As James mentioned above, when this system will start to shine is when race organizers get creative with the pen boundaries. Imagine a race where just the “B” racers are now split to 4 pens. I’d like to see events along these lines for D. I look at the next race in this series (1 hr from now), eg. and I see exactly 1 entrant (out of 14 in ZP) with a wkg less than 2.3 wkg. Lots of room to make racing more attractive across the entire zwift user base IMO.
3 Likes
I watched a bit of that stream.
Enlightening.
Insane how much easier it was for that guy to do a B race than me. Something very weird there. I’m at least as strong as him re W/kg and there’s no way I’m chatting casually and blue on the graph a fair portion of the time.
Based on his HR in the sprint compared to his average during the race, it’s not even the same sport compared to how it feels for me at 60kg.
2 Likes
I only see one person at 60kg, Cesar. Is that you?
In that case I see that you have 215w as FTP. That is 35w below the category limit for B as a light rider. Meaning that you are at the low end of the category, even though the w/kg is in the middle.
The guy streaming seems to have not done a full 20min during the last 3 months. His FTP is mentioned as 330w at 80kg = just below the B-cat limit.
So if this is you, you are comparing one guy at the top of the category, just below the limit, with one rider att the low part of the category limit.
In addition to that the race was at a low pace for someone close to the cat limit, and it is also individual when you actually get some rest and recovery. The race at some parts was in zone2 for many racers.
Comparing these two individuals I am not surprised that there is a big difference between how this race felt.
It might be that the categorization is better for heavier riders. At the same time the algorithms in Zwift is better for lighter riders since lighter riders need much lower actual power on the flats then heavier riders, compared to outdoors. But I agree that it could reflect strangely on the categorization.
The good part for you, if you are that 60kg rider Cesar, is that you can improve 35watts, at least 15% and continue competing in B-cat. With 250w FTP you will fly away from the heavier riders in every climb.
There’s a reason climbers never win on the Champs Elysee! While I was able to hold on, that course wasn’t my ideal terrain either. Will you (and other lighter riders) try some of the hillier test races as well, to see how you perform in different terrain?
Pen enforcement is already present in the ZHQ Anti-Sandbagging races isn’t it? I can’t remember. But putting that aside, wouldn’t it make more sense to not tick that off the list until it’s available across all races, not just a tiny subset?
1 Like
I didn’t realise the ZHQ was cat enforced but have not done one in the last week so maybe it has changed
No it’s not cat enforced. You can enter any cat you want. Occasionally you get a warning that your power may be limited, which it isn’t to any great effect.
1 Like
Would be a good thing if they started to cat enforce it, but that is old chatter on here and we have the first steps to progress
Guys - Just after some feedback around the concerns that have been raised in relation to super light (or female) riders that fall into a category above where they should probably be because of their 5-8 minute power.
Rather than me pulling a number out the air in terms of what a VO2 absolute watts floor should be, I’d be keen to hear your thoughts on this. Assuming the other measures we currently have in place are maintained.
Please be nice. I’m very tired (13 hour day yesterday and 2 hours sleep) and trying to help 
5 Likes
Hi James. I believe the issue is, that the CP raw watts floor is ignored, if their MAP exceeds the category limit.
So lets take a rider who is 50kg, and their CP is 240w. They should be cat B, but if their MAP is exceeding 5.4w/kg, it is ignoring the 250w floor.
At the moment it is:
(4w/kg AND 250W) OR (5.4 w/kg MAP)
but it should be:
(4w/kg OR 5.4w/kg MAP ) AND 250W
4 Likes
OK. That sounds reasonable.
1 Like
To again give the counter argument.
We split users by Pen - For me, all the users in the same pen should race to the same rules. With the watt ceiling, you have 2 races, racing in the same race but to a different rule set.
I dont know what the fix is, but the above to me, doesnt seem right at all.
To counter the counter argument - if it was pure watts instead of w/kg, lightweight riders would be absolutely dominating. I think it’s OK to have a balance of the two, and the watts floor is low enough that a lightweight rider that will do well on a climb is still having to work much harder than anyone else on the flats.
2 Likes
Aside discussion around the values, this would make sense from a purely logical view.
If factoring power-to-weight ratio, both values should be balanced against each other (4w/kg OR 5.4w/kg, as above) while separating absolute power values (AND 250W, as above).
The two are different measures - bracket together like with like
1 Like
IMO that’s not quite right. Using 20 min 250W CP for lightweights means that the entire MAP calculation is ignored for them regardless of their short-term power. A more consistent approach would be
(4W/kg AND 250W) OR (5.4 W/kg MAP AND 5.4*62.5 W MAP)
This puts the CP and MAP on a consistent basis, the lightweight has to exceed both the standard W/kg level and also the absolute W level of a 62.5k rider at that threshold in order for either the CP or MAP sides of this formula to trigger. And it allows for the MAP value alone to put a rider in the higher cat, consistent with taking this approach for heavy riders too.
I used 62.5 as it’s just 250/4.0 - other values are needed for the other pens. 62.5 is also right for C/B but 150/2.5 = 60 would seem more consistent for C/D.
1 Like
That doesnt resolve the 2 rule sets for a single pen of riders - Its a fair expectation to have the person racing alongside you to race to the same rules regardless of course profile.
The barrier that is introduced is a physiological one in the first instance (weight) but the second is a rule put in place by the organiser to limit performance.
Removing the WKG upgrade DQ and it might become fairer as someone can bury themselves to keep up with the lighter rider and it doesnt have a ruleset that means its worthless doing it (DQ).
Is that any different to how it is now with a wattage floor on the category?
This isn’t true. All riders are assessed by exactly the same formula.
Its not right now… You are currently making a change away from the current ruleset and then re-introducing a flawed model.
They are assessed by the same model but the rules applied are completely different.
For a B rider - One can ride at 4.5wkg & finish the race in the placings, the other can ride at 4.5wkg & be disqualified.
That is the very definition of riding to a different rule set.
Edit to add - this morning we discussed a 55kg rider hanging with the As on a flat course it can be done.
What can never be done is a heavier rider going above cat limits as they get DQ for doing it…
1 Like