I conceded the strawman (which I only made due to an inference) but I then rephrased it.

However, I notice that you avoided both the comments regarding that Zwift encorporates power-ups and the C2 example I provided. If you're going to cherrypick, I'm equally going to call you out on that but I'd genuinely like to know what you think about what I asked.

It's a debate, not an argument. It's not something to raise your blood pressure over or get shirty about.

1) If the sporting experience contains unique aspects (and I'd suggest that the raft of big name riders who didn't place that well yesterday provides an anecdote of that), a reskilling effect is enough to make it less of an imitation and more of being something else. One thing I would offer here though is that much of the discussion in this thread is being centred on Zwift but if the UCI had selected RGT or BKool, I'd have more of a tendency to agree with you. RGT has better simulated pack and cornering physics and the other platforms don't require power-up tactics. Zwift is unique amongst cycling-based e-racing. At which point the bigger debate is whether e-racing should incorporate any gamification at all or instead, simulate cycling as close as possible. What do people think about this ?

2) You're absolutely right. For those that look at C2 results at the crash B's or world champs, you'll see more than a few good names that aren't in boat squads nor have ever been that good at it. I'd propose that C2 rowing is merely 'deskilled' rowing whereas Zwift is potentially 'reskilled' cycling (but arguably deskilled had they chosen RGT instead).

I stopped responding, b/c you resorted to improper debate tactics. That said, even had you not done so, I would still not have been obligated to entertain and consider each and every point of contention you raise. Furthermore, your point has been fully addressed by @trail's cogent response, and there's no need for me to address it again. Were you to want me in particular to address your point (not saying that you do, but merely entertaining a hypothetical and thus phrasing this sentence in the subjunctive), I would say that you should really start charging me back rent for living rent-free in your head.

Also, funny thing about the cherry picking. When I mentioned that "[a]ll viable spectator sports rely on 1) gate receipts, 2) transmission rights, 3) sponsorship, and/or 4) prize winning (though prize winning is most often the result of items 2) and 3))", you responded that I'm "applying 20th century perceptions of competitive sport to 21st century technology and sociology." Setting aside that items 1) - 4) do indeed still account for overwhelming majority of revenue generation for commercially-viable spectator sports today (I concede I probably forgot a few minor items, e.g. merchandise sales), which means my "20th century perception" does still apply to a 21st century world, you haven't actually made a bona fide attempt to explain what factor(s) has since emerged in a 21st century world that said factor(s) would significantly alter the premise I put forth (re: how commercially viable spectator sports obtain revenue). I actually wasn't going to call you out on it (b/c I well understand that this is just the peanut gallery, and you aren't obligated to respond to me), but since you are going to call me out on "cherry picking", I might as well call you out on it as well.

With all that said, I'm done debating with you on this particular subject matter. The thread has turned into a back-and-forth between the two of us, and it's not particularly enlightening or informative for anyone else. I'm sure you have made far greater contribution on the study of eRacing than I ever will, and I wish you continued success on that front.

I disagree. The course chosen was an absolute gift to the Zwift specialist. There were absolutely no defining features or durations to that route that would have revealed a common shortcoming in a Zwift specialist.............depth. The climbs were short, and shallow.

I feel there are some Zwift specialists that DO have depth, but not world tour depth. And this was the only reason that life Zwifters were in the mix.

The gamification wouldn't matter as much if you threw in some real climbing and more realistic "UCI world road racing championship" level race distances and physical demands.

Even in the world tour, there's a reason Sagan won Richmond and Alaphilippe won Imola. And there's a reason nobody from a low level conti team can sneak in and win stuff.

I'm more of a fan of at least a mildly attritional battle for a UCI rainbow jersey. Shorter events and formats can lead to some weird results.

Notice that UCI track worlds isn't a one and done bum rush race with a single sprint race with all 20 to 30 guys on the track at once. It's an elimination deal. Same for pursuit. Same for team pursuit. NCAA now had a football bracket even.

What we saw in this Zwift event, to me, was the equivalent of trying to award the Individual Pursuit rainbow stripes by tossing all the rides on the track at the same exact time for a single 4km race.

There's simply got to be more to it than that.

