Zwift Bike Upgrade Performance: New Charts + Public Test Data

Test Methodology Notes

The following results are from tests done using our standard parameters: a 75kg rider, 183cm tall, without drafting. Flat tests were done on Watopia’s Tempus Fugit since it’s Zwift’s flattest route, while Climbing tests were done on Alpe du Zwift since it’s a long, steady climb.

While we present time data with tenths-of-a-second precision, it’s important to understand there is a 1-second margin of error in these results, so it’s probably not worth obsessing over fractional seconds.

Public Test Data Now Available!

Several readers asked for access to our raw speed test results, so we’ve compiled those into a public, read-only Google sheet.

Access this test data here >

The data is presented differently than we’ve done in the past, but you should find it much more useful for a variety of purposes. The following test results are compiled in the sheet:

• All frames in Zwift at both stage 0 (un-upgraded) and stage 5 (fully upgraded) status, at 300W and 150W
  • Flat test average speed and hour time gaps
  • Climb test average speed and hour time gaps
• All wheels in Zwift at 300W and 150W with the Zwift Carbon frame
  • Flat test average speed and hour time gaps
  • Climb test average speed and hour time gaps
• All wheels in Zwift at 300W with the Zwift TT frame
  • Flat test average speed and hour time gaps
  • Climb test average speed and hour time gaps

Time Savings Over 1 Hour (Stage 0 Frames)

This is a chart many of you have already seen, in our post previewing Zwift’s recent performance tweaks. Here you see time savings across 1 hour of riding at 300W (4 W/kg) on each frame compared to the stock Zwift Carbon frame. These are “stage 0” frames, meaning no performance upgrades have been applied.

The chart is sorted from the best-performing frames to the worst, and you can sort based on flat performance or climb performance.

Takeaways

When sorted by flat performance, you can easily see that the top 10 frames are very close on flat ground, separated by less than 3 seconds across an hour. There is also a big chunk of bikes near the low end (26 of them, in fact) which are all rather slow on flats, but perform within 2 seconds of each other.

If you sort by climb performance, the speed falloff from one bike to the next is more even across the board. The new S-Works Tarmac SL8 is king of the hill, but remember, this is before any performance upgrades. Let’s move on to the next chart to see which fully-upgraded frame climbs fastest!

Time Savings Over 1 Hour (Stage 5 Frames)

This chart is just like the one above, except these are “stage 5” frames, meaning all possible performance upgrades have been applied.

Read all about Bike Upgrades here >

We are still charting time savings across 1 hour of riding at 300W (4 W/kg) on each frame compared to the stock (stage 0) Zwift Carbon frame.

The chart is sorted from the best-performing frames to the worst, and you can sort based on flat performance or climb performance.

Takeaways

We don’t see any major rankings changes in terms of flat performance, but that’s no surprise. The Bike Upgrades system is structured in a way that increases performance differences between different frame types as upgrades progress.

So climbing bikes become even stronger climbers, and aero bikes become even more aero.

Sort the results by Climb Performance and you can see obvious evidence of this. The all-arounder S-Works Tarmac SL8 is no longer king of the hill at stage 5, as the Aethos has received more weight reduction upgrades than the Tarmac.

Two other climbing road bikes (Bridgestone Anchor and Trek Emonda) move up dramatically in the rankings compared to their stage 0 counterparts, handily beating the S-Works Tarmac.

The takeaway? If you want a true pure climbing weapon in Zwift, you’ll want to upgrade the S-Works Aethos.

Time Savings for Climbing (2 W/kg vs 4 W/kg)

Some readers have asked us to compute time gaps at lower power numbers, which is a perfectly reasonable request. Making this change has the interesting effect on climb times of making lightweight bikes move up the rankings while the more aero-focused bikes drop.

This is because, as you reduce your climbing speed, having an aero bike delivers less benefit.

Below we’ve charted climb time gaps for both 2 W/kg and 4 W/kg, and you can toggle between those two power levels to see how the rankings change. (The 2 W/kg time gap is compared to the Zwift Carbon frame at 2 W/kg, while the 4 W/kg time gap is compared to the Zwift Carbon frame at 4 W/kg).

Takeaways

If you’re a lower-powered rider, this chart may help you decide to focus on lighter-weight frames for races or PR efforts where significant climbing is involved.

Stacked Percentile Rank (Stage 0 vs Stage 5 Frames)

Lastly, we have one of our favorite charts: the stacked percentile. This chart ranks frames by their performance relative to other frames, but combines those rankings so you can see which frames are strongest all around.

We give you the option of viewing stage 0 frames, or fully-upgraded stage 5 frames.

Takeaways

The non-climbing bikes don’t move around a lot between the stage 0 and stage 5 versions of this chart, and this makes sense, since they receive the same upgrades.

What you do see, though, is the climbing bikes actually losing ground, as their increased climb performance isn’t enough to make up for the aero performance boosts of the other frames. The Aethos manages to lose only 1 spot, but the Bridgestone Anchor and Trek Emonda each drop several spots.

Questions or Comments?

Hopefully these charts help you make decisions about which frames to use in which events, and which frames you want to upgrade first.

Got questions or comments? Share below!