvements or group rides and races that I know will test me…… kind of like a back door 20 min effort.
So I use the pacers as a recovery or endurance tool without boredom setting in.
If I do an hour of ERG for recovery at a wattage that keeps my HR low and legs spinning it’s harder mentally than just sitting with the C bot where I can ride the same but also have to think about staying in the pack.
Likewise for an endurance session, sitting in Erg and doing a blue block of constant effort is harder for me than spending time with the B bot where the little fluctuations give micro rests but the same /similar overall workload
I do often find as I’ve stated before that I can end up creeping out of the group and getting the “let the bot catch up” message on hills as I’m on 68kg so a slight surge is welcomed by me on the ups so I can remain in the pack.
Yeah, anyway, I think while 20 or even 50 different bots might be in the cards, being able to spec and run your own bots on Zwift probably isn’t going to happen without overhauling the basic architecture of the platform. Unless you DIY one with a second account, an extra computer, an ANT+ simulator and maybe a dash of EULA violation, that is…
I’m not sure what to make of the Makuri bots on off days, should they be deployed in one of the active guest worlds instead or is it a good alternative for anyone looking for a pace bot without having to deal with a blob.
I cant help but think when somebody mentions a personal bot that wouldn’t it be the same as riding in ERG mode at whatever watts or wkg that you want? Instead of following a bot you are watching the watts to keep pace.
Maybe you aren’t in the right group, I’ve seen lots of conversations in those pace partner groups, even to the point of some people sending nasty private messages because they don’t like the discussion and want everything silent.
Even in A group I’ve seen discussions. Also B group there are discussions. C group certainly every morning.
What could also work is pace partners operating in a interval like format - they increase pace for a bit, then ease off to let everyone recover.
We haven’t seen the bots run by the big Zwift related websites getting stopped yet…
Then you actually would be looking at the watts to keep pace as mentioned. On a smart trainer, you really don’t have to look at anything in ERG mode. Just pedal with your eyes closed if you want and the trainer will feed you the difficulty you’ve set.
Back when Zwift debuted, there were blue guys or bots everywhere, not every cyclist was a “real person.” That is the “DNA of Zwift”.