Anti sandbagging and other areas that need development and communication

Hi @Mark_Cote this looks like a positive outcome for the TFC guys and their racing series, but probably not ideal that it had to come to them cancelling their events due to lack of ZHQ support.

In terms of wider racing, is there anything you can say that could assure the disillusioned racing community that any of the items discussed countless times here and elsewhere are getting looked at?

Category enforcement is obviously the big one, but there is just so so much that could be done to enhance racing for the better and it just seems crazy its been left to stagnate over the last two years. Big ones for me are in the OP.

2 Likes

@xflintx posted on this earlier this week. We are working on category enforcement as our top priority for competition at this time. And of course on supporting and keeping the 1,000+ races/week up and running as the indoor season ramps up.

Mark

11 Likes

That’s good to hear @Mark_Cote . Having some kind of engagement with Zwift Staff on a regular basis can help keep the natives from getting too restless and will quell any talk of pitchforks and torches. Just sayin’…

2 Likes

Most be due another Zoom call soon?

2 Likes

Another post in another thread mentioned that there were about 57390 people on ZwiftPower with a race rank under 600 in September 2020. I just had a quick look and it seems that in early October 2021 that is now just over 50000.

So a drop of 7000, or roughly 12% fewer people raced in (roughly) July/August/September this year compared to last year.

Making an assumption, if the overall growth of Zwift is up over the same twelve months, it most likely indicates a distinct failure to not only attract but retain the racing user base.

Possibly some of that is due to COVID and more people did actually get to race out of doors this year.

But it is also possible (probable) that a lot of people have simply given up on racing in Zwift because of the overall lack of progress in fixing things that affect their race in ways that make it less interesting or satisfying.

13 Likes

While I do agree (and have always said) that cat enforcement comes first, I find the above paragraph somewhat troubling.

I asked some time ago, as the The Classics wrapped up, for confirmation that AutoCat as an experiment was intended for initial seeding of newcomers and returning racers only. As such, like I said then, I think it would work quite alright. Good enough. Better than straight 20 min WKG.

But reading the post from 5 days ago, there is nothing in it implying that Zwift even considers a move from a performance based categorization to a results based later on. It doesn’t say that you won’t, but the way this was phrased you sort of get the sinking feeling that Zwift is rather preparing for something of a Custer’s last stand in performance categorization. And everyone (almost) in here knows it would never work, never solve the problems.

So please, tell us that I am reading the post the wrong way, if I am. I know, you can’t share details, but please bring some clarity around that at least.

4 Likes

If Zwift and WTRL haven’t yet realised that results-based categorisation is both necessary and basically sufficient for fair challenging racing, then there isn’t really much hope for them. I wonder how they can have managed to get stuck so firmly down the rabbit-hole of trying to model performance based on some limited physiological data. They must have some completely different conceptualisation of what the underlying goal is.

7 Likes

Outdoor season in Europe has only just finished. I am guessing people are taking a break and scheduling in some down time from intense efforts.

That being said… growth numbers were likely definitely not impressive either.

Exactly so.

I want to hear that too …

There are several rabbit holes we could disappear down if its not clear what we want/need. Auto Categorization ( as was delivered by the Classics experiment) for example IS NOT what would work.

We don’t want to be re-categorized every race . We want a category set as a starter , bit like a race license/accreditation and perhaps maybe again if we lapsed ( e.g. didn’t ride on Zwift for a year or something ) . Once our cat was set we would want to be moved up and down only because we were winning [scoring points] . We certainly want to equally put an end to the nightmare of being disqualified just because you put in a better than normal effort , that is counter productive. .

The other rabbit hole I think we probably share a concern about is that somehow this will be some sort of one size fits all approach . It should just be another option ( a bit like the current options) that an event can have / not have . My mentioned WTRLS version on how to do this Zwift makes me worried they are looking to offer that as a take it or leave it . Auto Categorization should be based on if the rider fits the entry requirements whatever they may be ( mostly we talk about Racing Cat , but it could also be gender , age , country , having don’t something , be of a certain level , qualified from another event … etc ) .

Races would get extremely repetitive and boring it the always got categorized in the same way .

3 Likes

I don’t want this. Just to be devil’s advocate. I don’t want a category at all. I want a race organiser to decide how pens are split up. Behind that sits a rankings system that works off all races. If a race organiser decides to split pens by ranking, great. Other formats are also great. I get a choice. That’s my preference anyway.

10 Likes

I think we solidly agree on this point , just trying to tease out of zwift that they do and are not looking to deliver a lock-down solution but an enabling solution. I could be a cat 2 race license holder but I should be allowed to enter a race series event that wants to not use that category system but run there own points based category’s , or something based on a completely different criteria (age being a common example i.e masters racings) … or even none at all.

3 Likes

We are very likely about to lose one of our team members from our WTRL cat B team. He’s a lightweight rider at 70kg who has been straddling the 4.0 w/kg line for a while and that last race has likely pushed him over.
In terms of ‘results’ him and I are very similar, and in that race he finished 11th and I was 12th. However, I am 83kg with a 3.4(ish) w/kg average at the moment. He’s a better climber, and I’m better at sprinting as you’d imagine.

Because of this stupid funking arbitrary system, he’s now going to be chucked out of our team and this WTRL season, which (for all it’s many faults) is the best fun I think you can currently have on Zwift. At bang on 4.0 w/kg he wouldn’t have a very fun time in the As, and we do not have a team there.

1 Like

I agree with your point, but he might be surprised. I took a long time to upgrade from B to A, in fact because I am quite good at drafting, it took 2 climbs of Innsbruck for it to happen. Once in the As I’m mid pack. I never won a B race. There are a lot of overly-strong riders at the front end of B races - also because of the crappy cat system.

Also solving for team-based racing is really difficult. There almost HAS to be some sort of arbitrary system.

1 Like

Yeah who knows - he could maybe compete to some level with cat A riders on a hilly course.
Was more to illustrate him as a use case who is unfairly punished by the current set up, and now likely won’t be able to take part in this weekly dose of suffering / fun to share with the team each week.

Gammon? Still B and if he keeps away from crits or Bologna TTs I reckon he’ll be fine.

Aye, @Rich . You think so? I assumed that ZP would probably still be processing latest results and that one tonight may push him over.

4.1 for 20 is well within the limits. you’re looking at probably 4.3+ for 20min at 70kg for a DQ

And it would be 4.3 for 20 at least three times in 90 days. I think.

Ah cool - that’s encouraging the cheers. The overall point still stands though haha!