I dont disagree that organisers can put on any event they want and have any rules they want but just like in real world racing if you want your event to be sanctioned and run under an organisational umbrella ( Zwift Racing or whatever you call it in this case ) It has to be strictly under those rules. I would go as far to say that Zwift should be perfectly in there right and I would support it for them to actually state its not an official race if it is not being run under the specific agreed rules and conditions. That way Zwift dont get griefed over events that they do not fall under there policys . Thats only fair.
1 Like
Currently organizers can pick options how to run the event. Like double draft , woman only, single start group, different pens, staggered starts…
This will just add a option.
1 Like
I support the intention, but I’d also like to make a counter argument.
As long as there’s no ranking-based cat system, there will always be riders falling at the short end of the arbitrary cuts/boundaries, some of whom will find themselves riding solo already after the first minutes of the race despite racing at their VO2-max. Let me emphasize that I don’t advocate racing down or manufacturing a rider’s profile (read: change weight to purposely perform at the top-end of a category), but I do like to believe that most who do, do so because the next category did not give them the race workout they are looking and paying for. Others may quit racing entirely because of this and whereas these may go unnoticed they should be of equal concern to Zwift - I fell into this bucket when I upgraded close to the end of my indoor-season last year. Unfortunately some riders push things to the extreme and these “silly-few” blow up the fields entirely and deliberately. It would be great to filter out this last group without causing collateral damage to the others and ideally even improving racing for everyone.
There is a short-term workaround which I’ve posted here before; which is to include an “E” pen that is raced as a sportive/Fondo style: race cats only see and draft their race cat (so nothing changes here), while E riders see and draft all cats. That way everyone, including those that were upgraded but now find themselves unable to stick to any group in their new category, can experience a race-type effort without ruining the race dynamics for the others. It also allows people to race after injury and keep their motivation up, guide newcomers in their races, or whichever other the intention of a rider may be to join the event. I think it would be an addition to all races, but especially so in Haute route and Tour de X type of events. Private meetups in a way already work like this as participants can only see/draft other participants, yet can be seen/drafted by everyone riding on the same route.
I fear that bluntly blocking cat access to riders in the current system will be a sure way to invoke vivid discussions here and elsewhere, which will not benefit anyone and may lead to more people manufacturing their profile or quitting racing. I believe one should not be done without accommodating or providing an alternative for the other. One of which I raised here and could apply regardless of the cat-system in place, but there may be other/simpler/better options including the addition of more categories or “rolling” categories.
As a whole, I would welcome it if the current W/kg-based category system can be reconsidered, as its flaws are evident and I could give many examples of it. A ranking system has been suggested many times, but if this is too much of an overhaul at the current stage then a more comprehensive look at a rider’s profile than just W/kg would be a great step forward. Zwift is the only one who knows exactly how the 20-min power for a given rider’s profile/CdA (weight and height) translates to speed on flats and uphill’s, and I cannot come up with a good reason not to include that knowledge to more accurately group riders of similar ability.
It would also be extremely helpful if this can be combined with the introduction of a “racers’ license” which shows your suggested category based on your Zwift in-game performance (including FTP tests, Alpe climbs, workouts and races - or in the future ideally past race results). This would need to be separate from the manually/automatically input FTP value, because some training programs require the FTP value to be changed to another level.
As a final note: at the end of the day, to me Zwift and the racing on it is ‘just’ a fitness game that provides me with an incredible interactive and engaging workout that is not easily achieved solo. The success of racing for me comes from being grouped with people around the same abilities, not way above or way below it. Thus, whereas sand baggers certainly take away from that experience, whichever fixes are made should always fulfill what I believe is the primary goal: grouping riders of similar ability.
3 Likes
Just want to call out that the comms here, whilst not exactly clear and precise, is a huge improvement compared to what we have seen in the last 12-18 months.
I wrote a few articles for Zwift Insider that cover a range of ‘development opportunities’ as well as a more detailed look at the potential for a rankings system and Clubs.
What I would love to see in terms of communication is something along the lines of:
“We are working on tighter integrations between Zwift Power and the core Zwift platform, including a rankings and progression system within the core client that should mean the end of sandbagging, and provide a more rewarding experience for all racers. This is a significant piece of work and, whilst it is progressing well, it will take some time to implement. Every month we are going to do a blog post to explain a bit more about the system, how it is progressing and how we would like it to work, to get as much feedback from the community as possible. In the mean time, we are looking at a shorter term solution to limit the minimum category a rider can enter based on their ZP cat”
Mic drop.
12 Likes
I would love to see a configurable UI in terms of the position of each element, and being able to switch them on/off. Personally I would want most of my key data (power/HR/speed etc) on the companion app, with route profile and rider list on the screen (removing rider list if I am free-riding) - but everyone will have different preferences (based on different ride types) so the ability to customise is key.
I might do possibilities for UI as my next article, but probably needs mockups so could take a while.
3 Likes
This is just the way it is right now. We are sitting here discussing these things which have been discussed for years. People are manufacturing their profile right now and many have quit racing because of all the sandbaggers. It can’t be worse.
