I’m no expert, but the sticky watts is a software issue with Zwift I think? Zwift holds the power number thinking it might be a signal dropout rather than someone sprinting and coasting every 5 seconds… perhaps MW has solved that with their software?
2 Likes
Or perhaps they found out that well installed, correct setup and calibrated pedals are better than smart trainers …
2 Likes
Particularly when they’ve got a protocol to transmit the setup and calibration status of those pedals.
And MW already has very thorough data analysis built into it to check for discrepancies. They claim they can tell if a different rider is using an account based on subtle differences in pedalling styles.
Zwift at it’s core is a platform built for a bunch of friends to ride together when the weather is bad. It’s designed for inclusiveness, not competition.
2 Likes
Only the NEW Version of Assioma PRO Duo Pedals will be good for racing in MW and not the old versions.
PS.: You also don’t have Sticky Watts in Zwift with this pedals.
2 Likes
How new is new ? I bought mine last year. They good ?
If you have PRO version.
Aha I see. I have the Assioma Duo and not the Pro’s.
Quite a big investment though. Mine were 469 euro and I thought that was a lot, but the Pro’s are 700 euro here.
They are 700€ everywhere until Black Friday 
I dont think I am going to bother. Not riding on Mywhoosh and my level is so not important enough to make such pedals a slight improvement and in no way I see Zwift ever makes this mandatory.
But funny though that (some) pedals are considered better than smart trainers now. Probably because they send more data they can check, but it makes you wonder if installed and set up correctly and calibrated before every ride, the bit more cheaper ones or even power cranks might be just the same and trainers arent as good as we all think, or like to think.
In many cases the power meter pedals are just as good as smart trainers. They’re also really easy to manipulate, and zwift isn’t set up to check the settings like MW are doing. So for zwift, making the trainer the primary power source makes more sense
1 Like
This is correct - until Zwift can publish slope and validate crank length
So probably for a long time
If at all. Zwift looks like to have given up on Elite racing and focusses more on the social aspect of it. Like Tom clearly wrote :
“Zwift at it’s core is a platform built for a bunch of friends to ride together when the weather is bad. It’s designed for inclusiveness, not competition.”
And I doubt they will ever build some kind of elite racing ever again and wont force those rules on all of the other paying customers with their regular events.
So I guess it all up to the race organizers to keep it fair and dont expect much from Zwift.
And that MW is for the organized and controlled fair racing eventhough that might cost some extra euro’s before you are even allowed to join.
1 Like
The 3 second average thing is pretty much a red herring.
When set in Zwift its just a visual thing- the data is still sampled at 1Hz which is what companion shows.
As for the other stuff - if you have issues with a racer in a race, contact the organiser.
What I dislike very much is a group of individuals contacting riders from other series and telling them they have to verify their numbers to them and pushing for evidence or they will be branded cheats.
That is very much something that has happened in the past and it is just not acceptable to me.
I’m all for clean racing, bullying random riders, no, thats not on.
2 Likes
The problem being pedals are user installed most of the time - if not installed properly they are just plain wrong.
Yeah, as I keep saying to a lot of people, eracing has to run on a certain level of trust.
The “I want everything ultra-clean” crowd need to realise that for that reality, every race would require someone to visit every participant and watch them race, having verified their height,weight, setup, game settings, internet connection, etc.
Its not feasible. There will be changes coming to the ecosystem that will get us to a better place than the wild west, but we will never - at least for anything lower than very elite racing - will rely on trust and with that you have to accept that there will be some committed folks who just want to cheat.
You also have to remember that many people just turn away from racing when they have to do extra power tests, weight and height stuff. If it becomes mandatory then you will be left racing with half as many opponents as now too.
3 Likes
The low hanging fruit that I wish would be pursued is more like the “I just lost 20kg in one day” type of problem, not the trainers. If things were more or less consistent then I don’t really have a problem with it, though I accept it is more of a problem at the highest levels. Down where I am with the mere mortals, I don’t really care as long as someone doesn’t suddenly become 10cm shorter.
4 Likes
I don’t disagree with that, but Zwift also currently “tolerates” account sharing. Accounts which yo-yo daily between two different sets of metrics quite far apart.
Right or wrong, thats a decision for zwift, we just have to live with their decisions on how they handle things like that.
And again, I would say, there are people who would cry foul if they saw big weight / height / ftp changes and accuse people of cheating - when they just account share.
Really, as a racer and part-time organiser I’m not against far better tools and assistance in making racer cleaner and more accurate, just pointing out that a lot of the so-called easy solutions only work in very limited situations and begin to fall apart when everything is considered.
I think it’s OK to remove those people from results, tell them to contact support, or even give them a time out from racing for some time while informing them of the need to maintain reasonable height and weight values. I don’t get really worked up about it, but it does reduce my interest in Zwift racing, aside from club ladder which has become the majority of my race events because I trust the organizers to handle things a bit better. Currently we have no way to remove a rider from in-game race results, they can just do it again as they please with zero consequences. If you can be 90kg in a flat race and the next day be 60kg on a climbing race, that’s not a good look.
1 Like
Just me being curious, can you give them a ban for future races organized by you ?
You can remove them from ZP as organizer right ?
For ZP you more or less are doing it manually per race, so you would need to maintain a list of pre-DQed riders (at least back when I used ZP it could be different)
Its also not ideal as they end up being in the race and affect it. From experience some riders don’t care if they appear in ZP results, they do what they do and just care about the result there and then anyway.
There are some tools to prevent riders joining races, but that is also not fully formed at scale either.
Plus, if one organiser does block riders from racing/results, say it was because of equipment failing, you then need a process for them to appeal to be unbanned and for someone to hear the appeal, etc, etc.
I think that is maybe another thing overlooked - you can solve some of these things - but you need the time and people to do it too.
2 Likes