Dropping in before the weekend to let you know that we’re still looking at all the feedback here, and we appreciate the ongoing discussion. Your questions and feedback aren’t falling on deaf ears, we’re just working out the best way to get out some responses to you all. That’ll be happening soon!
For the moment, I have two points for you all to specifically bring to your attention:
For the women racing: Would you like to race among the men using this autocat system, or are the women’s categories sufficient enough for you to have a good racing experience?
We have a feedback form we’d love for all of you to fill out should you wish to now that you’ve got a couple races under your belt with this system.
We love to see you all racing and having fun, as well as seeing your questions and discussion. Thank you for helping out!
Feedback from Socks4Watts - it really depends on the numbers. The ladies categories worked well for ZRL where you knew the fields were going to be significant, but the ladies races were practically empty for the classics, and with the autocat they felt like that should seed them properly anyway so would prefer it is mixed gender. With a rankings system you could filter by gender, so are racing for overall points but can see your rank by gender/age etc. Ultimately choice is the best answer - determined by the race organiser. For the Classics combined genders would have been more suitable.
For one thing, I haven’t seen any sandbagging to speak of in women-only races. (Of course I myself tend to do the opposite and race above my assigned category most of the time anyway so what do I know…)
In many women’s races the fields are so small it’s almost so that categorization in general is something of a double-edged sword, if the fields per category are not big enough to create much of a race, especially if each category races alone. Based on what I have heard (haven’t done any myself), this has been a problem with many of the women’s autocat races as well. Not saying there shouldn’t be any categories at all, but the problems to be solved are different.
Speaking of problems to be solved, part of this overall discussion sounds to me like some people just want a category system where nobody (or as a minimum not they themself) ever finishes last in any category.
Before I got an Apple Watch I tried a Garmin VivoSmart 4. Mostly for O2 stats overnight.
But since it was on and recording and pushing to GarminExpress etc, I ended up comparing a Zwift session heart rate as recorded by the VivoSmart 4 to the Garmin chest strap. I simply was not recording much above 130 and for a Zwift race I average about 155 with a range of 135 to 170. If it is not recording anything (nothing!!!) over 130 for that 30-40 minutes, it is simply broken.
That made me think the (newish) VivoSmart 4 was broken so I got it exchanged. The replacement turned out to be the same, the second replacement after that ditto.
About that time I got an Apple Watch. Much better by comparison to the VivoSmart 4, but still not quite as accurate as the good old chest strap. But would (for this discussion) probably be good enough.
VivoSmart 4 is hanging out on the desk. Can’t see that it is fit for purpose.
Some in our team specifically prefer mixed racing. Others would normally race women’s only but have been put off the Classics series so far due to low numbers in the women’s category.
I think the option to choose mixed or women’s only racing would be great. So far, the women’s fields in the Classics have been very small. Of the women I’ve spoken to, we know we’re in the right category, but there simply hasn’t been enough people to form the different groups in the race. Lots of us have ended up riding on our own which isn’t much fun.
The option to join a mixed race with a bigger field would be great.
This is not my impression. I think you are underestimating people in this thread if you think that they don’t know that there has to be winners and loosers in every category.
My impression is that people want competitive and fun racing for as many as possible.
It’s certainly an awkward one… I’m not a prolific racer but when I do I nearly always join the mixed race rather than the female only race unless it is a specific event aimed only at females. Simply, on events that are a decent length (i.e. not crits) even with ~50 riders, riders can get spaced out so much that much of the race ends up being a solo TT which is no fun. So I nearly always join a mixed race as in a big field there’s an almost certain chance I can group up with some of the slower male riders.
