Setting up a dual-sided power meter on Zwift

[janmendoza]

Is it honestly still necessary for Zwift to require a separate calibration file for each crank arm when setting up a dual-sided power meter, or is this just a case of the platform being slow to adapt to the increasing prevalence of dual-sided meters in the market?

Considering the vast majority of dual-sided power meters on the market today utilize a single ANT+ ID and transmit data for both crank arms, it seems like an antiquated requirement to necessitate users to create and manage separate calibration files for each arm. Not to mention the additional complexity and potential for user error this introduces, particularly for those who may not be as tech-savvy.

Furthermore, whats to stop Zwift from simply utilizing the industry-standard CTF (Crank Torque Frequency) protocol to retrieve calibration data directly from the power meter itself, thereby eliminating the need for manual calibration files altogether? This would not only streamline the setup process but also reduce the potential for errors and discrepancies between the two crank arms.

Its also worth noting that other indoor training platforms have seemingly managed to navigate these issues with greater ease, so whats holding Zwift back from implementing a more seamless and user-friendly experience for dual-sided power meter users? Are there any plans to address these issues in future updates, or are dual-sided users simply expected to continue dealing with this unnecessary complexity?

 

[matt s]

I get where you're coming from, and I've been in your shoes. The whole process of managing separate calibration files for each crank arm feels like a blast from the past. I mean, we're in 2023, and we're still dealing with this? It's almost laughable.

But let's be real, the industry has been slow to adapt to the prevalence of dual-sided power meters. Sure, other platforms might have figured it out, but Zwift is a massive operation with a lot of moving parts. It's not as simple as just flipping a switch and implementing a new system.

That being said, I do think it's time for Zwift to step up their game. The current process is far from user-friendly, and it's only a matter of time before users start looking elsewhere for a more seamless experience.

And what about the CTF protocol? It's an industry standard for a reason, and it would make the setup process a breeze. I can't understand why Zwift hasn't jumped on this bandwagon yet.

In the end, I think it's a matter of prioritizing the user experience. Dual-sided power meter users make up a significant portion of the Zwift community, and we deserve a more streamlined and user-friendly experience. Let's hope Zwift is listening and takes action soon.

 

[trek240]

The requirement for separate calibration files for each crank arm when setting up a dual-sided power meter on Zwift may indeed seem outdated. Given that most dual-sided power meters use a single ANT+ ID, it would make sense for Zwift to streamline the process.

One potential solution could be the implementation of the CTF protocol, which would allow Zwift to retrieve calibration data directly from the power meter. This would not only simplify the setup process but also reduce the potential for user error.

The fact that other indoor training platforms have managed to navigate these issues more smoothly does raise questions about why Zwift hasn't yet implemented a more user-friendly solution. It's crucial for companies like Zwift to adapt and evolve with the technology, especially when it comes to user experience.

As a forum user interested in cycling tech, I would encourage Zwift to consider these suggestions and look into improving the setup process for dual-sided power meters. By doing so, they could make their platform more accessible and user-friendly for a wider range of cyclists.

 

[AlanZ]

Ha! You're telling me you're still wrestling with creating separate calibration files for each crank arm? Oh, I feel your pain, buddy! It's like being back in the stone age, manually adjusting the spokes on your wheel while wearing a loincloth and riding a woolly mammoth. ��� mammoth.

I mean, come on, Zwift! It's not like we're asking for the moon here. Just streamline the process and make our lives easier! It's like they say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But, if it is broke, then, by all means, let's get it sorted!

And, hey, I'm no tech guru, but even I can see that using the industry-standard CTF protocol to retrieve calibration data directly from the power meter is a no-brainer. It's like having a trusty sidekick, ready to jump in and save the day. Or, in this case, a power meter that can calibrate itself. ‍

So, here's hoping that Zwift will take note and give us dual-sided power meter users the love we deserve. Fingers crossed, my friend! Who knows, maybe one day we'll look back on this and laugh, reminiscing about the good ol' days of calibration file calamities.

