Here’s how Zwift describes them in the Drop Shop:

The Zwift Baseline Wheelset trims weight while maximizing the advantages of modern design, featuring variable rim depths in the front and rear for enhanced performance. Versatile and built for any terrain, this wheelset is your go-to choice for all-around riding.

These wheels are rated 2 stars for aero and 3 for weight, indicating that their climbing performance would be decent (but not great) while their aero performance would be rather poor. But as with any new piece of Zwift equipment, we ran them through our normal tests to learn exactly how they perform.

Here’s everything you need to know about the performance of the new Zwift Baseline Wheels.

Aero (Flat/Rolling) Performance

The Baseline’s aero performance precisely matches the Zwift 32mm Carbon wheels which we use as our baseline wheelset when comparing performance between different wheels. You read that right: the Zwift Baseline Wheels perform like baseline wheels.

This places them around the 13th percentile for aero performance. Ouch.

Their test time of 51:25 is precisely 60 seconds slower than the current fastest road wheels (DT Swiss ARC 1100 DICUT DISC) on our test course, which is two laps of Tempus Fugit totaling 34.6km.

Climb Performance

The Baseline’s climbing performance puts them just behind the Zipp 404’s, placing it around the 53rd percentile overall.

These wheels turn in an Alpe time of 49:25. The fastest overall climbers in game (Lightweight Meilensteins and Roval Alpinist CLX) complete the test 11 seconds faster.

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

Conclusions

The Zwift Baseline Wheels are a fun unlock for the fresh Zwift Camp: Baseline program, but their performance, like other Zwift-branded wheelsets in game, doesn’t stand out from the crowd. Use them if you like the look or want to show you’ve completed the training program, but don’t use them if you’re wanting top-tier race performance.

This wheelset will be added to the following posts, and it can also be found on our Master Zwift Wheels List:

• Zwift Speed Tests: Wheel Ranking Charts

Questions or Comments?

Share below!

This got my attention. As you may know, I’ve published a lot of in-game performance data over the years, including the popular Tron vs Top Performers chart showing how Zwift’s Tron bike performs against other fast frame+wheelset combos in game.

“Disruptive changes re: bike performance”? What was Jon thinking of doing?

We chatted that day, and Jon shared a few key points:

• The fastest and slowest “standard” frames in Zwift are currently only separated by ~22 seconds in our standard ~50-minute test (see performance charts). Jon’s hunch was that this gap was too small and didn’t reflect real-world physics.
• With garage upgrades coming soon to Zwift, the team saw a need to increase this separation between frames in order to avoid weird situations like an upgraded slow frame (think Zwift Steel or similar) outperforming a fast frame like the Specialized Venge S-Works.
• If Zwift was going to change the performance of in-game frames, they wanted those changes to be backed by science. (While Zwift isn’t trying to be a simulator, in-game speeds have always been based on real-world physics whenever possible.)

With that in mind, Jon and his team were planning a visit to the Win Tunnel at Specialized headquarters in Morgan Hill, CA. Would I be interested in joining them?

Of course I would.

And that’s how I arrived here in late October:

But I’m getting ahead of myself…

The Team

It was dark o’clock when I left my house in Kelseyville, CA to drive three hours south to Specialized HQ in Morgan Hill. I grabbed a quality espresso, then met up with Zwift’s team to get security badges so we could access the Win Tunnel. Zwift employees in attendance were:

• Jon Mayfield: VP Head of Game (and Co-Founder of Zwift)
• Mark Cote: VP Head of Product
• Scott Campbell: Senior Director of Game Design
• Mike Bhatt: Senior Technical Game Designer
• Nick Kalkounis: Director, Product Management
• Joseph Battisti: Global Product Marketing – Game & Content

Also with us was Lionello Bardina, R&D Engineer Aerodynamics from Specialized. His job was to run the tests while answering lots of questions and generally overseeing the tunnel’s usage.

At first this seemed like a lot of cooks to have in the kitchen, but I soon learned that when it comes to robust wind tunnel testing, you need a small army! We had the tunnel booked for two days, and we were scrambling throughout both days to set up and complete all the planned tests.

Some of the guys were working on setting up actual bikes – swapping out pedals, adjusting geometry, swapping out wheels, and properly attaching it to the tunnel’s apparatus.

Others were taking notes, so data could be properly analyzed in the days to come. And of course Lio was manning the helm, sitting behind the computer to control the tunnel, run the actual tests, and gather the data for later analysis.

A Note About Mark Cote

Within a few minutes of hanging out in the Win Tunnel, I came to the realization that there was a lot I didn’t know about Mark Cote.

Mark came to Zwift in early 2021 as the Senior Director of Content Programming after 12+ years at Specialized. We sat down for a nice Zoom chat just a few weeks after he arrived at Zwift, and he struck me as a likable, smart dude who could lead teams well and also wrap his head around data and make it actionable.

