Related

Neo2T Zwift virtual shifting software support required

9642301
6 months ago

Zwift ride frame is now available for sale independently. This gives Garmin a last chance to stay in business by upgrading their trainer software to support zwift virtual shifting.

  • 0 11 days ago in reply to bartbouse

    If that really is the point, you mean that Tacx will never sell a trainer ever again since they don't offer virtual shifting?

    Back to the topic at hand, can someone help me understand whether virtual shifting in Rouvy actually requires a Zwift VS compatible trainer? Quite disappointing if so, as it still excludes us Tacx owners from utilising the functionality.

    And to build on that further, why is that case? What I'm struggling to understand is why a Zwift cog would be necessary at all. What prevents a smart trainer from being smart enough to simulate a certain resistance? I mean it works perfectly well for using ERG mode. I'm probably missing something very obvious but quite keen to understand.

  • 0 11 days ago in reply to 3132681

    If that really is the point, you mean that Tacx will never sell a trainer ever again since they don't offer virtual shifting?  No, that's not what I mean.  Tacx trainers work perfectly fine without virtual shifting and with every app on the market.

    Back to the topic at hand, can someone help me understand whether virtual shifting in Rouvy actually requires a Zwift VS compatible trainer? Yes,  I believe this is likely true from what I have read from Rouvy.  Rouvy back engineered Zwift virtual shifting. Therefore, it must be a Zwift virtual shifting compatible trainer and you have to buy the Zwift click or play controllers.  Quite disappointing if so, as it still excludes us Tacx owners from utilising the functionality.  

    And to build on that further, why is that case? It's the case because Zwift will not open up it's protocol to other apps at all or to trainer companies without a contract. A contract that I'm sure requires the trainer company to pay revenue to Zwift which Garmin likely will never do.  They don't have to, they are not near bankruptcy like every other trainer company.  What I'm struggling to understand is why a Zwift cog would be necessary at all. What prevents a smart trainer from being smart enough to simulate a certain resistance? A Zwift cog is not required but software to drive the trainer is because the trainer has to communicate with the Zwift controllers to do the virtual shifting which is all proprietary to Zwift.  Garmin can't use Zwifts software without Zwift's permission and contract as it would be an appropriation of proprietary information and subject Garmin to a lawsuit.  Rouvy did it and, as DCRainmaker points out,  they are taking a big risk, one that Garmin is unlikely to take considering the size of Garmin's wallet compared to Rouvy or Zwift.  Garmin is worth $43 Billion and Zwift is worth $1 Billion.  Why appropriate technology from the little guy when you have more to lose?  I mean it works perfectly well for using ERG mode. I'm probably missing something very obvious but quite keen to understand.

    Hope that helps.

  • 0 11 days ago in reply to bartbouse

    Appreciate your responses!

    But if we disregard Zwift’s click and cog controllers for a second, I guess I’m more curious as to why the trainer can’t handle these resistance changes itself ”locally”. Consider the Wahoo or Tacx bikes, these products don’t rely on Zwift to manage shifting. I doubt these have actual gears (or some other mechanical solution) in them but rather have software solution? What would prevent the same solution from being applied in a Tacx trainer?

    And id QZ has managed to side-step reliance-on-Zwift problem entirely (if they indeed have), what would prevent Tacx from developing something proprietary themselves. Like you point out, financial resources are not an issue. 

    The reality is that Tacx is losing market share for every day this goes unsolved, be it out of concern for the diversity of the virtual riding app market (I doubt it) or pure laziness.

  • 0 11 days ago in reply to 3132681

    I don't know hiw it works with zwift some are more knowledgeable than i am.

    I tried on mywhoosh and if you shift, the check the slope percent, it changes.

    So harder gear means a higher rate slope is sent to the trainer.

  • 0 11 days ago in reply to 3132681

    But if we disregard Zwift’s click and cog controllers for a second, I guess I’m more curious as to why the trainer can’t handle these resistance changes itself ”locally”. Consider the Wahoo or Tacx bikes, these products don’t rely on Zwift to manage shifting. I doubt these have actual gears (or some other mechanical solution) in them but rather have software solution? What would prevent the same solution from being applied in a Tacx trainer?  Hopefully I can explain as I understand it.  The trainers, either Tacx or any other, are all likely capable.  However the resistance changes are controlled by Zwift for virtual shifting and require Zwift click or play controllers to initiate the shift.  This control likewise requires the trainer company to update the trainer software so that the trainer knows how to interpret the software command.  This is proprietary to Zwift and Zwift refuses to open up this protocol.  The thing preventing the solution being applied is Zwift's control of the propreitary information and requiring trainer companies to pay royalties to Zwift to implement the solution.  My guess is, Garmin/Tacx is unwilling to pay royalties to Zwift.

    And id QZ has managed to side-step reliance-on-Zwift problem entirely (if they indeed have), what would prevent Tacx from developing something proprietary themselves. Like you point out, financial resources are not an issue. I can only guess that Zwift has chosen not to sue in court QZ for hacking it's proprietary information because QZ is not worth suing.  That said, QZ is an outside app and it's not 
    Garmin/Tacx using Zwift's code illegally, it's you or whoever is using it and QZ.

    The reality is that Tacx is losing market share for every day this goes unsolved, be it out of concern for the diversity of the virtual riding app market (I doubt it) or pure laziness.  Historically, Garmin being from the Bible belt of Kansas is a very conservative company politically and financially.  They are usually the company that others are stealing tech from.  Garmin is rarely, if ever, being accused of stealing tech from anyone else.  Additionally, Garmin generally acquires tech to make solutions they need.  They never pay anyone a fee for it.  Garmin, for instance, is one of the few health aggregators that still provides its app for watches and computer for free and has forever.  In this way, they have protected consumers in a much greater sense that most any other tech company.  For the most part, Garmin is buy once pay once.  Even their watch and computer app store has largely been free for years and years unlike Apple or anyone else.  So, I do believe they truly are looking out for the little guy in many ways here.  And, it certainly isn't to protect their lackluster Tacx app nor is it laziness.  Additionally, Garmin has a mostly good track record of open protocols such as Ant+.  They are probably very irked by Zwift's walled Garden since this is not Garmin's usual practice.

    My prediction is that Garmin is currently losing trainer market share. I don't disagree with this.  Maybe more for their pricing than anything.  They are to high.  But, I also predict that in two years or less the only trainer companies will be: (1) those that contract with Zwift and give them revenue - Wahoo, Jetblack, and Elite; (2) Garmin; and (3) cheap Chinese trainers.  In about the last three years we have seen the demise of 4iiii's trainer business, Stages, Saris, Kinetic, and probably others I can't remember.  I suspect in the same two years we'll see the demise of several training apps. Will Rouvy, BKool, FulGaz, Kinomap, Training Peaks Virtual, all be around, doubtful.  Garmin is and will be the only quality manufacturer around that gives you choices and doesn't nearly lock you in to Zwift.  It's a good thing that Garmin doesn't have to fall in line with Zwift.