We’ve also selected a video with a recap of the latest Zwifty news, a rider’s journey to climb the Alpe du Zwift at 6 w/kg, a review of the FTP Builder plan, and of course… more Zwift racing!

Got a Great Zwift Video?

Share the link below and we may feature it in an upcoming post!

Next, I published tests for banded Club Events on a climb: Alpe du Zwift, to be precise. These tests showed that banded Club Events are giving riders unrealistically fast speeds.

All that remains is to test climbing in banded Meetups and compare those results to climbing banded Club Events. Let’s get to it!

Testing Banded Alpe Meetups

The core questions I want to answer are: Do rubberbanded Meetup speeds make sense, or are they too slow, too fast, or some strange mix of both? And how do they compare to banded Club Events?

The riders in these tests were 75kg in weight, 183cm tall, and rode Zwift Carbon bikes with 32mm carbon wheels. I timed the riders on the Alpe du Zwift climb segment since it’s steep and long enough to be a good representation of climb performance.

Test 1: A Pair of Bots

This first round of tests used just two riders in a Meetup with “Keep Everyone Together” mode enabled. Here are each rider’s power outputs, segment times, and average speeds.

Observations

When both riders held the same power the times are similar to banded Club Event times, although the Meetup test results are always a bit slower.

But the big thing that stands out here is that these times are significantly slower than the banded Club Event tests when the riders have differing power numbers. The times you see above are roughly in line with what we see from ZwiftPower’s historical data on the Alpe du Zwift segment, if we base the time on the stronger rider’s power.

So it appears that banded Meetups are delivering fairly accurate speeds, at least for the more powerful rider in the group. (The weaker rider in, say, a 300W and 75W pairing will, of course, have an unrealistically high speed.)

Getting a bit pickier, it’s odd that our test riders turned in the same time whether the pair was doing 300W and 225W, or they were doing 300W and 75W. Logically, you would expect things to be at least a bit slower when the group’s average power drops considerably.

Test 2: Solo Rider

Next, I wanted to test how a solo rider in a rubberbanded Meetup performs compared to the paired riders above. So I created a Meetup with “Keep Everyone Together” enabled, but only had one rider join. Here are the results:

Compare those numbers above to free ride times with a solo rider (which should, in theory, be the same):

Observations

First, notice that when there is just one rider in the rubberbanded event, their speeds closely match the tests when we had one stronger rider banded to a weaker one. This is also what we saw with the flat tests for banded Meetups. They don’t perfectly match a free riding solo rider, but they’re close, and much closer than our tests with a solo rider in a banded Club Event.

Secondly, our solo banded Meetup rider was significantly faster than the solo banded Club Ride rider. This is just further evidence that the algorithm for banded Club Rides needs fixing.

Concluding Thoughts

These test results clearly show that “Keep Everyone Together” mode in Meetups behaves very differently from “Keep Everyone Together” mode in Clubs. Specifically, banded Meetups are markedly slower on climbs than banded Club events.

This is the opposite of what we observed in our flat tests of banded Club Events and Meetups. In those tests, banded Meetups were markedly faster than banded Club events.

But here’s the good news: on both flats and climbs, banded Meetups appear, at least from my limited 2-rider tests, to perform fairly realistically, in a way that all participants can enjoy. So Zwift may have a simple solution available that will greatly improve the current banded riding experience: instead of running two different banding algorithms (one for Club events, one for Meetups) just run one, and make it the one currently in use for Meetups!

But I’ll add one more recommendation to that: mark all banded activities as “gamified” when uploading to Strava, so segment times don’t go on leaderboards or count for personal PRs. This fixes the issue of lower-power riders setting PRs in banded events that they can never break when riding in a non-banded environment. Going even further, banded event times should also be hidden from in-game leaderboards, and shouldn’t be saved for segments or HoloReplays.

There Is Good News!

Zwift HQ has noticed these speed tests… and they’re working to improve the banding algorithm! Just this week I chatted with a Zwift software engineer about it, and it sounds like a solution may be released very soon. I may even get to test it before it’s released. Ride on!

Questions or Comments?

Share below!

“Rubberbanding” makes it easy to keep a group of cyclists together, and that’s a good thing, because any ride leader will tell you that keeping cyclists together without some artificial help can feel like herding cats!