He was also a longtime Zwifter, having joined the platform in the early beta days of Jarvis Island. And he earned extra points when he saw my Venge ViAS in the office and shared that it was still the most aero bike frame they’d tested at Specialized at speeds over 30mph!

Mark has been at Zwift for almost 4 years now, and he’s currently leading the product teams at Zwift.

When we arrived at the Win Tunnel, Mark took charge. He stated the goals of the testing and explained the methodology we’d be using. Then as we got the first bike in the tunnel and the tests began, Mark started telling stories.

It turns out, he graduated from MIT in 2007 with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. And he wasn’t just anyone at Specialized: he led the development of the aero program and the design and build of the Win Tunnel with a few other key leaders at the company.

While he worked his way to leadership positions at Specialized and now Zwift, he’s also a brilliant engineer and aerodynamicist. And it was downright fascinating to hear him explain exactly how the Win Tunnel works while sharing memories of a scrappy team of employees and interns building and launching the audacious tunnel on a shoestring budget.

The Tests

The team’s main goal for these tests was to establish a realistic delta between the slowest and fastest frames in Zwift.

(There were secondary goals of testing various wheelsets and different rider positions to gut-check the game’s wheel and rider physics as well. But I’m going to save that discussion for another post.)

So we tested a pile of frames, including:

• Stinner Steel (which the Zwift Steel frame is modeled from)
• Specialized Allez Sprint
• Specialized Tarmac SL6
• Jon Mayfield’s S-Works Shiv
• My Pinarello Dogma F
• Specialized Tarmac SL8
• My Specialized Roubaix SL4
• Specialized 2020 Venge
• Buffalo Bike

Bikes were tested with a basic alloy wheelset, as well as more advanced carbon hoops and even (in some cases) a disc wheel. The Win Tunnel is super precise, and it was amazing to look at the data and see how it could detect the difference between various setups at various yaw angles.

Jon had asked me to bring my Roubaix, because he had a hunch that some of the “slower” carbon frames would actually perform worse in the Win Tunnel than the steel frame. And you know what? He was right. My Roubaix was slower than the Stinner. Mark chalks this up to the cable routing and larger tubes.

(But I still love that bike. I realized as it was sitting in the Win Tunnel that I’ve ridden over 50,000 miles on Zwift on that bike. It may not be the fastest frame outdoors, but it’s certainly been a great bike.)

After Hours

Of course, no Zwift outing would be complete without a ride. So after the first day we went for a spin. Here’s the crew lined out, with Jon in the wind:

Over the course of two days and a few meals, Mark Cote shared a lot of insider info about Specialized and the Win Tunnel that I’m not allowed to share here. We even got a sort of after-hours tour of some key rooms on campus, most of which were labeled “no photography.” Fascinating.

Specialized is turning 50 this year, and after looking at everything they do and how they do it, you begin to understand why. (And no, it’s not just because they have “Donut Thursdays” in the cafeteria each week. Although it was an epic selection of donuts + espresso.)

The Results

After two days of tests, Zwift’s team took all the data back to the office so they could crunch numbers and compare Zwift’s current frame performance to the wind tunnel data.

It turns out Jon’s initial hunch was correct: the difference in performance between Zwift’s slower and faster frames is smaller than it should be. Therefore, Jon and his team are planning to stretch that ~22-second difference into 65-70 seconds over an hour on a flat course, so in-game frame performance deltas more closely match what cyclists experience in the real world.

They plan to keep the fastest frames at their current CdA settings, while progressively slowing all other frames to effectively “spread out” the performance spectrum of in-game bikes. It’s worth noting that the overall aero performance “ranking” of frames in game lined up nicely with the test – that is, the fastest stuff in game is the fastest stuff in the tunnel. It’s really just the ranges (how much faster) that will be modified.

This change will be rolled out sometime in early winter, potentially soon after the new year. The tweaked frame performance will roll out along with the Garage Upgrades/Halo Bikes feature, so some of the performance lost in the slower frames can be reclaimed via upgrades if riders desire.

Concluding Thoughts, and What’s Next

Getting into the Win Tunnel is every road cyclist’s dream, so it was a huge privilege to be a part of Zwift’s visit to Morgan Hill. As I spun the pedals in the drops into a 50kph wind, I thought, “Zwift has taken me a lot of places, but I never thought it would take me here!”

I like that Zwift has chosen to take another look at bike performance. I’m impressed that they approached the task rigorously, with two long days of testing at the Win Tunnel. And I’m stoked that the result of all this work will be in-game bike performance that more closely matches the real world.

The upcoming changes are based on accurate, repeatable tests of real-world performance, so as much as I like to poke holes in things, there’s just not much here to complain about.

I’ve got a couple more articles planned on topics related to the Win Tunnel visit. First, we’ll be talking about the rider CdA testing that was done, and the results. (The goal is to make the CdA of our avatars as accurate as possible, which is sort of an impossible task when you consider the various body shapes, riding positions, and clothing of riders. That said, there’s probably room for improvement in Zwift’s current model.)