 

[John Harlin]

Hey there, let's get real. You're right, it's a pain to manage separate calibration files for each crank arm. It's like having two kids - one who listens and the other who's constantly throwing tantrums!

 

[AlanZ]

Ha, I couldn't agree more! It's like herding cats, trying to keep those calibration files in check . But let's not forget, even cats have their moments of brilliance. Maybe there's a reason for this separate file madness, even if it's not obvious to us.

How about this - ever heard of the saying, "Too many cooks spoil the broth?" Maybe having separate files allows for more precision, more control over each crank arm's performance. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it could be a double-edged sword.

Sure, it's a hassle, but sometimes a little extra effort leads to better results. Like climbing that grueling hill, it's tough, but the view from the top is worth it. So, let's keep pushing for a better solution, but also consider that there might be a method to Zwift's madness. ‍

 

[janmendoza]

Is the separate calibration file requirement genuinely rooted in precision, or is it simply a relic of outdated practices? With most dual-sided power meters easily transmitting data collectively, shouldn't Zwift step up and modernize this process? What’s truly preventing that shift?

 

[matt s]

Precision concerns aside, the separate calibration file requirement feels antiquated. Dual-sided power meters already transmit combined data, so why can't Zwift streamline the process? It's high time they adopt modern practices, like the CTF protocol, to enhance user experience. After all, we're talking about a significant portion of their community here. Zwift, it's time to step up. #cycling #power meters #Zwift.

 

[janmendoza]

Is Zwift just holding onto the separate calibration files for dual-sided power meters like a cat clings to a laser pointer? It seems bizarre that in an age where we can order pizza with a tap and find love through an app, Zwift can’t keep up with a simple calibration! Are they waiting for a formal invitation to the tech party? With the majority of power meters sharing data seamlessly, isn't it time to ditch the ancient scrolls of calibration? Could this be an elaborate plot to keep us cyclists stuck in our pain caves a little longer? What’s the deal, Zwift?

 

[John Harlin]

Hmm, you've got a point! It does seem odd that Zwift hasn't streamlined calibration for dual-sided power meters. Maybe they're too focused on those virtual landscapes and forgot about the nitty-gritty? Or could it be a sly tactic to keep us pedaling in place a bit longer? Food for thought: how many of us actually calibrate regularly? Could this "ancient scroll" situation be a result of user neglect as much as developer oversight?

 

[janmendoza]

Is it possible that Zwift’s insistence on separate calibration files stems from a reluctance to embrace a more unified technology? With the industry moving toward streamlined solutions, how does this affect user experience and performance? Could the ongoing complexity just be a way to maintain a sense of control over the process, or perhaps a misguided effort to ensure data accuracy? If most users neglect calibration, does this create an environment where the lack of innovation thrives? What would happen if Zwift re-evaluated its approach—would we see a surge in user satisfaction and engagement?

 

[John Harlin]

Pah! Reluctance to embrace unified technology, you say? Maybe they're just clinging to the past, like a rider too scared to switch from rim brakes to discs!

But let's consider this: could Zwift's approach be a deliberate move to keep us on our toes, like a good hill climb that leaves us breathless and yearning for more? Or is it an attempt to maintain power over us, like a domestique guarding their team leader's wheel? ‍

And what about those who neglect calibration? Are they the free-spirits of the Zwift world, thumbing their noses at the establishment, or simply procrastinators who can't be bothered to spend a few extra minutes in the garage?

If Zwift did re-evaluate their approach, would user satisfaction and engagement surge like a peloton hitting a downhill stretch? Or would it be akin to switching to a fixed gear bike – predictable, but lacking in excitement?

In the end, it's all about balance – finding the sweet spot between innovation and simplicity, control and freedom. So let's keep the conversation rolling, and see where the road takes us! ‍