raced A cat the other week in our F365 race around R.G.V, detailed it above, got dropped on the aqueduc and finished the race, the last 11km of 24km, on my own as my power is nowhere near A level to be able to even stay with them, knocked 2s off my aqueduc best time and was nowhere near
I’m sceptical that I’m over 65ml for my vo2max, probably am close to it mind due to my quite unhealthy enjoyment of hill climbs but many of them are one and done efforts
I may be misunderstanding this comment (I probably are).
But isn’t the point to get all your numbers as high as possible. Lower numbers on purpose is the definition of sandbagging.
I assume you meant something different with your comment.
my response to finding out its vo2max not power that caused a cat upgrade, power numbers can be artificially lowered, vo2max on the other hand is pretty much impossible to change unless you get less fit
We know that Zwift use 5-8min power to calculate vo2max so you now know what efforts not to do.
You can aim to LOOK more unfit to the system.
I really hope we are getting closer to Race rankings as this power manipulation efforts are getting old.
point of what? lots of people are only interested in being good at one aspect of cycling. track sprinters and time triallists for example
Keep in mind that we originally published those values in February of this year (8 months ago) and have continually made changes based on user feedback.
Granted, we haven’t communicated every single one of those changes, and I understand how that isn’t the best.
I’ll personally make sure our documentation reflects this.
Here are the most current (as of today) values for open (men’s & women’s) categories:
And here are the most current (as of today) values for women’s specific categories:
Note that for women’s specific categories, women do not have an absolute wattage value associated with their critical power (as is the case on ZwiftPower), and there is also no VO2 ml value.
Just curious, but if it isn’t that prohibitive to continually make changes, why would it be difficult to continue to do this in order to constantly move the Cat boundaries?
The point was around transparency than the specific numbers. The numbers allowed the lack of transparency and poor messaging to become apparent.
As you say, we are 8 months down the line - When will CP / Map / Vo2 as determined by zwift CE be available for the end users to review… Surely 8 months is long enough to be able to provide that?
This is the crucial bit. I just looked at what intervals.icu thinks my MAP is and I was surprised to see I was close to the C/B upgrade point, based on their methodology.
Who knows where I am based on Zwift’s methodology? Or someone else’s? 
Can you explain how you relate MAP and VO2? I thought they were the same thing expressed in different units but that’s obviously not the case.
From where I stand, and without being able to check them as we have nothing to check them against, these figures appear much more in proportion than the original figures.
It is nice to know that our feedback is being read. Also agree communicating the fact that you have made changes would have been better and saved a repetition of posts from me.
But overall thanks.
And now just seeing the calculations displayed would be the icing on the cake 
And then Race Scoring might be the final blowing out of candles and eating it.
thanks for the update but can i ask
will the ftp value/watts limit ever be changed to your proper FTP value that Zwift holds rather than 95% of a 20 minute effort? This is the thing that gets me, Zwift knows your FTP or at least has a very good approximation of it, after all mine got posted in this thread earlier along with my vo2 number, why is it not based off this number? ZwiftPower does the same its based on FTP but 95% of 20 minutes not your actual FTP, the number of riders, mainly lightweight ones here, that can put out numbers far higher than a heavier rider who is pushed up a cat based purely on an arbitrary number that the founder of ZP decided on
Are you talking about the “proper FTP” in Zwift that one can edit up or down to any number one fancies with a couple of clicks and a handful of keystrokes?
That one?
I think he’s alluding to the “secret” CP20 value estimated by Zwift from your “secret” modelled power curve that’s used for your CE categorization
Aha! In that case just register at zwiftracing.app and your CP* is right there on your profile page, Rich. 
*I’m assuming this is the same CP that Zwift holds, but I have no data to back that up (copyright Nate Pearson)
No it’s not the same data.
Zwift have not released the exact calculation for CP they use
Ah, OK. Thanks, Gordon. 
Was the 5% buffer on CP thresholds, like there has been on Zwiftpower 20mins, introduced to keep Eric in B by the skin of his teeth? His power profile must be extremely close to promotion from B to A, he did 4.28W/Kg for 12mins on Sunday just gone!
there are people with like 4.3-4.4 for 20 at ~75kg in CE B. dunno how they managed it. well i probably do, but im not being paid to look at other peoples’ numbers.
Im presuming zwiftracing is taking fixed point reads for the CP - 1/5/20min efforts.as that is the data it is pulling from zwiftpower
As we all know Zwift riders like to substantially lower their 20min power say against their 10min power - Hence that Zwift racing CP metric is quite misleading - Im not sure I would publish it, the 5min compound score is probably a better value to go with which is currently being looked at I think.
Zwift appears to be focused on the 5-8min range to get your CP metric - Hence improving 2min power can steepen the curve and lower your CP and therefore category available to you.