There will also, undoubtedly, be follow-up articles sharing updated performance numbers for frames. My bots are already complaining about all the miles they’ll have to put in!

Your Thoughts

What do you think of Zwift’s plans to modify frame performance, and what do you think of their approach to the problem? Share below!

The ride’s stated pace was 1.8 W/kg, which works out to 151 watts for me since I weigh 84kg. But I wasn’t thrilled with the prospect of spending 90 minutes on Tempus Fugit at 150 watts, since that effort just felt too low. My easy zone 2 rides are typically closer to 200 watts.

(Side note: Tadej Pogacar recently revealed that his zone 2 efforts on flat roads are in the 290-300W range. And he only weighs 66kg, putting his zone 2 at 4.4-4.5 W/kg. That’s just crazy.)

Anyway, given that I didn’t want to just spin my legs for 90 minutes, I began pondering ways I could put in the effort I was targeting on the day, while still delivering the intended ride experience for everyone else. Or to put it more succinctly: how could I make my effort a bit harder, without actually speeding up the ride and making everyone else work harder to keep up?

Yes, I could change my height in game (read how height affects speed in Zwift) or change my weight (read how weight affects speed in Zwift), or do a combination of the two. That would have gotten me where I wanted to be. But the more I thought about it, the more I liked the idea of doing in game what I might do outside in a similar situation. What if I changed to a slower bike in Zwift, forcing me to work a bit harder to hit the speed I would have hit at 1.8 W/kg on a road bike?

I did this outside just a few weeks ago, actually. A friend of mine wanted to go on a road ride, but he hasn’t been riding long. So I met him on my mountain bike, and we rode around for an hour: him on a road bike, me on a mountain bike, both getting the workout we wanted while hanging out together.

As I looked into doing this on Zwift, though, I had a question: just how much would switching to a gravel or MTB slow me in game? That is, what sort of bike did I need to choose if I wanted to match the speed I would have traveled at 1.8 W/kg on a road bike while holding closer to my target of 2.4 W/kg?

I put the bots to work. And I ran the tests at various power levels, so the results could be used by ride leaders and participants taking part in rides with various stated paces. Let’s dive into the results!

Lone Rider (No Drafting)

I began by testing a lone rider on the Tempus Fugit course. This is the flattest route in Zwift, and it’s where I would be leading my group ride. The rider was my standard bot: 183cm tall, 75kg in weight. I tested at 1, 2, 3, and 4 W/kg (so 75, 150, 225, and 300 Watts, respectively). And I tested using a representative road bike (Specialized Venge S-Works with DT Swiss Disc), gravel bike (Specialized Crux with Roval gravel wheels), and MTB (Scott Spark RC World Cup).

Here are the results of the lone rider tests:

Nothing surprising here… the road bike is faster than the gravel bike, which is faster than the MTB. (Any self-respecting Zwifter already understands this, as bike performance in Zwift is a product of Crr as well as frame and wheel aero and weight parameters. Like outdoors, albeit a bit simplified.)

What’s more interesting, for the purposes of this discussion, is to look at where the lines meet particular speeds or W/kg. If I look at where the road bike’s line hits approximately 1.8 W/kg, I can see that equates to approximately 31 kilometers per hour. Move horizontally from there to meet the gravel bike’s line and I see that to hold 31kph on the gravel bike I would need to hold ~2.25 W/kg. Move a bit more to the right to the MTB line, and I can see it will take 2.5 W/kg to hold 31kph on the MTB.

This chart can be used for other paces, too. Is the ride supposed to be led at 3 W/kg? That would be around 34.5 kph, which would require ~3.6 W/kg on the gravel bike and ~3.8 W/kg on the MTB.

But wait… we’re not done yet. This test only shows what happens with a single rider, but you’re leading a group ride that (hopefully) has lots of participants! In that situation, what usually happens (especially on lower-paced group rides) is the leader sits in the middle of the group, holding the stated pace, while the group bunches around the leader.

That means you’ll probably be sitting in the draft, holding the target pace. And that changes things. It means you’ll be traveling faster at the target W/kg than you would be yourself.

Time for a second set of tests.

Drafting Rider

For these tests, I used two bots. The drafting bot was simulating me, the ride leader, holding the target W/kg. And the bot ahead, in the wind, was the ride participant, giving the ride leader a helpful draft. I pushed the lead bot’s power as high as it could go without dropping the drafting bot. This ensured our “pack” was moving as fast as possible.

In this scenario, the lines look similar to the first test – they’re mostly just shifted higher, as I’m able to hold a higher speed for a given power output when I’m drafting. (Again, basic cycling physics). If we go again to the 1.8 W/kg mark on the road bike, we can move horizontally to find target power numbers if I choose to ride a gravel or MTB:

And so we arrive at the answer to the question that started this whole experiment. If I’m asked to lead a flat road ride at 1.8 W/kg, what W/kg would I need to hold in order to keep the ride at the stated pace while riding a gravel bike or MTB?

