Has anyone been interested in adding a column showing what people are riding on for racing ? This would also give some credibility to the results showing you are actually using a setup that produces an accurate power signal to Zwift. Unfortunately I cannot seem to be able to get Zwift to actually communicate with my WattBike Atom X to verify it directly so it would probably have to be a manual entry. Obviously it would be better if Zwift actually knew what your setup was for the ride.
To some degree Zwift do. The fit file often contains details of the sensors and devices that generated the data. But processing and showing that would be of very minor value and says nothing about accuracy - the most accurate pedal sensors can be setup with the wrong crank length.
It would even be interesting to show in the rider details on companion app while someone is riding more than just “Smart Trainer”, for instance Wahoo Kickr Bike, Tacx Neo, etc.
Zwift can see that in the pairing menu.
If you look at the history of dual recording across a wide variety of devices, then you will realize that all trainers and smart bikes can be good or bad on accuracy. The wattbike is infamous for either being perfectly accurate or 20% out. Hammers’ vary in accuracy based on belt wear. Kickr’s are impacted by cadence.
Assioma’s and other pedals can have sloped power or fake crank lengths etc.
Dual recording is the best approach to this, and you have the ability to add your duals on the analysis tab.
No. Until there is one standarized meassurement where all trainers have to set up their trainers/powermeters, pedals it has no use to know what people are using since every manufacturer can now do as they like.
And you will see that even two exactly the same setups give out different powers.
I was more interested in people using vastly different products, not exactly the same setups. The WattBike is within 1%, there are possible setups with far less accuracy. It was just the knowing what people are using for the power signal that would be of interest.
The WattBike cannot be 20% out unless the load cell has gone faulty. I repair and calibrate the strain gauges in them over here in New Zealand. Even a rough calibration of just the span is 5% accuracy before you run it through the calibrator.
1% of what ?
I’m realizing the 3 notable 20%'ers were on stages bikes. So I have unfairly thrown shade at the wattbike there…
Regardless duals over device trust.
1% power accuracy, i.e. the Watts reported to Zwift. The Wattbike Atom X is about as good as it gets. Hope that’s clear enough. Unless the Wattage reading is accurate, its a bit pointless really.
But there is no world wide standard meassurement for power meters as far as I know. So each manufactorer can and does guess what is about right. That is why there is so much difference between them all. A kilo is a kilo, there are standards for that. For powermeters there still isnt one on which all companies must comply.
So that 1% might also be wrong. and with this the dual recording has not much use. All it says is that two devices are meassuring the same, but not if that same is correct.
There are differences power meters, but (as the name says) they are MEASURING power. I am not the expert here, but having SRAM, Power2max and Tacx Neo 2 showing ±2% (double measuring) I believe the numbers are ok.
A Watt is a Watt, it is standard unit, too:
Yes, this article says power meters can be inaccurate, but says also the discrepancy begins with comparison of more power meters.
If double (or triple) recordings show the same Watts, you can trust it - these are the real Watts.
It just show they have the same watts, not if those watts are true.
If you put two exactly the same setups in two rooms
One room is 5°C and the other room is 30°C.
You will not get the same results from those two. Eventhough their multiple meters will align.
But which one is true ?
There are so many factors that can influence the readings.
The standard is WATTS that’s a worldwide recognised metric. The accuracy comes from the level of engineering applied to get it and the calibration accuracy. Note that the accuracy is also directly related to your CADENCE so that has to be very accurately measured at the same time.
The biggest problem is COST and you simply do not get decent results from cheap equipment.
The whole idea was a simple column to display what level of equipment a rider was using.
The bigger problem is that ZwiftPower is minimally maintained so you should not expect any nice-to-have features added to it, ever.
With your arguments you can doubt everything - does a thermometer show the real temperature?