Testing the Rubberbands

So how does Zwift’s “Keep Everyone Together” logic work? I’m not entirely sure, and Zwift isn’t revealing the secret sauce. So I’ve been running tests to find out what speeds rubberbanded riders reach at different power levels, in different event setups. For science!

The core question I want to answer is: Do rubberbanded speeds make sense? Are they too slow, too fast, or some strange mix of both?

My first tests were on flat ground in a banded Club Event. Then I did more flat tests, but this time using a banded Meetup. Today, we’re digging into our first banded climb tests, using a banded Club Event.

The riders in these tests were 75kg in weight, 183cm tall, and rode Zwift Carbon bikes with 32mm carbon wheels. I timed the riders on the Alpe du Zwift climb segment since it’s steep and long enough to be a good representation of climb performance.

Test 1: A Pair of Bots

This first round of tests used just two riders in a Club event with “Keep Everyone Together” mode enabled. Here are each rider’s power outputs, segment times, and average speeds.

Observations

The first thing that stands out here is how illogical the results are. Why would two banded riders holding 300W be 7 minutes slower than one rider holding 300W banded to a rider holding 75W?

This pattern repeats itself, too. When two riders match wattage, they turn in a much slower time than when the wattages are unmatched, even though the stronger rider’s wattage is the same in both tests.

That’s not to say the matched wattage times are particularly slow, though. They just seem slow because the unmatched wattage test times are way too fast.

For example: a solo rider holding 300W climbs the Alpe in 49:28. But a banded group with one rider holding 300W and the other holding 75W climbs the Alpe in 40:11!

The other odd thing is how the pair times don’t change as the weaker rider’s power decreases. (This same phenomenon was observed in our flat tests.) That is, when Rider 1 is holding 300W and Rider 2 is holding 225W, they’re traveling at the same speed as when Rider 1 holds 300W and Rider 2 holds 75W. That’s strange. Shouldn’t groups travel significantly faster if the group’s average power increases significantly?

Test 2: Solo Rider

Next, I wanted to test how a solo rider in a rubberbanded Club event performs compared to the paired riders above. So I created an event with “Keep Together” enabled, but only had one rider join. Here are the results:

Compare those numbers above to free ride times with a solo rider (which should, in theory, be the same):

Observations

First, notice that when there is just one rider in the rubberbanded event, their speeds are much slower than they would be when free riding. That’s goofy. The speed difference between a solo rider in a banded event vs free riding isn’t as dramatic on the Alpe as it was in our flat tests, but there is still a significant difference.

Also, notice how the solo tests all came in significantly slower than the paired rider tests, even though logically that wouldn’t happen.

Concluding Thoughts

Simply put, Keep Together mode is broken up Alpe du Zwift. Zwift supposedly slowed banded group speeds on climbs in their version 1.52 update, but based on the results above, speeds are still too high!

I’d love to see rubberbanding improved so it’s a more realistic experience, but we also think Zwift should consider flagging all banded rides as “Gamified” when uploading to Strava, so we don’t set new segment PRs thanks to unrealistically high speeds in banded rides. Holoreplay and other in-game PR data also should not be saved for banded events, and times should not show on leaderboards outside of the event itself.

Coming Up Next

Soon, I’ll perform similar tests using banded Meetups, to see if/how Meetup banding behaves differently from Club Event banding. Stay tuned!

Questions or Comments?

Share below!

Unfortunately, the Tri Spoke was misconfigured when it first launched, meaning it turned in super-slow times more on par with gravel bikes than road bikes (see original speed test results). Zwift fixed this issue quickly, though, rolling out the fix in the version 1.61 update that was released this week.

Once we downloaded the update, we went to work running fresh tests. Zwift has indeed reconfigured the wheels, but the star ratings didn’t change: they are still rated 3 stars for aero and 1 for weight. This illustrates how non-granular Zwift’s star ratings actually are. They simply aren’t precise enough to communicate actual in-game performance in a useful way for picky racers, so we ran the wheels through our battery of speed tests.

Here’s everything you need to know about the updated Tri Spoke /Disc Wheel’s performance in Zwift.

Aero (Flat/Rolling) Performance

Tri spoke + disc wheels are commonly seen on TT setups because they’re fast. So we expected Zwift’s new Tri Spoke to be pretty zippy on the flats.