The answer, with some necessary approximation built in, is ~2.4 W/kg on the gravel bike, or ~2.6 W/kg on the MTB. And that works out perfectly for me, since 2.4 W/kg is 202W at my weight.

Nerd note #1: for extra credit, I can look and see that if I happen to poke my nose into the wind, I would need to increase my power to ~2.9 W/kg in order to maintain the pack speed of 33.8kph that is expected at this pace.

Nerd note #2: if you’re wondering why the power numbers for gravel and MTB to match the road bike are higher in the drafting test than the lone rider test, it’s because as speed increases, more power is required to overcome a given rolling resistance. Since both the gravel and MTB have a higher rolling resistance than the road bike on tarmac, they’ll require relatively more power as speeds increase.

Wrapping It Up: Leading Well

So I found my target power number(s) for the ride, and worked to hold them consistently to ensure a good ride experience for everyone.

And since I try to be a good ride leader who leads clearly, I even messaged the group to let them know that I was on a gravel bike, so my W/kg would be higher than expected, but the overall ride speed would not be.

When all was said and done, by riding the gravel bike I got the workout I was looking for, and everyone else got to ride at the stated pace of the ride they joined. A win-win!

Questions or Comments?

Have you ever used this trick in a Zwift group ride? How about outdoors? Share your thoughts below…

Read more about ZIMetrics here >

As of today we’ve entered and verified all the precise route details needed in order to compute ZIMetrics for every Zwift route, which means we can now do fun things like update our Printable List of Zwift Routes by Difficulty and put together this post!

Have you ever wondered just how long it would take to ride every single route in Zwift?

Here are the numbers, broken down by map, for every single route in Zwift, including those you can only ride in events and those which do not award an achievement badge:

Time Required To Ride All Zwift Routes

If you’re just looking to do all the routes that award achievement badges, the numbers are somewhat reduced:

Time Required To Ride All Badged Zwift Routes

It’s pretty wild to think that a rider holding 4 W/kg could complete every badged route in 4 days. But it’s true!

Keep in mind the ZIMetrics time estimates predict how long it would take a semi-experienced rider, riding efficiently in a group, to finish one lap of the course, including any lead-in. The algorithm assumes you’re a 75kg, 183cm rider drafting on the flats, on a decently fast bike, and pushing harder on climbs than on flats and descents. Because of this, the estimates above are more of a “race situation” estimate than a free ride time estimate.

Also, it’s worth noting that the list above does not include any of the Climb Portals, which are a separate beast entirely and only rideable when they are scheduled.

Questions or Comments?

Share below!

The Pinarello Dogma F 2024 is available in Zwift’s Drop Shop once you’re updated to game version 1.72. Here’s how it’s described there:
“Whatever the road throws at you, the DOGMA F is always the right bike.“

Priced at 1,400,000 Drops, it’s slightly cheaper than the previous Dogma F (1,418,600), but both versions are level-locked at 40. They share this high-level unlock with a handful of other frames (mostly Pinarellos), and the only frame with a higher level lock at this time is the Zwift Safety at level 44.

See our master list of all frames in Zwift >

The new Dogma F is rated 3 stars for aero performance and 4 stars for weight on Zwift, which matches the previous Dogma F’s ratings. But would it perform just like the old frame? We ran it through our battery of tests to find out…

Here’s everything you need to know about the performance of the new Pinarello Dogma F 2024 frame in Zwift.

Aero (Flat/Rolling) Performance

The new Dogma F is faster on flat roads than the previous version but just barely, beating it by one solitary second in our flat test.

The Dogma F 2024’s flat test time of 51:19 puts it 2 seconds behind the “fast four” (Cervelo S5 2020, Felt AR, Specialized Venge S-Works, Uranium Nuclear) which all turn in identical times of 51:17. It’s probably best compared with the Scott Addict RC and Canyon Aeroad 2024, though, since it’s more of an all-arounder than a pure aero frame. The new Dogma F is 1 second slower than the new Aeroad 2024, while it is 3.5 seconds faster than the Scott Addict RC.

All of this means the new Dogma F is 6 seconds faster than our “baseline” Zwift Aero frame on our test course, which is two laps of Tempus Fugit totaling 34.6km.

Climb Performance

With its ultra-light 4-star weight rating and the IRL frame being lighter than the previous version, we figured the new Dogma F would outclimb the old one. And it certainly did! The new Dogma F is 4 seconds faster up the Alpe than the previous version.

The Dogma F 2024 turns in an Alpe climb time of 48:55, which is 33 seconds faster than our Zwift Aero baseline and 5 seconds slower than the best climbing road frame in game – the Specialized Aethos.

Compared to its all-arounder competition, the Dogma F 2024 turns in the same climb time as the Scott Addict RC, while besting the Canyon Aeroad 2024 by 3.5 seconds.

