Allow race organizers to choose if they want to exclude people on dumb trainers. Enforcing controllable would also allow enforcing minimum TD (up to and including 100%).
Why should it only apply to A+? This guy was cheating to win ZRL B-races (but WTRL refused to take action), people do EPO to win IRL cat 4 races.
You could also enforce limits on the brand of controllable trainer, as some of them can’t simulate the same percentages as others, and therefore people on the lesser controllable trainers would be seen as cheating compared to people on better trainers. Best to be able to exclude them too.
Well I reported this rider for 4 consecutive weeks and absolutely nothing happened. Please do not tell me that you think this person’s performances are legitimate.
Im sure I remember seeing DC Rainmaker say, trainer simulation is also impacted by the weight of the user, hence the claimed 20% or 25% isnt actually that accurate.
Perhaps it was GP Lama - Basically the same person, kind of.
Slope, video, VR and GPS
All Tacx bike trainers are spec’d with a maximum incline value. This value is calculated with a body weight of 65 kg (143 lbs) in reference to the “strength” of the resistance unit when cycling with 10 km/h (6 mi/h). It is important to understand that when your body weight is higher compared to the 65 kg (143 lbs), the maximum incline the trainer is able to simulate will be lower.
It is not about the controllable function it is about a spinning bike that is super inaccurate.
Inaccurate is not the word it is not even in the ballpark.
We have a spinning bike with a stages PM and it’s just as accurate as a controllable trainer. Infact it could be more accurate because it measures real strain with strain gauges and not a mathematical question like most smart trainers.
One thing that might help is automatically suspending race entry for riders who repeatedly activate the cone of shame (in a race or not). Just let them know that their equipment is faulty and can’t be used in races. The cone of shame also needs some tuning. Based on that video, the power required to trigger it is apparently too high and it takes too long.
Didn’t riders with grossly inflated power numbers get the “missed your pro calling” message and were filtered?
This guy holds 600 watts for quite awhile.
Look at the racer’s history from last year on zwiftracing.app, it appears to be the same account with a modified name. The older events have results with the previous name. Looks like history was purged on ZwiftPower but zwiftracing.app remembers. The name “R H” was also used in some events.
Why does it take 15 min for this to pop up?
Zwift should have a variable observation time and if a rider is exceeding normal physiological parameters, end their race and show the warning
This guy was obvious in 3-5 min.
Warning pops up and he should have gone invisible and have no placing.
If you go through his history on the Companion app, he didn’t post extraterrestrial power immediately, but he had enough of a paper trail where he should have been immediately stopped.
His first race looks like March 27, 2023, shortly after joining Zwift. He won the E cat (albeit only rider in the cat), and he reported 5.0 W/kg. It’s a short race, 8 minutes. That number is very high, but not extraterrestrial. I can understand why he wasn’t immediately flagged. March 28, he did another short race, similar power. This time he raced the Bs, but he doesn’t appear to be on the results sheet. Perhaps that means he got removed in-game?
However, on April 26, 2023, he won the A race at 6.6 W/kg for 26 minutes - that’s EPO-era power. On May 5, 2023, where he won the C race (what happened to cat enforcement?). He’s on the results sheet in game for both. However, on May 3 and May 11, A race for both, he appears to have entered but he wasn’t on the in-game results sheet. So, is something working inconsistently? He’s also done a bunch of solo rides and group workouts at extraterrestrial power since May 11. So he is still out there.
There was a paper trail for this guy starting April 26, but it appears to have worked inconsistently.
