Actual question to you all:
You mind if I close down this thread since we have the feedback form for the test events?
Or do we want to leave it open as an “open swim” thread of sorts?
Leave it open please. Closing it would make the other thread messy, and there is a lot more than just cat enforcement to discuss.
7 Likes
Open pse - enjoying the bigger discussion.
1 Like
Yeah I don’t see what closing this thread will do. We still need to discuss sandbagging etc
Leave it open please.
I can move posts there if it is on that topic.
2 Likes
Can you undo those moves Gerrie? Leave that thread for direct feedback. Now it’s already messy with banter and broader discussion.
It is unlikely that WTRL racers will be trying these until next Wednesday. Not going to do a hard race the day before, will be too tired on Tuesday, 
On the garmin vo2 max front, I’ve been lab tested a few times for V02 (work in a Uni, help students with their testing and I get geeky data) and garmin is invariably about 1 point off the actual number.
It’s an estimate, it’s not going to be perfect, but for me it’s a fairly decent guide.
On the release front, it might have taken 3000 posts, what feels like an eternity and a battle to rival the long night, but that is the first step lots have been asking for. Nice.
6 Likes
I think that is like 220-AG for heart rate. If it fits you great but if not it’s terrible - my Garmin estimate is miles off (about 7, which is significant).
I think there needs to be a shared apology to @OleKristian . He was right. The intiial comms was not clear. The tests are not using the ZP cats, and the formula to place riders is not known.
Significantly different to what was first shared.
I am half postive about the direction - I have supported using more of the power curve, but if the formula is not shared, it’s a recipe for disaster (and impossible for race organisers to adapt the boundaries).
6 Likes
I’m not sure on the 220-Age as I blast that equation out of the water…
I’m 42 and a max HR of 196…
1 Like
That’s his point. It fits a decent proportion of some folk, but is way out for a lot too (like me and you).
1 Like
Not far off yourself
3 Likes
Not going in to panic mode just yet, but if the formula is not openly shared this is not going to be pretty. It’s autocat, the only difference is that you can also race up.
Step 1:
What we asked for: Enforcement of the existing categories
What would have been acceptable/preferable: Enforcement of categories with more of the power curve used, but those metrics clearly shared
What we got: Autocat v2
3300 posts of screaming in to a vacuum?
7 Likes
Hmmmmm, see where this goes but it does seem to be a huge over-complication of what should be a fairly straightforward MVP. Doesn’t even have to link through to Zwiftpower for existing category, just use the same calculation. He said that this approach was under review though.
2 Likes
Turns out that the initial initial version was actually clear but the clarification I requested and got was at best a smokescreen. Not impressed but not exactly surprised either.
4 Likes
The whole place is a mad house.
8 Likes
Initially I thought we would include the E category as a “feeder” if you didn’t have race data, and then that changed but the events still made it through with E being open, which will be getting fixed here soon.
This is the danger of letting you all know the updates as I learn them. Doing my best!
4 Likes
It’s nothing to do with pen E @xflintx
You were asked numerous times if the existing known category logic was going to be used for the tests. You made it very clear that it was. We wanted to make sure you weren’t going down the autocat route, because no-one wants that (see the poll further up).
What we have got is autocat, only you can choose to race up. A secret formula that tries to estimate VO2 Max and MAP with no-one able to validate it as it’s secret.
Honestly I shouldn’t be surprised, but it is quite unbelievable.
3 Likes
I understand better now, thanks for the clarification. What I was under the impression was being asked was if we were going to be redefining the categories to something different than they are today, as in A-D are now based solely on raw wattage output, only 20 min power, etc.
What it seems I failed to connect was that the concern was how the categories would be restricted in relation to current A-D definitions as they are based on w/kg. Do I have that right?
It seems a subtle and important distinction. This is good to know for future iterations of this.
You can go back and read the posts. People tried to clarify time and time again if it was just going to use the ZP category definitions. Ole questioned it and in no uncertain terms was told to sit back down.
Regardless, as has been discussed plenty of times in this thread, we can improve on the ZP calcs by using more of the power curve. However the maths has to be known.
4 Likes