I do think the main measure/improvement to prevent cruising (perhaps completely getting buried with all the cat-boundary discussions) is that all Zwift data of any length and regardless of the ride being saved or not, all contribute to the CP calculation. It will take some serious effort to maintain under whichever border deliberately. The only exception maybe being those only doing endurance rides on Zwift besides their racing. But even then, blowing up the field for 16 minutes only to dip back under for the 20min will be history.
3 Likes
I donât disagree, but with the CP system that becomes extremely difficult (if not impossible) to game to such a close margin. I think a lot of those right on the margin and complaining will find themselves upgraded even when the watts floor is put back in.
That is because the watt floor make sense in a TT event. But when you have a big group to draft on the flat the light riders can draft at very low power and then sprit up a climb. So light riders get help (± 30%) on the flats but heavy riders get Zero on the climbs.
I just think the old watt Floor was not that accurate and fair. Maybe the B limit should be 230w or 240w not 250w. I donât know how they cam e up with the 250w, maybe it was scientific.
I am all for fair competition and we need to find a way to show it is fair.
At the same time, isnât this what you see occurring IRL â think of hilly vs flat stages of the TdF? The lighter GC contending riders arenât winning typically the flat stages because of the end sprints, but theyâre still in or close to the main pack, same time as the winners. OTOH, with the climbing stages, those sprinters are typically left in the dust, with large losses of GC time.
Yes it is the same, but now we have an attempt to artificially help the light riders to stay in the group on the flats.
Light strong riders win climbs and strong muscular riders win the flats (ie track racing).
That is because the team put the big guys in the front to do all the work so that the GC can keep up.
Exactly. Though IRL the lighter strong climbers win by a lot on the climbs, and the muscular sprinters win on the flats by a very little.
The obvious difference here is that IRL, Cavendish doesnât have an option to not partake of a climbing stage because it wonât be fun losing by a half hour, while Zwift has to try and keep it fun for all types of riders, or many seemingly wonât enter the race in the first place.
Funny in a way that so much development went into trying to emulate realistic game physics and pack behavior, and then thereâs a counter-effort to deviate from IRL race physics to still keep it fun for more people.
2 Likes
This is why I argue to be careful not to make it artificially easy for light riders.
3 Likes
My prediction is that will put my wife back in C, as it was surely her MAP W/kg that was bumping her up, her CP is about 3.5-3.6 W/kg but comfortably under 200W on any reasonable analysis. She finished in the middle of the B cat race last night on a near-flat course that certainly didnât suit her. She will be very near the front in the new (weaker) C cat thatâs had its punch removed.
I know I complained about the lightweights being harshly treated before, but this means that all the work you are doing on short-term power analysis is completely ignored for them so long as their 20 min power is under the threshold. If my guess is correct, she will do very well indeed in the new C cat on any courses with hills.
Unfortunately I donât think she can race again this week and prove me right. But she can compare her KOM times to the front of the C cat races⊠I donât even think she is that extreme a case, there are stronger female B/C lightweights around.
Have you changed your mind on this then? Genuinely interested. Maybe the watt floor should be a little lower?
I just think there should be an absolute watts floor on both the CP and MAP, but then the category threshold is exceeded if either one of them is.
Julia has a relatively good MAP compared to slightly weaker CP. So allowing her to stay in C, on the basis that CP is under 200, when her MAP is (we think) good, seems wrong.
If we assume that the new CP equals the old FTP (not strictly true, but probably quite close) then this new formula would mean that not a single lightweight would be upgraded due to MAP, whereas lots of heavyweights have been. I donât see the logical basis for this.
Admittedly there are always going to be edge cases, someone has to be first. Iâm surprised itâs her! (She wonât actually win a sprint finish of course, but itâs hard to see how she could ever be outside the front group of C.)
1 Like
MAP is relational to CP, so if the floor is low enough, it should take care of both?
What about light weak riders? Asking for a friend.
6 Likes
Everybody is talking about watts floor.
But what about different categories depending on the course :
- climbing course (arrival at the top of a climb at least the length of the volcano) : catégories based on cp in w/kg
- flat course : based on 15s power in w/kg
- any other course : based on raw watts cp
What do you think of that?
It is fair, as there is no watts floor (nobody will fill they have to stay just under it no to move up), and poeple might be in a different category depending of the courseâŠ
have you thought these through?
Not really⊠it could be based on cogganâs data but then it should be 5s, 1 minute (not 15s and 30s)
If MAP was really proportional to CP, why calculate it at all? Precisely because in reality there are âcruisersâ who have a high MAP relative to what youâd expect from looking at their CP. I have to say in her case, sheâs done genuine 20 min flat out efforts and cannot hold 210W (ie 200 at 95%) under any circumstances. In the old cats, she sometimes rode mixed B for the challenge and found it tough. The new cats have bumped up a lot of the stronger riders.
Of course without knowing the numbers for sure, itâs hard to be certain about it. Maybe she would be just below a reasonable watts floor on MAP anyway. But leaving her in C certainly seems to err on the generous side.
1 Like
Refreshing honesty⊠
5 Likes
I like the idea that in the future race organisers can play with how pens are sorted - they may strike a really interesting race format.
I donât think this is the time to try and set something like that up as the master system
As interesting as a lot of this discussion is, we have to be careful that we still see the wood for the trees - in 99% of Zwift races anyone can enter any race they want, and even if they follow their ZP category, that is calculated on a nonsensical 3 x 20m w/kg.
Now we have pen enforcement, and the entire power curve is used to calculate CP.
Itâs the biggest improvement to Zwift Racing I think there has been.
If the next two steps are full deployment and then race organiser determined boundaries, Zwift Racing will be in a very good place compared to the end of 2021.
3 Likes
Relational not proportional - someone with a CP of 300w may have a 5m MAP of 450w, but someone with a CP of 200w will NEVER have a MAP of 450w. So in theory a raw W floor on CP could be enough, but maybe a raw W floor on MAP is needed too.
1 Like
100% agree with you on that.