Zwift and Visible basic plan

Has anyone used Zwift by running through a mobile hotspot on the Visible basic plan? For my Visible basic plan internet connection, I get very different speed results from different internet speed sites - some within the 3mps/50ms specs that Zwift provides and others that are slower, particularly the latency. If anyone is successfully using Visible basic plan I would greatly appreciate any guidance. I am considering buying a Zwift Ride and need to use a hotspot connection due to location of my workout space. Thanks!

Hi @LeManchot and welcome to the forums!

Alejandro here from Zwift. Please know that as long as your internet meets the minimum requirements (bandwidth of 3 Mbps or higher, with a ping under 50 ms) you should be able to use Zwift without any issues.

If there is anything else we can help you with, please do not hesitate to write us at support@zwift.com.

It’s not really an answer to your question but if your workout space is connected to the same power panel as the location of your home networking gear, you should try using a powerline Ethernet adapter. Example:

Hi Paul, thanks for that idea and it probably would have worked but the power to the workout space is on an independent power service line (separate supply and meter). I’m hoping that there is a user out there that has the Visible basic plan and can confirm that the application is stable with that service. The frustrating thing is that every “speed” site that I try to determine my data rates/latency give different results, some being drastically different, particularly wrt latency. I don’t want to buy the Zwift Ride only to find that my hotspot does not have sufficient and stable data rates/latency.

The zwiftalizer.com website has a ping test on their menu that measures latency to the Zwift backend servers so you might try that. Zwift is not very demanding in terms of bandwidth but low latency is important.

Hi Paul, tested the Visible mobile hotspot performance on Zwiftalizer and had an average ping value of 175ms. This seems to be in range of expectations for a bunch of cities on the expectation chart provided below the measurement - but it is much higher than the Zwift spec of 50ms or below. Not sure what the Zwiftalizer is measuring relative to the Zwift spec.

Honestly I’d be pretty surprised if anyone in Europe gets 50ms due to the speed of light. It’s been a while since I’ve worked in the networking industry but that seems implausible when reaching an endpoint in the western US.

Yes, the Zwiftalizer chart shows expected values as follows: London at 165ms, Singapore at 200ms, New York at 90ms, and Seattle at 60ms. All of these values are greater than the Zwift spec and I assume Zwift works in those locations?

I just watched Zwiftalizer’s video about connection/graphics metric (entitled: Zwiftalizer Tutorial - a step-by-step guide on how to read the charts). In the “latency” section (at about 1:06:00) he says that the maximum allowable latency is about 300ms (three updates per second) to allow for a jittery, but palatable experience. Obviously, anything lower will improve smoothness and the response. This why, I think, the latency values in his chart for places like London, where many users have no issue with performance, are much greater than Zwifts spec of 50ms maximum. Not sure why Swift has such a low latency spec, but if Zwiftalizer is correct, a set-up with about 150ms should work fine. I’m not sure if this is a correct interpretation so if anyone has a different view I’d be grateful for your input.