I'm not sure I want to publicly publicise the Kickr bike thing but I'm tempted to try it with the Neo bike.....purely for hypothetical research reasons of course 😇
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I'm not sure I want to publicly publicise the Kickr bike thing but I'm tempted to try it with the Neo bike.....purely for hypothetical research reasons of course 😇
I don't think anyone on here has the kickr, so probably safe saying it 👍
Legs
usually riding on Zwift...
- Location
- Staffordshire
Anyone got a tandem? 
alex_cycles
Veteran
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Anyone got a tandem?
That's the thing isn't it? Everyone's focussed on the clever software cheats, but cheating with hardware would be pretty-much undetectable with remote racing.
alex_cycles
Veteran
- Location
- Oxfordshire
Peter Salt
Bittersweet
- Location
- Yorkshire, UK
After reading the document again, I'm not entirely sure that he used this method. It mentions he agreed to take part in a performance test and brought his own power meter pedals. The pedals were off by 25% compared to what they measured independently. He couldn't have used the method presented in the DefCon clip linked by DCR as that requires another device.
Peter Salt
Bittersweet
- Location
- Yorkshire, UK
Another UCI Worlds course, presumably. Nice.
In the lower Cat community racing, yes. But in the elite racing with things like dual recording and standardised equipment (I believe for World Champs they're all sent the same trainer to use), and needing to film yourself etc. then I think you do need some kind of software hack really to cheat the system.
To be fair I think a lot of "cheating" in the general community is just shoddy, innacurate equipment (I must dig out that old Bkool trainer some time
). Some people I'm sure innocently ride on dodgy equipment and are in blissful ignorance that they're much better than they ought to be, whilst others no doubt are fully aware and carry on anyway because they like winning or being flattered by the numbers they appear to be putting out.The ones that really go out of their way to actively cheat are on another level IMO
Peter Salt
Bittersweet
- Location
- Yorkshire, UK
Uuuu, just reading through all the new stuff: https://www.zwift.com/uk/this-season-on-zwift. Some nice improvements.
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying? I think it's generally accepted that he intercepted the ant+ data from his trainer and somehow increased the reported power data using some software, which then matched his over-reporting power meter. Why do you think he couldn't have used that kind of method?
Peter Salt
Bittersweet
- Location
- Yorkshire, UK
From the doc.:
To give the rider the maximum possible benefit of the doubt, Zwift contacted them with the above evidence and offered them the opportunity to demonstrate that they were capable of such a world class performance in an independent test.
The rider accepted the offer and conducted an independent test of their maximum average power output while simultaneously using the same powermeter that they used for the above named event. This test took them 4 minutes 47 seconds to complete with the following results.
• Their powermeter showed an average power output of 511 Watts.
• The independent measurement of their average power output was approx. 400 Watts.
This therefore conclusively demonstrated that their powermeter gave results that were broadly consistent with their performance in the above named event, but was very significantly miscalibrated (over-reading by greater than 25%) compared to the power they were actually producing.
The method you mentioned requires another device - a computer like a Raspberry Pi or something like that. You plug the Ant+ dongle to that, it runs some wizardry ant spits out altered data at the other end. He couldn't have showed up to an independent test with his own dongle and developer board
From the doc.:
To give the rider the maximum possible benefit of the doubt, Zwift contacted them with the above evidence and offered them the opportunity to demonstrate that they were capable of such a world class performance in an independent test.
The rider accepted the offer and conducted an independent test of their maximum average power output while simultaneously using the same powermeter that they used for the above named event. This test took them 4 minutes 47 seconds to complete with the following results.
• Their powermeter showed an average power output of 511 Watts.
• The independent measurement of their average power output was approx. 400 Watts.
This therefore conclusively demonstrated that their powermeter gave results that were broadly consistent with their performance in the above named event, but was very significantly miscalibrated (over-reading by greater than 25%) compared to the power they were actually producing.
The method you mentioned requires another device - a computer like a Raspberry Pi or something like that. You plug the Ant+ dongle to that, it runs some wizardry ant spits out altered data at the other end. He couldn't have showed up to an independent test with his own dongle and developer board
He didn't need to - his PM pedals were over reporting by 25% anyway.
His race performance data came from his trainer not his pedals - they were just used for the dual recording back up data. It's his trainer than needed the software intervention and the investigation suggested that's what he did (eg the disconnection of a data channel just before the race etc)