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

All-Arounder Comparison

Until recently, the Scott Addict RC was considered the best all-arounder in game, at least if you removed the Tron bike from the equation. Then the Canyon Aeroad 2024 came out last month, turning in a better aero performance than the Addict but a slightly worse climbing performance. (You could say the two frames were quite evenly matched, with the Aeroad 2024 having the edge in aero performance, and the Addict having the edge on climbs.)

But here we have the Pinarello Dogma F 2024. It matches the Scott Addict’s climb performance, while beating it in aero performance. And while it loses to the Aeroad 2024 by 1 second in our flat test, it beats the Aeroad by 3.5 seconds on the climb!

What if we compare it to the Tron bike? Here’s an updated version of a very useful chart that makes comparison easy:

Tron vs Top Performers

Colored based on frame. Mouse over each point for details.
Zwift Concept Z1, Specialized Venge S-Works, Pinarello Dogma F 2024, Canyon Aeroad 2024, Scott Addict RC, Specialized Aethos

If you only look at the enlarged dots (which are the top-performing setups), you’ll see two noteworthy things:

• The Tron (yellow dot) is no longer sitting on that top performance curve. It has been beaten.
• The Pinarello Dogma F 2024 has three top-performing setups (using the DT Swiss Disc, ENVE 7.8, or DT Swiss 62 wheels).

Conclusions

While the performance gaps between Zwift’s top all-arounders are admittedly small (less than 5 seconds in a ~50-minute test), the new Pinarello Dogma F clearly has the best performance in this category.

Last month we said the new Aeroad was about to become very popular with Zwift racers, and the same is true of the new Dogma F. But while the new Aeroad is available at level 10, the Dogma F is a more exclusive item, requiring level 40 or above.

And no: you don’t get a color slider with the new Dogma F. (There’s actually one that shows up, but it doesn’t do anything. We assume this is a bug Zwift will fix, but we don’t know if “fix” means the color slider will work… or it will just not show up. We vote for a working color slider.)

We’ll be updating various posts soon to add the Dogma F 2024, including:

• Zwift Shopping Guide: What To Buy from the Drop Shop at Each Level
• Fastest Bike Frames and Wheels at Each Zwift Level
• Zwift Speed Tests: Frame Ranking Charts
• Speed Tests: Zwift’s Fastest Bike Frames for Flat/Rolling Races

Questions or Comments?

Share below!

The Canyon Aeroad 2024 is available in Zwift’s drop shop once you’re updated to game version 1.70.0. Here’s how it’s described in the Drop Shop:
“Aero, stiff, light, and all-around rapid. From high-speed Grand Tour stages to the cobblestones of Paris-Roubaix, the Aeroad is a contender at any road race on the planet. All thanks to its complete performance and profile: game-changing aerodynamics, superlight builds, and benchmark stiffness.“

It’s rated 3 stars for aero performance and 4 stars for weight on Zwift, which is an improvement over the Aeroad 2021’s 3-star weight rating. But new stuff doesn’t come cheap: at a price of 1,100,000 Drops, it costs 250,000 more than the older Aeroad, 2021.

Big news for Zwift n00bs, though: the new Aeroad is available at level 10+, while the old one was unlocked at level 27. That’s quite a shift.

Since Zwift’s 5-star rating system isn’t granular enough to communicate in-game performance in a precise way, we ran the Aeroad 2024 through our battery of speed tests. Given that it’s the updated version of the Aeroad 2021, which already is a strong all-arounder, we expected the new Aeroad to perform well in our tests. And it did!

Here’s everything you need to know about the performance of the new Canyon Aeroad 2024 frame in Zwift.

Aero (Flat/Rolling) Performance

The new Aeroad is faster on flat roads than the 2021 Aeroad, but just barely. Strava rounds times to the nearest second, so while we compute that the two frames are separated by ~1.6 seconds, Strava shows it to be a 1-second gap.

The Aeroad 2024’s flat test time of 51:18 puts it just 1 second behind the “fast four” (Cervelo S5 2020, Felt AR, Specialized Venge S-Works, Uranium Nuclear) which all turn in identical times of 51:17. That means it’s 7 seconds faster than our “baseline” Zwift Aero frame on our test course, which is two laps of Tempus Fugit totaling 34.6km.

Climb Performance

With its ultra-light 4-star weight rating, we knew the new Aeroad would perform well in our climbing test. It turned in a top-10 time, in fact, coming in at #10 on the list of non-Tron bike Alpe times.

The Aeroad 2024 turns in an Alpe climb time of 48:58.5, which is 29.5 seconds faster than our Zwift Aero baseline and 8.5 seconds slower than the best climbing road frame in game – the Specialized Aethos.

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

All-Arounder Comparison

Up to this point, the Scott Addict RC has been considered the best all-arounder in game, at least if you remove the Tron bike from the equation.

The Aeroad 2024 is 3.5 seconds slower than the Scott Addict RC on our climb test, but it’s also 4.5 seconds faster in our flat test compared to the Addict. So you could say the two frames are quite evenly matched, with the Aeroad 2024 having the edge in terms of aero performance, and the Addict having the edge on climbs.