The updated wheels aren’t anything to write home about, though. Despite looking quite aero, especially with that rear disc, the wheels turn in a test time of 50:53.5 on our test course, which is two laps of Tempus Fugit totaling 34.6km.

This is almost 3 minutes faster than the old misconfigured wheels (so that’s a big improvement), but also 19.5s slower than the 808/Disc wheelset, which is the slower of the disc wheelsets. The aero performance of the updated Tri Spoke is now within 1 seconds of the ENVE SES 6.7, Zipp 404, and Zipp 353 NSW wheels… all wheels that are better all-arounders than aero performers.

Climb Performance

Given the Tri Spoke’s 1-star weight rating and mid-tier aero performance, we didn’t expect great things on our Alpe test. We got what we expected.

The Tri Spoke // Disc Wheel turns in an Alpe climb time of 49:47, which is almost 2 minutes faster than the misconfigured Tri Spoke, but still quite slow. These are still the slowest climbing wheels in game, 8s slower up the Alpe than the next slowest wheelset (Zipp 808/Disc combo) and 33s slower than the best climbing wheels (the Lightweight Meilenstein and Roval Alpinist CLX.)

Note: all test results above are from a 75kg, 183cm rider holding 300W steady using the Zwift Aero frame.

Conclusions

The original Tri Spoke wheels were so slow that riders could easily sense their poor performance in races or RoboPacer riders. The updated wheels are much faster, so riders using them probably won’t notice a performance hit compared to other rigs.

That said, there is indeed a performance hit! The aero performance of these wheels puts them mid-pack, and they’re the Lanterne Rouge in climb performance.

These wheels are now useable for relaxed rides, but we can’t recommend them for racing.

Questions or Comments?

Share below!

One of Zwift’s unique features is the Companion app designed to run alongside the game and enhance the experience. While many Zwifters use it when they aren’t zwifting (to find events, chat with Club members, etc), it’s also commonly used while zwifting to interact with the game and chat with others.

Depending on your Companion device and Zwifting setup, though, the app’s connection to your active Zwift session may not be stable. This is annoying at the best of times, and race-ending if you’re pairing your devices through Companion!

Several months ago, we published How to Ensure Reliable Companion App Connection when Zwifting. (If you’re having troubles maintaining a steady connection between the game and your Companion app, I highly recommend reading this post.)

Then just a couple of weeks ago, our friend Mike Hanney at Zwiftalizer posted a helpful video with a few more tips that are definitely worth sharing. Watch it below, or scroll down for a summary:

Router Settings

• Turn off 2.4 GHz
• Set up media prioritization (aka “Quality of Service” or “Packing Shaping”)
• Get all your neighbors to turn of 2.4 GHZ as well

Phone Settings

• Turn off Cellular Data for Companion App and/or disable Wi-Fi Assist on your phone overall
• Turn on Device Connection in Companion Settings

Using Zwiftalizer To Troubleshoot Connections

Mike explains how to use Zwiftalizer‘s Connection Attempts chart to determine where in the signal chain your Companion app connection is getting dropped.

Pairing Devices In the Right Order

Zwift’s pairing screen behaves a bit oddly if you’re pairing multiple power sources (for example, a smart trainer and power meter pedals). Mike explains how to pair things up in this situation.

Companion App’s Bluetooth Dropout Device Indicator

If you’re connecting via Companion and have a dropout, the Companion app can tell you which device has dropped out. This information isn’t available anywhere else in Zwift, oddly enough, so Mike explains how to find it.

He also points you to the Trackit app, which can be used to get your signal strength from all your devices.

Questions or Comments?

Share below!

Read all the details >

The new Zwift Big Spin series has just kicked off, and many riders are joining the events in hopes of spinning and winning limited-time novelty unlocks. One of the most popular is the “Zwift Tri Spoke // Disc Wheel”. It’s an eye-catching wheelset and the first tri spoke in game, so many Zwifters are riding extra Big Spin events just for these wheels!

The new wheelset is rated 3 stars for aero and 1 for weight. But Zwift’s star ratings aren’t precise enough to communicate actual in-game performance in a useful way, so we ran the wheels through our battery of speed tests.

Here’s everything you need to know about the performance of the new Tri Spoke // Disc Wheel in Zwift.

Aero (Flat/Rolling) Performance

Tri spoke + disc wheels are commonly seen on TT setups because they’re fast. So we expected Zwift’s new Tri Spoke to be pretty zippy on the flats.