Yes that might make it difficult to attract more female racers for those that choose to only join the female rides. But alternatively I hope that visibly seeing female riders in the mixed group races removes some of that reluctance for females to race. I might not be getting near the podium, but I can still pick up some ZwiftPower points every so often on ZwiftPower, sit in a group and practice race tactics, and practice sprint finishes, and consistently be pushed to race faster… and most importantly have a fun experience. Solo TT’s are a fun experience for some people, but not normally for me
In my category there have been an average of about 8 entries and then around 5/6 that start. When the races split naturally on the hills, there aren’t enough people to form groups so people have to ride on their own but some just drop out. It stops being a fun race and becomes a long lonely ride to the line.
An autocat mixed race might give more women the confidence that they are equally matched with the men in the category and encourage them to race. The groups would be bigger, everyone would have a someone to ride with and it would be more fun🤷♀️
To follow up on what others have said, my partner will ride dedicated women’s series (Herd Sheries was one) as they tend to be well attended & competitive.
But for things like the classics/mad monday/mountain goat where the women’s race has so few people racing she would prefer to race in a mixed category.
My opinion is much like the comments above, mixed & female options for races.
Though, the only thing to review & over come is the hard limit ftp boundaries which cause some issues (not specific to women as juniors and light weight men all gain from them)
Interesting… many years ago (pre power meters) most training was done against heart rate zones and there is plenty of maths that equate HR to power.
However, this is not what I am doing.
It is very easy to isolate those races where a rider is not putting a great deal of effort in based on HR rates. One key metric of a ‘sandbagger’ is cruise around and then explode off in the last km or so. If they show races in a low HR Zone or carefully managed sub 20min efforts, then clearly they are not putting as much effort in as a race where they are in a high HR zone and so the data for those events is either ignored or scaled up appropriately (based on the average Zwifter that their profile fits into) if there is nothing else that can be used. While yes illness and stress/tired days can impact HR v performance, various averaging and statistical analysis can dilute that out.
This is essentially about figuring out where a racer should be early on and how much effort has been used. Once there is a starting point, ranking/upgrade points can go to work on the rest.
Many of you are mentioning that racers should be promoted and demoted based on points… promoted and demoted from what to what? Hence the use of classes to look at how a league/division structure could playout.
I have a question about the results of Zwiftpower. I’m not sure if I am in the right spot so excuse me if this isn’t the place.
I just did my first race after being a few days on Zwift. Did first an ftp test and got around 2.3 w/kg. Later i got a message it was a bit higher (around 2.39 w/kg) so i signed up for a cat D race around the volcano.
However, after the race when I finished first in cat D and 17/53 overall, it turned out I had over 2.5 w/kg so I got disqualified. It was obviously not my intention to get in the lower categorie just to win, but I had no point of reference other than my fpt. Do I get any penalties or something for this dsq?
Also, in the results on zwiftpower my heartrates and lenght are red, is that a problem?
The way many here criticize and poke holes ‘to make sure we are doing it “right”’/‘ticking all your boxes’ suggests you feel we are amateurs.
Having been the designer of many clinical and performance related trials involving many hundreds/thousands of patients/athletes, then combined with a whole array of expertise at Zwift, we assure you that this is not a half arsed, thoughtless test. We work to a very diligent protocol to ensure significance and accuracy. The fact that this is not shared with everyman and his dog is pretty normal. Testing is generally blind to those participating (or at best VERY limited in information) in order to get unengineered, unbiased results and honest opinions.
What we would very much appreciate that you join the races (some here are firing off opinions but have yet to take part) and feedback on how each race felt. Some will obviously feel good and some will feel bad and we want to know why. Discussing the validation of results based ranking etc is not what we are testing at this stage. Also discussing what we might be/could be/ought to be/assuming we are testing provokes a lot of noise that is not helpful (hence the deafening silence).
As reminder to what we are currently looking at - the best way to divisonalize/categorize riders to give an effective foundation structure for riders to progress through without vast ability gaps, lengthy periods ‘stuck’ in one place, coping with racers who demand, demand, demand all the time but disappear for 6 months of the year.
Once we have that - the points system is very easy and riders can be promoted and relegated between something and something else.