What if we compare it to the Tron bike, or to the older Aeroad 2021? Here’s an updated version of a very useful chart that makes comparison easy.

Tron vs Top Performers

Colored based on frame. Mouse over each point for details.
Zwift Concept Z1, Specialized Venge S-Works, Canyon Aeroad 2021, Canyon Aeroad 2024, Scott Addict RC, Specialized Aethos

The enlarged leftmost blue dot for the Aeroad 2024 is the biggest outlier here. It shows that the Aeroad is just 1 second slower than the fastest aero setups on flat ground, while being 7.5 seconds faster in the climb test. That’s a solid tradeoff in many races!

Zwift Academy

Zwift Academy 2024 includes a ZA paint job unlock for this new Aeroad frame, but you’ll have to buy the frame to use the paint job. Unlock the paint job by finishing the full Academy (6 workouts and 2 races). Here’s what it looks like:

And don’t forget, if you finish Zwift Academy 2024, you be entered into a giveaway for a Zwift Academy-painted Canyon Aeroad 2024 bike!

Conclusions

Zwift nailed the performance of the Aeroad 2024 frame, in our opinion. It’s marginally faster than the previous Aeroad, and pushes the performance curve of the game’s top bikes just enough to make it compelling.

Three reasons why the new Canyon Aeroad 2024 frame is about to become very popular with Zwift racers:

1. It’s a better choice than the “fast 4” frames in races with any climbing thanks to its superior uphill performance
2. It can be paired with ENVE 7.8 wheels to basically become a climb-advantaged Tron bike
3. It’s available at level 10

The only bummer is that you don’t get a color slider: “You can have any color as long as it’s black.” But the paint does have sparkles, just like the IRL bike.

We’ll be updating various posts soon to add the Aeroad 2024, including:

• Zwift Shopping Guide: What To Buy from the Drop Shop at Each Level
• Fastest Bike Frames and Wheels at Each Zwift Level
• Zwift Speed Tests: Frame Ranking Charts
• Speed Tests: Zwift’s Fastest Bike Frames for Flat/Rolling Races

Questions or Comments?

Share below!

• Speed Tests: Rubberbanding (Keep Everyone Together) Mode in Zwift Club Events
• Speed Tests: Rubberbanding (Keep Everyone Together) Mode in Zwift Meetups
• Speed Tests: Rubberbanding (Keep Everyone Together) Mode on Climbs in Zwift Club Events
• Speed Tests: Rubberbanding (Keep Everyone Together) Mode on Climbs in Zwift Meetups

In summary, our simple 2-rider tests showed that Club events used a completely different banding algorithm than Meetups, and that speeds didn’t fluctuate very realistically based on power variations. Our conclusion was that Zwift’s banding algorithm for Meetups was most accurate in terms of speed, and should be used for all banded events, perhaps with some tweaks to make speed fluctuations feel more realistic.

The good news is that the folks at Zwift HQ read our posts, and one of Zwift’s developers – Hugo Teixeira, the brain behind much of Zwift’s current pack dynamics – put in the work to improve Keep Together Mode, with an updated algorithm released in last week’s game update. Not only does the algorithm produce more realistic speeds, it also now works the same way for all banded events: Club events, Meetups, and even Group Workouts!

After running a few tests to confirm that the same algorithm was being used for Club Events, Meetups, and Group Workouts, we ran some tests to find out exactly how speeds changed.

Flat Test Results (using Fuego Flats Reverse)

Compare these speeds to solo riders on a closed course:

Observations

Overall, these speeds are much faster than the old banded Club Rides. They’re close to the old banded Meetup speeds, but not the same.

The speed of a solo rider in a banded event now perfectly matches a solo rider free riding, which is great – that’s a definite improvement!

There appears to be a speed “floor”, based on 300W tests. There we see that a 225W drafting rider and a 150W drafting rider both return basically the same speed. Even a 75W drafting rider is just 1-2 seconds slower than the 225W rider.

Two riders holding the same wattage is always faster than one rider holding that wattage solo, which doesn’t match our TTT test results, which showed that a group of riders holding the same wattage travels at the same speed as a single rider holding that wattage.

That said, the difference isn’t massive. It’s interesting, though, that the speed for a solo 225W rider is so close to the speed of 225W riders (within 3 seconds) while the other two power levels (300W and 150W) show a much greater disparity.

Climb Test Results (using Alpe du Zwift)

Compare these speeds to solo riders on a closed course:

Observations

Overall, these speeds are close to the old banded Meetup speeds, but not the same. They’re a bit slower for the higher power numbers, but a bit faster for the 150W tests.

The speed of a solo rider in a banded event now perfectly matches a solo rider free riding, just like in our flat tests. That’s a definite improvement.

Unlike the flat test, there doesn’t appear to be a speed “floor”, based on our 300W tests. You’ll see as the following rider’s power decreases, the climb time increases as well. This feels realistic to us, so no complaints here.

