LOL! “Normal” riders? The Pace Partners (PP) DO push a continuous, steady power output, but are as affected by the the “game physics” as much (if not more??) than every other rider. That’s why you see C. Cadence running through all parts of the peloton, sometimes at the rear, sometimes in the middle, and sometimes in the front. The PP reacts to the ABNORMAL, inconsistent and illogical power and speed changes of those around her. Pray tell: why do “normal” riders insist (almost universally) on increasing their power output on ascents? I consider “normal” behavior that of one who changes gears, keeps a steady cadence and power output, in all types of terrain. Want to do intervals? Do a workout. Want to do hill repeats? Go for it. But that is NOT the objective of these always-on, group rides. IRL, all riders go slower uphill than down!
We agree that the PP should be consistent . That is infact what we are discussing.
I think what might be in dispute if that is the experience we are getting . Its extremely hard to do this of course with the PP as its not a partnership its a group so the PP will be impacted for example by someone going in front of the PP and backing off and thus getting them affected by other parameters. (A fact you have highlighted yourself). So how have I tried to get what myself and others have highlighted .
The only time I have been able to fully understand how it works is when I get a PP solo on my own to properly ascertain what is going on . That has only been with A(ngela) . In this case with ME pushing exactly the same power up and down hills I will invariable have to back off up the hills or risk dropped the PP . Likewise on some flat sections I find I am having to push considerable HIGHER power output just to hold the wheel ( or to maintain the lead) as the case may be. Note the emphasis on some as there are places on the route that it happens each lap (in the case of Angela she defiantly upps the ante on the approach to the bridge on the volcano circuit and crossing the bridge back to the main watopria look).
I have tested this many many times ( not recently I have to admit in case any recent fixes or changes might have improved this ) and its repeatable and demonstrable.
I am not doing as you have said banging out higher power and wondering why the PP is being dropped that is clearly ridiculous for anyone to be claiming that was a problem with the PP. I(we) are pushing soild consistent paceline output that should allow for PP to hold wheel ( or hold pace) . That is not happening .
That is my experience .
No, it’s power I’m talking about. Let’s say I’m riding with C Cadence… She is at 2.5 consistently… uphill and downhill and flats. So I’d like say 2.5 on flats, 3.5 on uphills and say coast downhill. This would be more reflective of a normal ride.
“Normal” for you perhaps, but not normal for those who take their training seriously. Want to push power on the slopes? Fall back until you are just about to be dropped at the base of the climb and push all the power you want until you are at risk of running off the front. Fall back. Rinse. Repeat. It takes skill, concentration, and discipline to control your equipment such that you put out constant power, regardless of terrain geometry. Want more erratic power still? Enter the myriad Criterium races regularly posted. The Pace Partner experience is ALL ABOUT consistent power. Of course, the more riders who use the technique described above, are going to have the effect of changing the ride dynamic and behavior of the PP herself, who will be drafted by the other riders’ erratic behavior…
Coco at 2.5w/kg is fine, just keep riding until your legs go,
see how many cycles of the drops multiplier you can get through,
any surges you get caught in will give you intervals, 60 to 90 mins is a good workout,
if you ride most days 
So people who are serious about their training only ride at one pace? Must be a new training method I’ve never heard of. To be honest though I’ve only been training for 30+ years so I’m a bit new to it! 
Just joking, being serious I’ve no problem with doing a ride at a certain pace, I use the pace partners all the time for recovery or tempo workouts, but adding uphills and downhills is not conducive to it. Just keep them on the flat, but hey just my opinion.
+1 to that.
When you add uphills to a steady-state ride, you will always have those that want to race those hills.
Many a thing said in jest? The riders in the Pace Partner peloton are able to do all kinds of pace variations, if they wish. The point is, the PP should remain steady. You can do more than just tempo or recovery rides, too. Go Threshold! Do intervals. Go anaerobic. Here’s a recent ride I did where I incorporated HIIT anaerobic intervals with a PP session, never once leaving the drops zone.
The geometry of the terrain is meaningless to a skilled cyclist. That’s what gears (and changing them) are for! The PP puts out the same power on all terrain, and so can you. It’s a matter of focus. The fact that many undisciplined cyclists (not in a race) tend to automatically push more power on ascents, and free-wheel on descents is only indicative of their lack of experience and/or skill levels. If a rider is paying attention, she should be able to traverse ANY terrain and remain at the same cadence and power output, if she so chooses. C.Cadence has been intermittently running the Hilly Route, and it’s not causing any problems!
Bottom line: The Pace Partners should be traversing all the routes on Zwift. It’s up to the peloton group participants to build their skills and focus to stay with the pace. Or not. Have special requirements? Do a workout, or apply your needs within the confines of the PP as above. Want to push 10-20% more than the Coco pace, but not as much as Brevet, use a TT bike. These are the variables and tools available to the RIDERS. The PP should continue to behave like a metronome…
But, hey just my opinion.
Actually thinking about your input here and it got me thinking perhaps the issue is partly that the Pace Partner is being drafted by the Pack . If it was on a TT bike and NOT being drafted and thus maintaining at least on paper ( as I don’t believe it does current - see previous information) maintain a truer pacing velocity .
