Potato / potato. Like it or not, this is happening.
I have seen the same arguments with the world of sim auto racing. I spent over a decade and raced against some of the best drivers in the world, and I never touched tarmac or changed a real tire.
I can tell you that when you are in the moment, and racing your tail off, the adrenaline, emotions and skills in driving a race car in a simulation is exhilarating and rewarding. I eventually got some opportunities to transfer my digital skills into real race car driving, and it was a surprisingly comfortable transition.
Just like the car racing IRL vs sim, racing on Zwift has similarities and differences to real racing. And all that driving lacks the more physically demanding efforts required for Zwift racing. But contrary to the comments above, IT IS RACING. The emotions and efforts behind the virtual cycling racing are genuine. Getting a pull in a group, snapping off to a sprint win and such all feel rewarding to me like IRL versions.
Sure, there are potential issues, and ones that are unique to the digital environment. But that presence doesn’t invalidate the efforts of the majority that are very real examples of power. There are also real strategies and race-craft to apply in Zwift. It’s not a pure power race as many like to claim. Yes, the power matters, and the strategies may differ from the real ones, but they do exist.
All this is to say that racing on Zwift (or any similar platform) is real racing. It is not a direct match to outside racing, and I think it doesn’t need to be for it to be considered “real”.
I can assure you it is not simulation and the efforts are very real. There is a racecraft, albeit a very different, but none the less valid one.
You only have to take a look at the in race power profiles of the top Zwift racers to understand that there are skill behind it. The skills are very different from road racing but some equally difficult to master. There’s many a pro-rider that’s pitched up to a Zwift race and got dropped. It was amazing watching Cav getting dropped on the S’s in Watopia flat and not able to get back on despite doing 6+W/kg!!!
It’s now a legitimate UCI discipline. There was once a time when people tried to ban the motorcar…
No arguments from me that it is happening…and don’t get me wrong, I am not “against” eRacing in general. What I don’t think we need is a UCI-sanctioned World Championship or the idea of adding an eRace component into existing races such as the Giro.
But again, just my $.02…don’t think there is a right or wrong answer here, just opinions and observations.
Except that’s totally not what the UCI is about.
Let’s just all admit that it’s all about money and get on with it.
With that said, it’s fantastic to see parity of both course length and prize cash between men and women.
Wondering why/how they found a way to accomplish that in the e-competition arena but have yet to figure it out in the real world? Probably has nothing to do with money.
It seems to be some fine hair splitting and wordsmith work there, in a way that almost casts e-racing in a negative light. However, I could be reading that wrong.
The overall negativity we see in relation to this announcement may be coloring my view… but I get the feeling that e-racing is frowned upon by even indoor cycling fans, in the same way the the purist outdoor cyclists cast shade on indoor riding and training.
Let’s just say that someone like Nibali may never be able to win an eWorld Championship, but then again, the upcoming eWC may never be able to bunny hop a puddle whilst flying down a mountain at 90km/hr.
Not sure anyone has to be a seasoned Zwift racer to have an opinion on the UCI inducting a proprietary technology into their stable, esp under the laughable guise of embracing “technical innovations and change”.
Just as I don’t have to be a politician or a Washington insider to have an opinion about policy or to vote.
Call it what it is – a cash cow competition – and let’s get on with it.
Reminds me of those fixed gear “races” they used to have in dingy bars back in the day.
Well hang on…you didn’t provide my whole quote when I said I was “not against eRacing in general”…in fact, I was very specific about what I did not think was necessary. I don’t think you can say I was wordsmithing when I was actually quite specific.
Again…I participate in Zwift races now (and plan on doing even more this winter than previous years). I just don’t see it an equivalent to racing IRL.
But hey…I am old enough to remember similar discussions about MTB racing, etc and now it is just an accepted discipline…maybe in 5-10 years things will have changed dramatically.
Its never goes well replying to these but here goes…
I’ve done about 40 races and probably the same amount of group rides (main ADHR and Audax 100k A). I usually race B, but haven’t raced since March and I suspect I’m probably A now. Last race on Zwiftpower was March; though I may race more now since racing and ‘group ride’ season is over.
My point still stands than not all power meters are created equal. There needs to be a process to verify all the meters. An event can have 30 devices but one may be so far off that someone will get a free Jersey or not have a chance. Maybe that happens already…
They are developing systems and rulesets to eliminate this. There are already rules in place banning certain set-ups in races such as Zwift Classics, and winners need to validate their equipment and verify their performance with outdoor data.
The British eCycling national championships was a benchmark of how it should be done. The qualifying event was open to all who had a British Cycling race licence (so nothing to do with Zwift) and the top ten had to provide strict data about performance and equipment. At least one person in the top ten was DQ’d for suspect performance. The title was decided at a live event in London where there was a weigh in on the day of the event, and rider all used the same equipment calibrated by British Cycling.
I’ve never raced on Zwift nor spend too much time on it.
But I think it’s good that the UCI is getting involved, this might draw in new companies or investors.
Who knows what the future of indoor biking might bring, they already added ‘steering’ with the MTB showcase at Eurobike.
Perhaps in the future there will be a kind of rig/simulator that will have rollers on them and will maneuver with the corners and pitch up or down, forcing the cyclist to balance more than they do now on a normal trainer.
Whilst it isn’t something I would enjoy watching now, it might evolve later on in something that would.
I think people shouldn’t get too hung up on the current possibilities, limitations and possible cheating.
It’s a start and we will see how it evolves in the next couple of years.
Zwift partnering with the UCI for e-cycling serves only the ego of the team at Zwift rather than the actual needs of the market and broader cycling community. I guess I’m not surprised, but I’m just sad.
It is deeply disappointing that they chose to go this route for their esport and I’ve been holding out on rendering a judgement in the hopes that they recognize their mistakes, but at this point, it’s obvious that it’s too late.
It is a massive and fundamental misunderstanding of what a successful esport needs to provide to both viewers and potential competitors and they basically just limited themselves to a tiny fraction of their potential audience.
Someone will come along in the next couple of years and eat Zwift’s lunch. Maybe I’ll have to do it at this point, honestly.
