Clearly, you’ve misunderstood, as others often do. My comments are directed towards those MANY OTHER RIDERS, besides your kind-self, who DO have an interest in pursuing the drops multipliers. The skills one develops in staying at a particular position within the peloton are essential to many other activities (including racing) in Zwift, especially for newer riders. With the new HUD options, our screens can certainly be made less cluttered, though it’s not at all clear whether the “Rejoin” message is included in those options. I’ve joined others in the past suggesting that the PP zone drops zone be expanded. One of the recent changes made the drops zone size variable, and speculated to be a function of group size - but, as usual, Zwift has not really shed any light on this whatsoever. Given the new group dynamics AI updates (which are still quite broken), most skilled riders would be able to maintain a steady distance ahead of the PP, without violating the drops zone (and activating the message that annoys) - but ONLY IF we are provided with proximity data that’s meaningful. Even while maintaining position at the front of the peloton, there’s quite a big difference between how far you are ahead of the PP when the PP is at the front of a given peloton, and when she is at the rear. Worse still, there is no relation between the distance ahead at which that annoying message pops-up, and the distance at which the message stops and the drops-multiplier clock is re-enabled. At present, riders are simply not provided with the animation and data necessary to adjust our position accordingly.
Surely, one who makes such an observation has not spent sufficient time with the Pace Partners. It’s been clear since their October launch that the PPs are indeed affected by the often erratic behaviors of all the other riders in the same manner as a non-robotic participant. I’ve not yet confirmed the behavior changes suggested in the original poster’s feedback. I’d like to hear from those who actually and extensively tested the ride experience under both circumstances, so that I might compare it to mine own.
Mixed metrics leads to wrong conclusions/assertions. It’s not valid to compare speed with W/kg without taking myriad other factors (bike frame selection, road geometry and surface, rider size etc.) into account. It’s always been quite possible to ride at a lower power output (W/kg) than the PP or a given ride lead. You will probably find that your speed will be on the order of 3-5kph slower than the C category Pace Partner if riding solo at the same power output “in the wind”. Likewise, if you are dropped by a group doing 2.5W/kg, and you maintain 2.5W/kg, starting at say 500 meters astern of said group, the distance between you and that group AT THE SAME POWER OUTPUT, will continue to open/lengthen for the entire remaining duration of the ride, as a result of the “game physics”.
In my woeful experience with group rides on Zwift, the number of ride leads that maintain a consistent power output akin to a PP (NO - NOT average or weighted average or normalized power) can be counted by the fingers on one hand. The always-on, always-open consistent group ride experience offered by the PP is a terrific option, especially now that the routes have expanded.
Positioning oneself so far ahead of the PP that the nagging on-screen “rejoin” function goes away seems defeat the purpose of riding with the PP in the first place. Funny how many times the “close the gap” reminder (including a distance!) pops-up in the same location as the previously VERY useful PP proximity animation. I submit that providing the rider with an always-on analog indicator as to one’s relative position to the PP would eliminate most, if not all these nagging complaints.