I’ve been testing Zwift for over a month now and have to admit that I really start to like it. I hope it keeps evolving into something even better!
I am riding on a Kurt Kinetic Road Machine and using a speed/cadence sensor for virtual power/z-power. Back when I started there were quite some topics about its power readings being rather low and irregular. I even posted some CP-curves comparing data from zwift to readings from other software like goldencheetah. I hoped that this would have been addressed before getting out of beta.
Unfortunately I didn’t experience any significant improvements on this. Power readings are still quite low (in comparison to virtual power in other programs) and very irregular.
Today I tested what power readings I would get when selecting the other supported turbo trainers on Zwift (still riding my Kurt Kinetic of course). I used 2 ANT+ devices, one for GoldenCheetah and one for Zwift. I tried to have a constant power output of +/-155W on GoldenCheetah and compared with Zwift afterwards. As I kept my power output constant, the power profile of each trainer is irrelevant and Zwift should give me a constant (yet different) power reading as well. You can find the data (both power distributions and power data) over here:
The data series in pink are virtual power from GoldenCheetah, while the data series in other colors are the respective trainers on Zwift. I didn’t care about accuracy and just looked at precision. To my big surprise the Kinetic is the only trainer which lacks precision. You can clearly see that its power readings fluctuate a lot more than for the Cycleops and Travel Trac trainers…
I really think that getting the power profiles sorted out, and that way create a level playing field, should be of primordial concern before leaving beta. Otherwise this will be a huge dealbreaker for (I guess) a lot of us.
Really hope to see some improvements soon, keep up the good work!