Power-less trainers always #1 on leaderboards?


(Will Wardy) #1

I’ve noticed lately that all the top times in the leaderboards are achieved on non-power based trainers (lighting bolt absent). If you can’t verify the output, it doesn’t seem right that power-less trainers even register on the same leaderboards. Shouldn’t there be two different classifications?


(Anthony Cree (STC)) #2

Yes. Or an asterisk noted instead of a lightning bolt.


(Victor Schepisi) #3

Most likely a beta thing, I bet when Zwift goes $ they will separate somehow. I use a Stages and sometimes a CycleOps PowerSync and my power output is very similar but If I use a Mag trainer on easiest setting with speed I bet I could 27+mph all day long.


(Mick Neal INTENT - (C)) #4

Yeah, pet peeve of mine. I think they should pick a pro level time plus a margin and exclude all efforts that go over that as well as excluding non-power trainers.


(Ron Sines [odz] B) #5

power doesn’t need to be on the trainer, it could be any power meter to get the lightning bolt on Strava.


(Jon Wallace) #6

Agreed - seems silly that Zwift allows this - they should copy TrainerRoad and have lots of trainers with reistance settings for manual turbos - I ride a CycleOps Mag and can struggle away on hardest resistance - or stick it on easiest and fly along at 450watts… silly really!


(Jeremy Brazeal AETNA R/T (A)) #7

Zwift is based on weight, power and cadence which equals speed. If all of this is set up properly and accurate it does not matter what you are using. The only difference is riders without resistance do not have to shift as often. The issue is it is essential that the riders weight is correct. But, this is not set up dependent and will record in accurate readings regardless of the set up. The issue is more likely that elite level riders will be on more traditional training devices such as rollers. Either way, I am new to ZWIFT and I have already noticed a lot of riders who based on their numbers would drop Contador or More appropriately Lance Armstrong in his hayday.


(David Hewes) #8

Yep…carrying 450+ watts for 1 hour plus rides is just a tad bit over the top, considering the pros are in the 300+ for the same time.


(Jeremy Brazeal AETNA R/T (A)) #9

I witnessed the same thing last night. guy averaging 4.5w/KG for a while then kickin it up to 9w/kg for a long period to end with a solid minute at 11w/kg. Honestly, I dont care much, just annoying because it is not physically possible and he was in the KOM jersey and appeared to be a high level in the game so he has been doing it for a while. It was very entertaining to watch the hilarious comments from the other riders as he flew by. That is an important part of a community self-regulating using in game comments and Strava comments. Personally, I feel that since we have been given the gift of testing this product we should respect that and be honest, but that is just me. To each his/her own just know we all know what is really going on. Plus, no legitimate cyclist will have a training plan like that on a Monday night. :slight_smile:


(Mark Handel) #10

Think it would be possible to add a roll down test to ensure that riders without power are set up correctly?  For example, have the rider get up to 20 MPH and then instruct them to stop pedaling. Measure the time it takes to get to 0 MPH.  If set up correctly, the time for their specific trainer would be approximately X seconds. Too long, need to tighten the back roller or pump up the tire.  Too little, the opposite.  This would just be a sanity check – there are too many variables at play to think it’s too accurate. And it would also require that you know the roll down characteristics for the supported trainers (which could be tough) but it might help make some of those numbers more sane.  Maybe you can only be on the leaderboard if you’ve gone through the roll down test…just a thought.


(Christopher Pallotta) #11

I think a spindown is the way to go, but this could still be circumvented. A rider would just need to loosen tension after the spindown.

Also, a lightning bolt for power is helpful, but not a panacea. Including Kickrs, power meter readings vary as much as +/- 35 watts.

Remove smart trainers, though, and just rank people with real power meters and things will start getting pretty accurate. The weight could still be doped, but this would be the closest to apples-to-apples performance you could get with Zwift.

But, that’s not going to happen.  


(Shawn Collison) #12

The issue seems to be people lying about their setup i.e.weight, which they can do with a power meter or smart trainer. If people want to cheat, they will find a way.