But it’s not. Far from it, in fact.

The wheels turn in a test time of 53:43 on our test course, which is two laps of Tempus Fugit totaling 34.6km. That makes them over 2 minutes slower than the former slowest wheels in game (the “Zwift Classic”). and 3 minutes and 18 seconds slower than the fastest wheels in game (the DT Swiss ARC 62 Dicut Disc).

Or, to put it another way: the Zwift Aero frame with these wheels turns in almost the same time on our flat test as a gravel bike and wheels.

Climb Performance

Given the Tri Spoke’s 1-star weight rating and terrible flat performance, we didn’t expect great things on our Alpe test. We got what we expected.

The Tri Spoke // Disc Wheel turns in an Alpe climb time of 51:40.5, which is 2 minutes and 12.5 seconds slower than our baseline (the Zwift 32mm Carbon wheels) and 2:26.5 slower than the best climbing wheels (the Lightweight Meilenstein and Roval Alpinist CLX.)

Note: all test results above are from a 75kg, 183cm rider holding 300W steady using the Zwift Aero frame.

Conclusions

We didn’t expect the Tri Spoke to be the fastest wheelset in game (Zwift-branded garage items are never top performers), but given how aero tri spoke + disc combos are IRL, we thought it would hold at least its own against other wheelsets. But that’s not at all the case.

Guessing that the dismal performance of these wheels was due to a configuration error on Zwift’s side, we asked Zwift if that was the case. And they said yes! The rear wheel has the wrong Crr setting, and this will be updated in the next Zwift update (which should release next week, March 19th, if they stick to their current schedule).

Until then, we’ll be duly impressed by anyone who can win a race on these wheels. Comment below if you’re brave enough to try!

Questions or Comments?

Share below!

Chief among the Big Spin unlocks, though, is the “Zwift Atomic Cruiser” – a tribute to “futuristic” mid-century bikes like the Spacelander. To be clear: there’s no way to purchase this bike. The only way to unlock it is to finish a Zwift Big Spin event and have the prize spinner land on the bike space, which is the lowest probability prize on the spinner.

Here’s how it is described in Zwift’s Drop Shop:

“Look up ‘joyride’ in the dictionary, and you’ll find a picture of The Atomic Cruiser – the first Grand Prize of The Big Spin. Stylish at any speed, this blast from the past is a classic speedster.”

This frame is rated 2 stars for aero and 2 for weight. But Zwift’s star ratings aren’t precise enough to communicate actual performance in game in a useful way, so we ran the Atomic Cruiser through our battery of speed tests.

Here’s everything you need to know about the performance of the new Zwift Atomic Cruiser frame in Zwift.

Aero (Flat/Rolling) Performance

The Atomic Cruiser may look like a super-aero rocketship, but unfortunately… it’s not.

Its test time of 51:43 means it is slower than every other road frame in game, apart from the mighty Buffalo Fahrrad. It is 21 seconds slower than our “baseline” Zwift Aero frame and 29 seconds slower than the fastest frames in game on our test course, which is two laps of Tempus Fugit, totaling 34.6km.

Climb Performance

Clearly, Zwift’s Atomic Cruiser is not a lightweight frame. We think Zwift was pretty generous in making the frame as light as they did, considering it looks like it should weigh more than any other frame in game!

The Atomic Cruiser turns in an Alpe climb time of 50:07, which is 39 seconds slower than our Zwift Aero baseline and 77 seconds slower than the best climbing road frame in game – the Specialized Aethos. Once again, it is slower than every other road frame in game, other than the Buffalo Fahrrad.

Note: all test results above are from a 75kg, 183cm rider holding 300W steady using Zwift’s stock 32mm carbon wheelset.

Conclusions

It’s probably best to think of Zwift’s Atomic Cruiser in game like you’d think of having this same bike IRL. It’s a novelty frame that will grab eyes and stir up nostalgia, but you don’t want to ride it if you’re looking for speedy performance.

So pull it out of your garage on recovery days, enjoy a cruise, and don’t forget to smile.

Questions or Comments?

Share below!

We’ve also selected a training update video, a long-term review of the KICKR Bike Shift, and a Zwift race commentary/analysis video.

Got a Great Zwift Video?

Share the link below and we may feature it in an upcoming post!