So sit the partner on a TT bike is perhaps all that is required to improve this aspect . (IIRC as it has been a few weeks sine I did pacing training the Partners sit on Tron bikes) .
See my reply below… The terrain, and the behavior of OTHER RIDERS is irrelevant to the desired behavior of the always on Pace Partner. Just as with the knuckleheads who sign on to group rides to then immediately violate the fence, and ride off the front, there will be those who will exceed the PP pace on the hills. So what? The issue centers around the behavior of the PP, not those who join the group for unknown reasons… When I climb the Alpe, which I do frequently, I go into workout mode and ride within +/- 10W of a target pace the whole way up. The terrain is irrelevant!
Are you sure about this . I am pretty sure the PP is affected by draft (e.g. other riders) .
Happy to be told otherwise if it is the designed otherwise .
Experience says that it does.
If I am solo with a PP I am able to draft it as well as be drafted by it . Suggesting it is the case.
I was actually shocked when, after having ridden with the PP for a few weeks, and running through 100W of power changes to keep with the pack, that I did a “just watch” of the PP and learned that they were spinning one cadence, one heart rate, one power output. Period. I was completely dumbfounded. YES - the answer to WHY the seemingly erratic behavior of the PP is precisely that: they ARE subject to the same “game physics” as every other rider. So the erratic behavior of riders in the peloton, can cause erratic behavior of the PP. And all kinds of other effects, related to just these issues. I’d certainly like to evaluate the PP ride experience with them on a standard TT bike. Strangely, though, the more I rode with the PP, the more I came to appreciate other skills that were developing in Zwift concerning pack dynamics. And the big stochastic power changes played a known role in my structured training. When ZHQ recently downgraded the VERY useful proximity animation, I was really disappointed. The rate of closure of the PP on my position (or of me on hers) was now not available at most times. I came to learn that when one wants to stay in the PP peloton with the minimum of power changes, then one must make VERY SMALL incremental changes to one’s own power to adjust. However, this is NOT now possible, since Zwift got rid of the handy 7m proximity animation. I don’t object to the variable length of the “drops” zone, but I want to know WHERE in relation to myself the PP is at ALL times, in all views. And I want that animation back that shows rate of closure. This is what allows me to make tiny changes to adjust my pace, which in turn, has the LEAST feedback effect on the rest of the peloton. When everyone is making big power changes reacting to suddenly being overtaken by the PP, or the prospect of being dropped, then this causes follow-on effects to the rest of the peloton. It’s a positive feedback effect with negative consequences to peloton stability.
BTW, Imagine if we had a proximity animation in a racing environment? Being able to assign a proximity animation to a given competitor. Obviously, the tech is already present and has been demonstrated in the form of the PP. Cool!
OK so drawing some conclusions here from what we are all saying . Is there common ground on the improvement being to have the PP on TT bikes and that would negate the impact of erratic pack input ?
What do others think here ?
And yes it would be very useful to have a very precise proximity indicator too . (To make up for lack of 360 vision capability) .
It’s clear that Zwift uses the same AI for the “close the gap” draft animation that they used, unfortunately for only a couple of weeks with the January 2021 update (Bring back the PP proximity feature of update-1-0-61217/ !!!), for the PP drops zone proximity warnings. The rate of closure of the two icons on screen gave a rider instant analog visual feedback as to how fast the PP was overtaking (most experienced PP riders stay slightly in front…) It was terrific. Now one only gets an obstructed view of how far the PP is astern, and only in views 1-3, while the PP tag bounces erratically back and forth laterally across the bottom of the screen, and one’s power/HR, other riders’ tags, and turn indicators BLOCK this data. It’s horrid. And when the PP is forward of the rider, distance (and rate of opening) is unknown. Bring back the proximity indicator animation, in ALL views, at all times one is within the drops zone.
If you look carefully at all the PP feedback, you’ll note that more than half of the complaints concern something to the effect of “I don’t know where the PP is…” We don’t need to see the PP, we just need to know whether she’s ahead or astern, how far, and the rate of change.
Bring the animation back, Zwift!
The above is a screenshot from a recent ride I did with C.Cadence. She was on Hilly Route and I had just dropped into the peloton (1:10) when I was thrilled to see the animation pop-up just below the main HUD element in the center above the riders. Unfortunately, it was just a glitch (and, as you can see the animation didn’t have distance (m) info, either), and shortly thereafter I found myself 100 meters astern of the peloton, and had to push 100W over threshold to catch up! The animation never re-appeared…
There is a better way. Dozens of posters in this thread and others have commented about their inability to SEE the Pace Partner (PP). However, what you really need is a return of the proximity animation at the top of the screen, indicating whether the PP is ahead or astern, the distance, and the rate of change of that distance. As long as you’re within the now flexible drops zone, the animation should be visible. And the drops progress bar, which currently blinks in and out, should remain steady as long as the rider remains within the drops zone, without the “clock” turning on and off each time the drops bar comes in and out…
And, the x-drops progress bar should NOT come on when the rider is miles away from the PP, as happened to me the other day! LOL
The “B” category Pace Partner (PP) B. Brevet spins at precisely 3.2W/kg (which is just above the magical 3.14W/kg “Pi in the Sky” power/pace necessary for a sub-hour summiting of the Alpe). And YES - the PP should traverse ALL the routes in all worlds.