There will always be people at the lower end of a category, but by eliminating the sandbaggers, the distance from top to bottom will be limited to the category limits. Not by the sandbaggers.
I like your suggestion for the E cat that can see and draft all cats. The problem is with staggered start races. I suspect that implementing this is a bigger task and maybe we need something while waiting for a better solution.
If there are no limits to manual changes to FTP and weight, in a system based on these numbers, the sandbaggers will just use these to do what they do today. FTP will be the new weight doping and we are at status quo. There should be one FTP setting for workouts (maybe call it something else) and one automatically recorded from e.g. last 90 days performance that can be improved by doing FTP tests or racing.
3 Likes
I had exactly the same concern about the fact race pens are stagger started so the E idea , good as it is , might be more complex .
Not wanting to endless repeat solutions but I think we might be able to agree perhaps on the acceptance criteria for success of any improvement. Maybe … 
My stab at this would be …
- It is not possible to enter either by choice or in error the wrong race event category.
- It is not possible to manual alter data that will affect your categorization. It has to be based on fixed and/or tangible verifiable information ( e.g. Results , Age) . i,e things that vary and are not easily verifiable ( Weight , FTP , Watts your trainer/power-meter outputs , any personal "performance metrics like that in fact ) should not be used for this.
- Rules that are set for official races are hard and fast . Unofficial non affiliated races or events are still free to operate as organizers wish, but will not be given official sanction or status as a “race” (nor by implication count towards any points or results process) ,
- There is a simple and easily to implement verification and appeals process .
- There is a simple and understandable process to obtain your initial category
.
3 Likes
Given that this functionality already exists to some extent on touchscreen devices for the leaderboards and riders nearby list I’m at a loss as to why it’s not available for everyone already. Just a simple UX improvement that virtually everyone would appreciate.
6 Likes
The assumption is that this is not built on a framework but hardcoded would be my guess.
1 Like
Point is it’s literally already there. They already know how to do it because they’ve done it. It’s not something radical or new, like a whole different UI would be. It’s just an example of a tiny quick win that would be welcomed by the community, the kind of thing that is routinely ignored for some apparent reason.
5 Likes
What I meant was that if it was framework built then extending and reusing the work already done would as you say be like simple. The fact it was implemented for individual widgets in the way it was suggests that it is not designed in that re-usable context . These objects are on the screen as independently coded and defined widgets that simple things like setting view/hide is not as easy as we might want them to be. The Architecture of the screen layout is what is preventing this work being done and needs a more fundamental change . Otherwise like you said … why haven’t we got this as a matter of course … its not even something I would have expected to require a single feature request let alone endless ones for a long time. If product improvements are going to rely on micro feature requests from users we really are going to get nowhere fast here …
1 Like
I took part in a beta ride probably a year ago with no UI on the screen, and there is still a weekly ride with no UI - So there is 1 option available now, but that is not offered to a wider group.
Next steps would be some on / off.
Then customisable UI
People want to see progress, and bite size improvements are the way to deliver this, but zwift have chosen to deliver nothing.
Take the future works program, how many differing strands have just been launched with no incremental improvements released?
3 Likes
The only tangible innovative development from the last year that has been widely well received by the masses that I can really think of is Pace Partners. Steering as well for the minority that use it, but I can’t comment on that.
I dread to think how much Dev resource was used on Boost mode. That’s got to have been pretty complex to code. Granted I’ve never used it, but it really doesn’t appeal to me.
2 Likes
The only future works program that does have an incremental improvement program is locked away for the few so no one else gets a look in 
I can comment on steering having twice invested in it .
In both cases initial feedback was ok that’s a decent start , it was fun and could be a lot more fun and engaging with long term user engagement prospect , but it really needs some thinking on it to be a readily marketable and usable product beyond … look at me with the ability to move from side to side using my handlebars as a trigger.
That didn’t get followed through , and instead yet another way to do that same limited functionality is being worked on to mean more people can find out and report back what we have already reported back.
As a result within a few weeks my enthusiasm for others to try it is now … dont bother unless you have a hundred quid burning a hole in your pocket.
2 Likes
This is the gold standard for rankings/matchmaking:
2 Likes
James
Super well written and thanks for this.
Mostly I want to ensure this is an open conversation and my first goal is just for Zwift to show up or a regular, real cadence. This is often challenging but we’re focused on doing better here.
Also, I don’t want to commit to anything that we cannot commit to. We’ve overpromised too much in the past and need to improve.
This thread is super valuable as we are considering several detailed options on how to move forward in anti-sandbagging, categorization, matchmaking. Much of what’s being discussed is at the core of the game team’s direction on this. I’ll speak w the team if we’re comfortable getting to a regular cadence of information on this.
Mark
12 Likes
The license concept could also be used for bike racing. You can think of different disciplines in bike racing as a license with a rating connected to it. You can have Crit, Flat, Hilly, Endurance, TT etc.
1 Like
Thank you for that Mark. You give us some hope that the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming train…
1 Like
Yes - goal is we’re all on a train together speeding through the tunnel
1 Like