One rider holding a particular wattage vs two riders holding that same wattage delivers somewhat inconsistent results, with the single rider being faster in our 300W test, but the pair being faster in the 225W and 150W tests.

Conclusions

The keep together changes rolled out in Zwift’s latest update are a big step in the right direction, delivering (in our opinion) the best “banding” experience in game to date. Speeds vary more realistically based on rider power, they’re consistent across different types of banded events, and they’ll be overall faster for Club Events and Group Workouts, which is a change we think most Zwifters will endorse.

We have just two banding-related recommendations left. First, Zwift should mark banded activities as “gamified” in Strava the same way they mark Climb Portal efforts that are scaled to 50% or 75%. Because nobody is doing a banded event to set a segment PR on Strava (or if they are, they shouldn’t be allowed to). Having these efforts displayed on Strava leaderboards just confuses things.

Additionally, Zwift shouldn’t save in-game Leaderboard timings for banded events, although displaying them in the actual event would be fine.

In conclusion: nice work, Hugo. Ride on!

Your Thoughts

Have you tried Zwift’s updated keep-together algo yet? Share your thoughts below!

The carbon-framed, Campagnolo-equipped bike weighed in at 7.5 kilograms and was custom-molded to fit Big Mig. Only four versions of the bike were ever created, and Induráin won both of the long time trials at the 1995 Tour de France on a version modified to allow shifting.

Last weekend, Zwift held the first-ever set of Pinarello Espada Challenge races, where everyone was riding the new in-game Pinarello Espada, chasing a “Big Mig” RoboPacer set at 510 watts (6.3 W/kg) for an hour.

We wanted to know just how fast this bike was, but performing a test wasn’t as simple as it is with most bikes, since the Espada is only available in these events.

So we joined an event, turned on our firewall so only our test bot was visible (no drafting!), and then rode two laps of Tempus Fugit at 300W (4 W/kg) to perform our standard flat test.

Aero (Flat/Rolling) Performance

The Pinarello Espada turns in a time of 49:05 in our flat test, which puts it at or near the bottom of TT bike performance in Zwift, depending on how you crunch the numbers.

Usually we test frames and wheelsets separately, but the Espada, like the Tron bike, can only be tested with its disc wheels installed. Therefore, we must compare its test results with other TT frames using disc wheels.

If we assume the Espada’s wheels are as fast as the fastest disc wheels in game (DT Swiss ARC 62 Dicut Disc), that would make the frame the second-slowest in game, only faster than the Zwift TT frame by 11 seconds.

Realistically, though, you would think the Espada’s wheels would be faster than anything in game, since the Espada uses full disc wheels on the front and back while all other wheelsets in game have the disc only on the back wheel.

If that’s the case, though, that would make the Espada frameset possibly the slowest TT frameset in game.

In precise numbers, the Espada is 28.5 seconds slower than the fastest setup in game (Cadex Tri frame with DT Swiss ARC 62 Dicut Disc wheels) on our test course, which is two laps of Tempus Fugit totaling 34.6km. That’s a difference of around 0.4 kilometers per hour.

Climb Performance

Unfortunately, we haven’t been able to test climb performance yet, since the Espada is limited to the Pinarella Espada Challenge events which are held on the Tempus Fugit route.

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

Conclusions

The Pinarello Espada TT bike is iconic for sure, but it’s not one you would want to use in a race where bike choice is an option. (It’s worth noting that at this time, it’s not even available for purchase in the Drop Shop, so this isn’t a decision Zwifters need to make. Zwift says it will be available in the Drop Shop eventually, and also says more Pinarello Espada Challenge events will be held in the fall of 2024.)

If you’re doing a TT race and aren’t sure what to use, check out Fastest TT Bike Frames and Wheels at Each Zwift Level for help in choosing your ideal rig.

Questions or Comments?

Share below!

Described as “Pure cycling multiplied by X” in the Drop Shop, the Dogma X is Pinarello’s top-tier road endurance frame, which Pinarello says “strikes the perfect balance between high-calibre performance and real-world comfort.” While the frame definitely has Dogma in its DNA, the unique X stays give it a unique look, while increased tire clearance opens up the possibility of this being an “all-road” proposition.

It’s rated 2 stars for aero performance and 3 stars for weight on Zwift, with a price of 850,000 Drops and an unlock level of 27. Given its aero and weight rating we didn’t expect top-tier performance from this frame in game – and that’s as it should be. The Dogma X’s strengths are in its endurance geometry, all-road capabilities, and overall ride comfort… all sort of “X-factor” things you’ll appreciate outdoors but don’t need in a virtual bike.

Since Zwift’s 5-star rating system isn’t granular enough to communicate in-game performance in a precise way, we ran the Dogma X through our battery of speed tests. Here’s everything you need to know about the performance of the new Pinarello Dogma X frame in Zwift.

