Category Enforcement - How is my category calculated? [February 2022]

[Gerrie_Delport_ODZ (Gerrie)]

@SeattleSauve

my only concern is with the BMU plan I might not have the legs to add a race to my week to try out the test.

replace one of the workouts for a race and come have fun.

[SeattleSauve (Aaron)]

But will I still get the BMU socks? I need the socks!

[Gerrie_Delport_ODZ (Gerrie)]

I don’t know about the socks.

[Tim_Camden_C (Tim)]

Looking at my curve on Intervals, I see I need to focus on races that are full of “All Rounders” and getting rounder!!

[j4m1eb (Jamie Bishop)]

Actually you’re completely right. Think I had a brain fart. Thought the limit is 4.0 when it’s 4.2. My bad. I do apologise

[j4m1eb (Jamie Bishop)]

Actually ignore my previous post. Got myself confused between 4.0 and 4.2 so please accept my apologies

[Lars_Lange (Lars)]

no problem at all - and you can probably understand why I’m a little confused about my racking. Looking at the B line up in this race doesn’t make it easier to understand ZwiftPower - Login . Riders with rankings below 200 staying in B with impressive numbers.

[Tim_Camden_C (Tim)]

Checking to see if I’m properly interpreting my data.
I’ve been doing max 60, 90 and 120 sec intervals one day, to 5-8 min sweet spot intervals another and 2 hour endurance rides on my 3rd day then race on Sundays.

I’m not sure my trainer will accurately measure 10 and 15 sec intervals but is that what I need to be doing from the shape of my curve?

[_Geralt_of_Rivia]

What does this have anything to do with this thread?

[j4m1eb (Jamie Bishop)]

I know I have one in my ZRL team who I would have bet the house would have been an A and he was let in as a B? Top 5 in ZRL every week

[gloscherrybomb (James)]

Yeah nothing to do with the thread, but if your trainer cant accurately measure 10 and 15 second intervals forget everything you’ve discussed and enjoy riding in the category your given before organisers can select minimum hardware requirements!

[_JamesA_ZSUNR]

@Gerrie_Delport_ODZ

So it will look like you are cruising but you are just riding the pace of the group and sprint at the end.

I absolutely agree with this. There are surely some who work to stay in cat boundaries, but others who just naturally end up bunched there by circumstances. And even just varying the cat boundaries would go a long way to addressing it. If some races were 2.8-3.6 instead of 3.2-4.0 then people would immediately get tested in different ways.

[_JamesA_ZSUNR]

@gloscherrybomb

@Ian_Attoe

Mathematically there is a big difference between

(4w/kg And 250W) OR (x w/kg MAP) - Doesn’t help light riders(with a MAP over x w/kg)
and
(4w/kg OR x w/kg MAP ) AND 250W - certainly helps light riders

You’re right. I was looking at it as if a wattage floor was missing for the MAP element, but actually this sorts it. I feel super stupid now.

@xflintx I think the above is the solution to the lightweight problem?

Sometimes it’s good to actually read posts properly and consider the point, rather than continually posting the same angle over and over. Thanks @Ian_Attoe

At first I thought this looks reasonable, but on reflection I no longer believe it is correct. The problem is that for lightweight riders, the MAP element is completely ignored.

More appropriate would be

(4W/kg AND 250W) OR (X W/kg MAP AND 62.5 x X W MAP)

The reason for using 62.5 is to make the two values equivalent for a 62.5kg rider, as in the left hand side. Ie, riders under 62.5 get to benefit from the absolute value of each of the physiological parameters, whereas riders over 62.5 are limited by the per-kg measures.

The version above,
(4 W/kg or X MAP) AND 250W

means that riders under 250W CP (FTP) can have unlimited MAP. If the MAP component means anything, it doesn’t seem fair that it is completely unlimited for this group of riders and it shouldn’t really be hard to include it along the lines of my suggestion.

[Graham_Irvine_London (Graham)]

@gloscherrybomb

Categories by their nature have people at the top and people at the bottom. The people at the top have consistently good race experiences, the people at the bottom consistently bad race experiences.

Until results start to become the determination of category ( or at the very least a significant modifier variable)

[Graham_Irvine_London (Graham)]

Can we put you in charge . Cat by results how long and how many attempts at doing it by numbers til we get there . Ranking can still be gamed but only if you want to get rubbish results to enable cruising in lower cats. I would really like to hear what the significant and tenable negatives are to just heading there now and not pushing this as some phase two thing … .

As just posted it has one other massive plus . It ensures good rotation of who you are competing agaisnt mixing up your race competitive experience (relatively) .

[Dappy-Muppet-TFC]

A bit hard to swallow though when the issue you have always suffered from is sandbaggers from B being in C, then you get dumped in B as probably the lowest metric’s rider in that group. Yes, I’ll endeavour to race and never give up, but when the result is a fore gone conclusion before you jump on your bike it becomes a bit of a useless excercise. Yes, maybe I’ll have to improve to even stand a chance of enjoying a race, but let’s be clear on this, for me to be competitive in these events will require at least a year of hard training, and by the way I get charged for the privilege. I can see the bright side of the predicament and will probably do me good long term, short term very unenjoyable. I am certainly the nail in this instance and a rusty one at that

[gloscherrybomb (James)]

You’re now in a much fairer category than you were before - for you, and those around you. The system has accurately placed you. Hopefully in the future as more flexibility is added, you can return to being the hammer in some races.