This is from SRAM / Quarq support:
“Our power meters send the current power and cadence data to the receiving head unit four times every second. When your device or Zwift only updates the data too slow it might be adjustable in the settings.”

Sram Force crank
PM-DZ-A1
FW: 10
By head unit this would be the Garmin USB ANT+ to laptop with Zwift running. 

Sram claims updates every 0.25 seconds. I see sometimes the watt number getting stuck or taking 3-5 seconds to update from low to high watts and vice versa.

Is there there anyway to change Zwift’s update rate?

Eric – I think some clarification on the +-1% or 2% accuracy claims is needed, I believe people are confused about what this means.. Correct me if I’m wrong but these percentages only relate to the same trainer putting out the same watts each time you ride it, as in if you put out 200watts on your trainer today, each time you ride it’ll be 1% or 2% either way of that. Not 200 watts on your trainer = 200 watts on everyone else’s trainer..

I believe the majority think that their trainers are as accurate as any other and must be correct because of this misleading value. Having been on Zwift for a few years now I see many people putting out unrealistic numbers on “accurate” trainers.. I myself have had 3 different direct drive, accurate?, expensive, trainers, Hammer/Saris, Wahoo Kckr V5, Kickr Bike, and I would say there’s a good 10% difference in the power numbers of just those three. For example I was putting out a good 280 watts up the Alpe on my self calibrating V5, yet when I went to the Kickr Bike I was struggling to keep 240 to 250 watts.. So some clarification might be needed for people as I do believe this is a confusing value/metric..

No there was no pushout to the eliteracers (I’m one of them)…we are all on 5.4.29.. and waiting for any reply from wahoo…

It would be nice to see some acknowledgement from Zwift or Wahoo that they are aware the issue is not solved and are at least working on it.

Well, any existing protocols can be changed, is the first thing I would say.

I see two potential benefits to having a reliable third-party testing protocol:

1) When shopping for a trainer, you can see an objective metric about its quality, instead of one the manufacturer essentially made up with no third-party oversight
2) Races could then require trainers that meet a certain objective standard

And let’s not even talk about the poor LADIES who, even at some of the top levels of cycling, aren’t even making a living wage…

Is the idea to take this “trainer score” (for which the 2-3 hour automated protocol only varies between 100-800 watts) and only allow trainer manufacturers/models/firmware versions of a certain score to be competed on?

We don’t even know if the current protocol would have caught this issue. And if they are only testing up to 800 watts, they are going to miss all of the edge cases that elite sprinters might encounter, just as an example.

You nailed it. I know a few that never bothered to go pro as their career path was more lucrative or different life goals (or just the risk). The reality is conti level pros scrape by. Then add in returning to the sport masters and you get some strong riders without pro status.

I don’t know what SRM are like now but, with mine, 12yrs ago, you could undertake a static weight calibration. Our Vectors – from V1 to V3 also allow this. The great caveat is that you need a calibrated weight, I was fortunate enough to work where we had scales measuring 10kg, mid-range, that were certified and regularly checked with lab certified weights.