This is the best analogy I can give:
I'm not a golf pro, but I competed at a high level through high school. I got my clock cleaned in a match by future US Open winner Webb Simpson at his home club of Raleigh CC. I could beat Tiger Woods over three holes at that time if he got unlucky on one of those holes. On my home course I opened a round once going birdie, birdie, par, eagle. But I didn't shoot a 62 that day. That's for damn sure. The US Open isn't decided over three holes.

The Zwift races for road UCI was just that, like beating Tiger on just three holes.

1) So you would remedy this problem by either lengthening the event (thereby making it more attritional) or making it more severe ? (i.e. more selective). I do wonder if the softer course would have been less of a lottery (if that's what it was) if more of the teams had done as Canada did and race with a clear team agenda or been more aggressive. I don't recall how far in advance the course was known but if the teams had selected their teams on that basis, it may well also have been more selective. The shame about it is that if you're right on this, more pro's will stay away next year if they don't feel its a valid race - thereby further diminishing its credibility.

2) The use of power-ups isn't exactly to my liking. Apparently Zwift asked for five, the UCI wanted none and they settled on two. I don't think they added much value as a TV viewer either way.

3) I felt like it was a bit like the early days of the track omnium event - Needing further polish and still left seeking its own identity.

Either way, I felt the UCI have been quick (too quick ?) to create new cycling world champs of developing disciplines. In the last 2 years alone, they've implemented the e-bike world champs, this and the gravel worlds are apparently on their way.

There are very few credible non-rowers throwing down very quick times - in terms of 'erg-specialists', Matthias Sjekowski comes to thought as someone who tried to row but got nowhere, whereas Graham Benton, who's better known as an erg specialist was incredible if the boat was set up well and made a few Henley finals.

There are some decent scores that have come out of former rugby players - Gareth Archer did a 5:51.1, and there are some stories about Jimmy St. Louis being pretty solid on a machine.

There are a few crossfitters doing good 500s, but you can do pretty much anything for 500.

I don't think it needs to be a 10hr race. But I think something a little more challenging than we saw.

I'd say shoot for 2.5 hours. One longer climb with some gradient, two shorter ones like volcano. Enough flat at some point to have drama for the chase group catching climbers.

I mean, the average Cat 4/5 road race is 75min to 120min. Most probably about 90min. Do we seriously expect to decide a "road" race rainbow jersey in less time than that?
.
I don't doubt any of the racer's efforts during all that...........but part of watching pro bike racing is............suffering.

We do with cyclocross. But it’s very stochastic in the process.

Is it just me or is it ironic both WCs were won with powerups?

---

@rhyspencer

Apparently a feature and not a flaw...

As stated upthread, with better physics, Zwift racing could be interesting to watch. As is, it has to resort to gimmicks (such as power-ups) to add pizzazz to the whole thing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, something I noticed on re-watch of @Jordano's attack with about 3.5 km to go (1:46:45 in the video linked to on page 2 of this thread). LS appeared to be chasing down @Jordano, in a rather bizarre sequence. Canada put in a solid plan of launching a first rider, and having @Jordano bridge up to that first rider before striking out on his own. @Jordano established a 4-second gap to the pack and 2-second gap to LS, but LS really should have been within the pack (as opposed to serving as a carrot), as the effect of the effort of LS was to help others reel back his teammate. No idea what that was about...

With that there's another issue.. As seen by the responses here, people are still really polarized by E-racing. One way to solve this is to make it as interesting as possible to watch (not only for cycling fans but to as broad of an audience as possible, especially with how indoor cycling has been booming lately) which means not too long in duration and with a lot of sharp efforts and short but intense attacks.

The same goes for triathlon.. Outside of people who actually do the sport, basically nobody watches it. But I could probably convince quite a lot more people to watch a <1h sprint triathlon or the Superleague triple mix because it's short enough and exciting and probably they'll enjoy it. Nobody outside of the sport will watch a 4h 70.3 or 8h 140.6.
How many people watch an entire cycling classic or etappe of the TdF vs how many just watch the last 50-80k because that's where the exciting stuff happens?

The comparison with regular road cycling just can't be made, it's a different discipline of cycling where the guys that do good in road races/MTB/CX/TT/whatever can do good but won't necessarily beat the specialists. It just isn't a "road race rainbow jersey"..
Why cant a 30' or 1h race cause a lot of suffering? In CX they seem to suffer? A 20' FTP test wrecks all of us.. Why is this any different?
A lot of CX pro's race on the road in the summer, why do they basically never end up on the podium anywhere (except for WvA and MVdP)? Because it's a different discipline because of the duration and different tactics and so on, even though that particular road race might suit the efforts they're used to doing. Why did MVdP not immediately win a MTB XCO race, even though they require similar strenghts and the duration is not that much longer and he was already very fond of riding the MTB?

