Profile link?
It is possible to have a rider downgrade - remember typically CP is lower than FTP.
1 Like
Understood. I suppose itâs more that even when there are enforced categories, some people are still choosing to ride in a category below what ZP reckons. 
1 Like
check the C D riders weight
1 Like
Hahahaha good point. The other doesnât do races in fairness.
We probably shouldnât get into this actually, certainly not naming people anyway. I just thought it was interesting that some people are still able to go below their existing ZP category (and are doing so).
4 Likes
TFC Mad Mondayâs Categories would be welcomed across all events it makes racing much fairer with a narrower gap between CAT limits. As I have said previously how can a 2 w/kg gap for CAT A 4 - 6 w/kg be classed as fair this is a wider gap even if you were to merge C&B Cats together 
.
3 Likes
100% with you Lee.
Because lots of people that were gaming the (old dumb) system and had massive Z5-Z6 power will complain ⌠a lot.
I´m really looking forward for next weeks events, now that some âaliensâ get upgraded 
ZHQ stand firm
2 Likes
Yeah, I think that is the point of the test races though. New system, we have to stop thinking in ZP terms now, which is probably the biggest challenge.
4 Likes
Amen Gordon!!!
For sure that I will race almost only in events were the organisers apply Pen enforcement.
That seems unfair to me, many people are interested in checking that the calculations are correct. There was a very big problem in the first iteration, and seems to be a bit of a problem in the current one. Itâs only by understanding what the rules are suppose to be, that we can check that they are (a) sensible and (b) actually being applied correctly. If rules have to be secret that 's a clear sign they are problematic.
5 Likes
What do you mean âallowance for light peopleâ?
Why do you think W/kg is a sensible benchmark in the first place?
I have an idea, letâs categorise people by watts alone. Over 300, youâre an A, over 250, a B. Etc.
What, you want a special allowance for heavy people? Why are they special? Why should they be allowed more watts?
(as it happens, W/kg is a closer to being a fair benchmark than watts, for a couple of reasons. But itâs obvious not really a fair one, itât just a rough approximation.)
If you really wanted to be âfairerâ then perhaps âspeed at FTPâ would be a better threshold to use. This would allow a higher W/kg (but lower W), for lightweights. If you donât think lightweights should be allowed higher W/kg, then you need to explain why you think they should be unfairly treated by being limited to lower speed at FTP. Itâs speed that matters, after all!
3 Likes
Not Zwift James likes this idea.
3 Likes
In practice itâs not quite as bad as that looks. People much over over 5W/kg are all fairly/very light as 400W or thereabouts is a pretty firm performance ceiling (equipment âmiscalibrationâ aside). Whereas in B cat youâve got 90kg people doing 4.0 (360W) at FTP with a big sprint on top, versus 65kg riders at 210W.
In reality A cat fields have often been pretty thin IME, shifting up the âpunchy Bsâ does perhaps provide an excuse to shift the boundaries a bit though.
(butâŚresults-based rankingâŚ)
1 Like
Call me a cynic but the only people wanting to check they are âfairâ are the ones that once ruled the roost and are now moved up a category and wonât win every week.
This is a Futureworks test, no one needs to check itâs fair, itâs work in progress and Zwift should be commended on try to fix broken racing and stop the minority enjoy it by gaming the system.
6 Likes
None of the above conversations really explains the above sort of anomalies, seems not just borderline but way off. Even if you have spikes here and there in other metrics, it shouldnât overwrite the general metrics, all it would take is a little interference on an Ant+ sensor to cause a spike and someones racing is shot for 2 months
1 Like
Probably need to take a deep breathe here JamesâŚ
If you are too blinkered to even see that allowing one person to ride a climb at 4.2wkg against others who will be DQâd for riding 3.4wkg for 20mins is not an allowance then there is not much point in continuing this.
If you remove post race upgrades and DQ from results you start to balance it, but you are still giving that person who has capability to ride 1wkg higher on the climber an almighty advantage over the others in the race.
If we talking about fair racing and the rules\boundaries that make that fair for all, then for me the watt ceilings need to be looked at. Should they be removed, im not sure, but for any climbing race they provide light weight riders a huge advantage.
Personally, I donât think Iâd mind if Zwift pretended we were all the same weight and height and watts were the only thing which separated us. Itâd stop weight doping and itâd make conversations about categorisation simpler! 
2 Likes
Wait.
Lighter riders are disadvantaged on flatter roads but advantaged on climbs?
Whatever next? 
6 Likes
lol⌠No need for obvious truths in here.
The current situation means people get a DQ for trying to match the performance of the other.
If a lighter ride tries to hang with strong B on the flat, they might go over the boundaries and get a DQ, if a heavy rider tries to hang with a strong light rider on a hill they will get a DQ for going over boundaries.
I dont get you can say one is acceptable, one is not⌠but thats just me
1 Like