Totally - the current semi-fixed categories have irked me since 2015, especially when everyone presumes A-E always mean the same thing. They had value as a guide but they became ubiquitous and we’ve been hampered by people’s expectations of them ever since
2 Likes
I was ready for the move last week but still coiuldn’t stop it; maybe this week…
I’m interested in how they’re going to do pen enforcement. When I currently enter one of the Anti-Sangbagging races, I get the ‘out of category’ pop-up message when I’m about to enter the C pen.
These are my stats:
Is pen enforcement going to force me to race in B with a 2.88 average?
Well that doesn’t seem right. But then there’s quite a bit that’s not right with the legacy anti-sandbagging races
1 Like
As a B rider im perfectly happy with this…
1 Like
Not that it’s anything definitive but I did notice my FTP is published in the Tour de Zwift progress screen of the companion app. Never noticed this in the past but my wife says that I can open a cupboard looking for something plainly visible and not see it.
1 Like
You are not the only man so afflicted…
6 Likes
Given the speculation about TrainerRoad, and the assertion that this week has been “huge” for competition, I’m expecting nothing less than a system based on TrainerRoad’s progression levels.
You heard it here first! 
1 Like
What’s your FTP in your Zwift profile? Remember it only changes when you get an increase, it never goes down like the ZP 90 day figure. Mine is almost never in sync with my Zwiftpower or intervals.icu one unless I’ve literally just improved it.
does that mean i can come and annoy you in B ? ::
the proclaimers live!
3 Likes
287 watts which is closely aligned to ZP
LOL i get that to enter C, but i am D, i have not been cone in the D, (beside the test when i was like 90kg)
After seeing your post I just checked what Companion app showed in my TDZ progress report and it says 264W / 3.2W/Kg.
However, the only TDZ stage I treated like a proper workout was stage 4 short (c) around Jungle Circuit on an MTB on 21st Jan, where my best 20mins is listed as 3.1W/Kg at 84.2Kg ZwiftPower - Login (40th)
I think 264W / 3.2W/Kg has been pulled from Zwiftpower, from a TT I did on 5th Jan, with a best 20mins of 278W ZwiftPower - Login (38th).
I really need to do an FTP test or enter a 20min+ TT, because I’ve been getting some surprisingly good power numbers for me (considering the health setbacks I’ve had in the last 12 months) in the Team Electric Spirit lunchtime sprint races over the last month. I’ve regularly been flogging myself to my limit getting averages of just over 300W for these sub 15min races, but I’d be very surprised if I could get close to 300W for 20mins+ and need to start entering events as a B again.
1 Like
To see where the FTP numbers were coming from I changed my FTP in my profile settings in the game and the companion app reflected the new setting.
I was hoping it was from ZP but sadly no.
It might be just me but I feel like this is an unnecessary contention somehow, and it unfortunately undermines the idea of ranking.
Yes, organizers should have the ability to create pen splits. Maybe it’s even a slightly higher or variable number of pens, those details don’t matter so much. What does matter is that they still need a set of criteria to make the split. For a variety reasons, the criteria cannot be arbitrarily complex — even if an organizer is savvy enough to create a fully custom algorithm, it creates unnecessary complexity for the riders to try to understand every different configuration, to understand who can be together in one team in this race or that, etc. I could be wrong, but it can be tested.
However, I would think that the initial implementation would be best served by offering organizers a set of criteria they can combine:
- Ranking
- Gender
- Age
- Power profile (eFTP or whatever)
- Professional status
These could be overridden by:
- Series assignment (which itself is decided based on above criteria originally)
- Manual assignment (if for some reason the system fails a corner case)
The default icould be for example to simply split Ranking into 5–7 predefined brackets (using 5 and current ZP Ranking, could be e.g. 0–75, 76–150, 151–250, 251–350, 350–450, 451+).
If the organizer wanted to customize, then they could for example create a different set of brackets — however, it’s once again notable that to do so one needs to be able to understand what the differences in Ranking mean, where the cutoff points are and so on. It’s easier if this is maintained globally. (IIRC some ranking systems themselves balance the ranks into brackets.)
The way I see it, it’s going to be very hard to improve on what you can do with these criteria (not impossible, but probably not worth the effort).
The one thing this does not yet address is field size, which could be an interesting factor. It would probably be a bit finicky to get right, and best done with registration that closes ahead of the race (like real races).
2 Likes
It’s a curiously human notion that intentionally and unintentionally sandbagging or cruising should be handled differently somehow.
They shouldn’t. They should be handled based on how they affect the race. The moral/fair play considerations are a separate thing.
5 Likes
Yes exactly. Cruising is simply a inevitable consequence of using a ranking order (such as 20 min W/kg) that doesn’t match race performance. It doesn’t require any intentionality on the part of the riders, though of course deliberate behaviour may make its effects stronger (worse).
1 Like
Pen enforcement and results promotion are very doable and I feel would have few negative unintended consequences.
Organizer defined cut offs maybe problematic.
What if a racer is legitimatly near but not at the top of their cat.
They enter a race where the organizer has lowered the cat ceiling so the faster folks are in the next cat.
This rider wins the race.
Does he get moved up in cat because he won or wins weekly because he rides the same race?
To create good or equal field sizes, one good thing about online races is that “ahead of the race” could mean minutes or seconds ahead of the race.
So in theory you could close entry at 12:00 for a 12:01 start, with Zwift’s servers placing people in pens in the 60 seconds in between.
Alternatively, fields could be split into say 4 equally-sized groups 31 minutes before the start - before the pens open - and then any late joiners would just join the group whose boundaries they fit within. This way the groups wouldn’t be quite as equal in number, but they should be close enough to give a good experience.
1 Like