// an interview with Jason Osborne [2020 UCI Cycling Esports World Champion & Olympic Rower] .. live at 8.30pm (UK time) tonight ..

---

*
___/\___/\___/\___ the s u r f b o a r d of the K u r p f a l z is the r o a d b i k e .. oSo >>

And Stybar and Pidcock. And Vos and Brand. :)

(Granted Stybar did more of a full conversion - though he still does cameos in CX races).

Hyper-specialization used to be the "conventional wisdom" in elite road cycling. E.g. Lance.

Now the pendulum is swing the other way. Having a range of interests and skills is more in vogue. Gravel, indoor, MTB, etc.

Edit: And track has long been a road crossover sport. E.g. Cavendish, Wiggins, Viviani, Dygert, et al. And those races are rarely longer than an hour. Ganna does the 4-minute variety.

I believe all the participants were sent trainers to use that were pre-calibrated for total accuracy.

What trainers did they use? Wahoo kickr or the Tacx Neo 2T?

Anyone know?

I heard Neo 2T.

Jason Osborne on his set up .. https://www.instagram.com/p/CInE_jWoC5e/

---

*
___/\___/\___/\___ the s u r f b o a r d of the K u r p f a l z is the r o a d b i k e .. oSo >>

At my house I simply cannot have a fan that large where I am setup.

Before Covid, I would plug my phone up to the big screen in the gym at work with an HDMI cable and go at it on Zwift.

The gym being a gym had those huge pedestal fans. Ones heavy enough that some cyclists might not be able to move them easily.

It might not have been worth any watts in the first 10 to 20min of a workout.......but in the last set of a workout that thing was worth a bazillion watts. Figuratively speaking.

I think some of the pros and amateurs jumping on underestimate how important cooling can be. I've now seen cooling jerseys you can buy that you put in the freezer!

I thought about buying a construction worker cooling vest..........but I ain't got that kinda money to fart around on Zwift with.

It was tantamount to Russian torture the time they made the GCN show host do an ftp test with a freaking 6" desktop fan to cool with. That's just mean.

Blowers, specifically the ones made by Stanley.

One regular sized aimed at head/torso, and a wide one aimed at your hands

.. Jason's set up was build in his olympic rowing training camp hotel in Portugal .. yep, he won in the last 1 minute of 65 ..

---

*
___/\___/\___/\___ the s u r f b o a r d of the K u r p f a l z is the r o a d b i k e .. oSo >>

The problem that you have is that you think this is a "road" world championship. It's not. It's the Esports world championship. It's a completely different discipline. That would be like saying the Cross World Championship is a road world championship, and therefore, needs to be longer and harder.

I assure you that there was ample amounts of suffering going on in that race.

 


It was organized like a (non-selective and short) Road Worlds, though. I think they should have not tried to mimic IRL worlds. Instead have points sprints, KOMs, all sorts of things to cause drama and gaps for the entire duration. Force tactical decisions. Draw out the strongest riders early. Make teamwork obvious and compelling to watch. (in this one I saw Canada try some things...and the Germans at the end.....but otherwise it wasn't clear to me what teamwork was being attempted...or if having teammates even really factored into the outcome).

Quote:

I assure you that there was ample amounts of suffering going on in that race.

That's another problem, though. Sure hard to tell watching a bunch of nearly-identical avatars. I've seen some races show inset video of the people on their trainers. But that's never seemed very compelling to me either. Oh, look, it's a dude on a trainer. This is maybe solvable somehow.

But I think the esport is going to have to make itself more compelling. I don't think it's just a problem with old-school IRL cycling fans "not getting it."

// an analysis .. https://www.velonews.com/...world-championships/ ..

---

*
___/\___/\___/\___ the s u r f b o a r d of the K u r p f a l z is the r o a d b i k e .. oSo >>

UCI E-WC Jason Osborne joins Deceuninck – Quick-Step as stagiaire ..

---

*
___/\___/\___/\___ the s u r f b o a r d of the K u r p f a l z is the r o a d b i k e .. oSo >>