My understanding is that PPs were meant to be non-stop steady-state group ride leaders and that the reason why they originally were set to ride flat courses, was to give the riders a good group ride experience. There is a good reason why other steady-state group rides are mostly using flattish routes. The group is splitting because of the differences in rider weights on hills. So having the PPs ride at the same W/kg up and down hills might not be a good idea in that concern.
I understand that people can do whatever they want when riding with the PP, but IMO it degrades the group ride experience if you have some that drag the pace of the whole group up e.g. on hills. I don’t think the PPs can be made optimal for all purposes. Zwift should decide what it is meant to be and make it good at it. I don’t like group rides where the ride leader is riding at +0.5 W/kg above the announced W/kg, or if the group is splitting up right from the start because of flyers. It is about respecting the expectations set, in the description or elsewhere, and the time people have set aside with these expectations in mind.
I would suggest that Zwift optimizes the PPs for their purpose and not make one type that fits all. Some PPs could be steady-state group ride leaders, riding at different W/kg (as today) and others could be created as group workout leaders, doing common workouts/intervals.
The Pace Partners (PP) ARE always on, non-stop steady-state group ride “leaders”. However, Zwift did not choose flat courses “to give riders a good group ride experience”, but rather because of their knowledge of the mystifying and illogical practices of most non-professional riders (who are not racing) to unconsciously push more power on ascents, and less power on descents. Think about it: this is the erratic bit. It has nothing to do with rider weights (when taking the PP power ranges into account), but rather with the illogical behavior of the common rider. As riders became more and more accustomed to riding in this manner, the PP pelotons do NOT break apart on hills. And yes, C.Cadence has been traversing the Hilly Route for some time now. (See my image above within this thread). I’ve ridden in dozens of publicly available group rides, and to my experience, the one failure is that, by and large, they all tend to not only ride above the advertised pace level, but always above the described pace level on hills. I’m sick of hearing “Ease front, push rear” in every group ride experience. “Let’s regroup at the top of the hill”, they say. Well, they wouldn’t need to regroup, if they were to keep at the same pace throughout. A smart group ride leader would turn on ERG mode at the advertised pace level, and concentrate his efforts on building camaraderie and good banter. There is a demand for this: many people actually “talk” with the PP through chat means, as if expecting to get a response! The PP are eating the lunches of poorly managed group rides. If a group ride leader were to actually behave like a PP, but interact actively with the group, well, I see a niche to fill. Will the AI begin to respond to PP peloton members who say her name? Undoubtedly. Hi Coco! How are you today? How’s the weather in Adelaide? And they’ll get a response! And it won’t be, “Ease front”.
If you look more carefully, you’ll see that the actual experience with the Pace Partners is quite different than you describe. It’s the other riders, not the PP that’s influencing your “ride experience”. On hills, the Pace Partner usually lags to the rear of the peloton, because most of the inane riders are pushing MORE than the target power. Then, on descents, the PP has a tendency to roll out to the front of the peloton for the opposite reason (the other riders tend to free-wheel or ease power). On the flats, the PP is continuously moving to different relative positions within the peloton, precisely because of the erratic behavior of its riders. This is the main reason why a continuous proximity animation is required indicating where the PP is (ahead or astern), how far (in meters), and rate of closure (with icon rubber-banding). If you are at the front of the peloton, and the PP accelerates up to the front (as a result of game physics), there’s nowhere to go but into the wind without a draft, immediately degrading your performance. This is why C. Cadence is often reminding riders to “Take pulls, give ride-ons…!” LOL. You will see, given some practice, that if you make VERY small adjustments to your power (based on the feedback you’re getting from the proximity animation I propose should be ALWAYS ON), your power variations will be dramatically reduced, and your average (and normalized) power metrics will become the same as the PP (assuming your gear is properly calibrated, and you’re not weight or height doping). I recently did 100km with C.Cadence, and my power worked out to 2.49W/kg with a very smooth power graph.
Well, I rode with C. Cadence today on the Sand and Sequoias route. On the flats, the group was pretty tight. As soon as we started on the Titans Grove, the group stretched out into a line with gaps in between. I have a weight close to C. Cadence and was able to hold 2.5 W/kg together with C. Lighter riders could also hold 2.5 W/kg, but they rode faster. I don’t think they had a higher W/kg than me. When the downhill started, C. and I was faster than the lighter riders and was soon at the front.
The problem with riding at the same W/kg up and down is that this does not feel natural. We will unconsciously push a bit harder on the way up and easy a bit on the way down. Forcing us to not do what feels natural is the problem. You will never be able to change the way others ride hills, so it does not matter if you can create a smooth power graph if no one else does. The solution is to avoid hilly routes for PPs.