Aero (Flat/Rolling) Performance

The Dogma X performs poorly on flat/rolling roads, ranking in the lower 13% of all road frames as it turns in the same test time as the Moots Vamoots, Mosaic RT-1d, Specialized Allez, and Van Rysel EDR CF.

Its test time of 51:34.5 places it in the grupetto behind most other name-branded frames in game, with the only frames slower being Zwift-branded frames. In terms of precise numbers, it is 9.5 seconds slower than our “baseline” Zwift Aero frame and 17.5 seconds slower than the fastest frames in game on our test course, which is two laps of Tempus Fugit totaling 34.6km.

Climb Performance

While it doesn’t receive the ultra-light 4-star weight rating, a rating of 3 stars means the Dogma X should climb decently well. Our tests showed it climbed better than 56% of the frames in game, turning in the same time as the Cervelo S5 2020, Pinarello Dogma F12, and Uranium Nuclear.

The Dogma X turns in an Alpe climb time of 49:09, which is 19 seconds faster than our Zwift Aero baseline but 19 seconds slower than the best climbing road frame in game – the Specialized Aethos. The very definition of “mid-pack” performance.

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

Conclusions

The Pinarello Dogma X is a frame Zwifters will add to their garage for one of three reasons:

1. You unlock it in an event
2. You own one in real life, and want to ride a matching frame in game
3. You’re a crazy Zwift addict who wants to own every single item in the Drop Shop

While it climbs decently well, there are far better performers when the road turns uphill. And its performance on flat or rolling roads is quite poor, meaning you wouldn’t want to race this frame.

Still, not everything on Zwift is a race, so the Dogma X will certainly find a home in many virtual garages.

Questions or Comments?

Share below!

It’s a logical question since anyone who has ridden road bikes outside knows there’s a big difference between drafting behind a larger rider or a small one.

It’s also a strategic question, because the answer could affect how you plan your next team time trial on Zwift.

Zwift calculates a CdA for each rider based on their height and weight – a key part of accurately simulating in-game speed. Years ago, I had a conversation with someone within Zwift (I forget who) who told me that the size/strength of the draft does indeed change based on the rider’s height and weight.

So I had always assumed that was the case. But I had also assumed that the difference was so small that I wouldn’t be able to measure it with the rudimentary methods I had at my disposal.

Then recently the question popped up again – twice in the same day, in fact – and I started thinking once about how I could test it. That’s when I realized Sauce for Zwift could help me make it happen.

Test Methodology

To test if the size of the front rider affects the draft received by the second rider, I devised the following simple test:

1. Create a Meetup on Tempus Fugit, the flattest route in Zwift, and invite my two bots to the party. (A Meetup was used instead of a Club Event because this allowed me to dynamically change the height and weight of the front rider while remaining in the event.) No other riders were visible on course, and both bots were on the same basic bike: Zwift Carbon with 32mm Carbon wheels.
2. Set the front rider to a very small size (152 cm, or 5′, and just 50kg in weight). Set that rider’s power so they are cruising as close to 40 kph on the flats as possible.
3. Set my drafting bot to our standard dimensions (183 cm, or 6′, and 75kg in weight) then tweak this bot’s power until it is sitting on the first rider’s wheel at the lowest wattage possible.

I stayed in the Meetup (it was a 100-lap Meetup, after all) for quite a while, modifying the front rider’s dimensions and then tweaking both bots’ power until they were drafting nicely at 40 kph. Sometimes I changed that rider’s height, sometimes just the weight, sometimes both. I tested plenty of permutations until I was satisfied with the result.

With draft strength potentially differing by only a small amount, accuracy was crucial if my results were going to be useful at all. Zwift’s HUD shows no decimal points for speed, so I employed Sauce for Zwift in order to get at least one decimal place, which helped immensely!

I also used Sauce to show each rider’s current stats, and I kept the draft gauge up just out of curiosity.

Here’s a quick video summarizing what I saw:

Test Results

Conclusions

The conclusion is clear: the strength of the draft does not change based on the size of the front rider.

I reached out to internal contacts at Zwift to confirm this conclusion, because I was surprised with the result after what I’d been told in the past. The contacts confirmed that this is in fact the case: height and weight are used to compute individual rider CdA, but that CdA does not affect the size/strength of the rider’s draft “shadow” in any way.

Not yet, at least. It sounds like Zwift may be looking into making some changes in this area. But of course, there’s nothing set in stone.

Zwift could simply change the overall draft strength based on rider dimensions – but that isn’t truly how it works outdoors, is it? Outdoors, what changes is the size of the draft. A taller rider casts a taller draft shadow. A wider rider casts a larger one. Could Zwift get so detailed that they’re actually changing the size of the draft shadow based on the rider’s size?

We’ll have to wait and see. I can only promise to report on any changes when they roll out!

Your Thoughts

Does this conclusion surprise you, or confirm what you already thought was true? Would you like Zwift to change the draft so it more accurately emulates the outdoor experience, or do you prefer how it works today? Share your thoughts below!