Do you think that is an observation for a specific course (Richmond) and races on other courses will correlate better with a different part of the curve?
How to apply this to all of Zwift?
i was originally going to post this the other day to point out how stupid double draft racing is, but i guess it works here. the entire A field from a pen enforcement race including the few people who were dropped:
2nd lightest guy in the race (me) wins on a very flat course (seaside sprint) with the 2nd lowest 20min w/kg, only a guy weighing 25kg more than me managed .1wkg less for 20min. not because i am better at drafting than everyone else, iâm not, but because i did the bare minimum while everyone else did their best to create gaps and drop people. and they would have certainly succeeded in a regular draft race
i think double draft is probably covering up some big faults in this cp category model. i guess theyâll become apparent if community races start adopting it without DD enabled
8 Likes
Iâm sure it will be a bit different for each course, usually the critical element will be anything from 15s (final sprint) to 3 mins for the typical climb where selections are made. But I wouldnât want any magic formula applied.
Ned
Interesting use of a CP calculator and I believe supports what I have read elsewhere. ( There is so much to read how does one know what is right or not ? )
Iâm sure you have done all your own reading but if you have not read this Critical Power for cyclists explained | Better than FTP? - BikeRadar as I think it makes easy to follow reading.
In summary it says: ( none of these are my words)
"
CP is the power output youâll tend towards when riding at a high intensity, typically for around 30 to 40 minutes.
Similar to FTP, Critical Power provides an indication of your maximum sustainable power over an extended period of time.
CP will generally be slightly higher than FTP (studies suggest around 9 per cent higher on average, although in my experience as a coach itâs typically slightly less, around 4 to 5 per cent) but both can be interpreted in a similar way.
Wâ represents your capacity to ride above your CP. Having a larger Wâ is most important for short events performed above the Critical Power (such as short hill climbs), and for punchy disciplines such as criterium, [cyclocross] and cross-country mountain bike racing, which require frequent efforts above CP within a longer race.
While more information can be gleaned from a CP test than an FTP test, it still canât tell you everything. For example, if your Wâ goes up, it can be unclear whether this is due to an increase in your ability to produce energy anaerobically (without oxygen), or whether it represents an improvement in your aerobic fitness (e.g. [VO2 max]
However, if you build your Wâ too far, then this can come at the expense of your endurance and threshold power. Thus, only cyclists competing in short events such as track sprints or short hill climbs will want to build their Wâ much beyond the ranges above.( an optimum Wâ would be around 16 to 20kJ. Very well-trained male cyclists do well with Wâ values in the low to mid 20s. For females, optimal Wâ values are around 11 to 15kJ for moderately trained and 14 to 18kJ for well-trained cyclists. )
"
1 Like
JamesA_ZSUNR, in my experience the races with people pushing this level of power are very hard.
I raced in Cat B for most of my 4 years in Zwift, so I had many races and events to gain some experience and knowledge.
My 20min power is 260-285W depending on my training and form. Weight between 65-70kg.
In some flattish races, were there are lots of âheavy hittersâ, i have to draft all the time, and really struggle to stay in the front. My only chance is to be good in drafting, and close gaps pretty quick.
So if ZHQ puts a 200W (CP now, âFTPâ in the old system) floor in Cat B which is a second tier Cat, basically it´s saying that if you can´t push at least 200W FTP, you don´t stand a chance in many of the regular races routes (most are flattish).
Wouldn´t it be logical that ZHQ reflects on the fact that if you can put 340W (exemple) you are putting such a âstressâ in the people with low raw power, that basically forces the low power guys to ride at close to 90-95% FTP (or more???) all the race.
How are guys that ride close to FTP, be able to respond to surges and attacks? They don´t and get dropped like stones.
And the same applies to the new âMAPâ value. We know that a guy like Wiggins could do 570-580W for a little more than 4 minutes in Athens Olympics (his own words). But in Zwift we can have a guy with 490-500W of 5 min power, and he can still be a Cat B rider? He only have to âplayâ with his weight.
And let´s remember again that Cat B is only a 2nd tier Cat âŚ
There are physiological limitations to these metrics. So only looking to W/kg and âforgettingâ the raw values creates a schizophrenic Cat system.
1 Like
340w for a 90kg guy in the B cat will also be 90-95% of FTP.
1 Like
If you have 3 or 4 guys with that power - and with the churning effect - these guys don´t need to hammer the full time.
Gerrie, think this way: i would bet with you that if you select a group of people with some cycling background, only a low % of those riders would have a FTP of 340W.
I would bet that a much higher % of people can hit 4W/kg
There is a point were you start to have a disconnect between more weight giving you the chance to have more power. There are physiological limiters at play.
Cat B is 3.2 to 4w/kg so for a 85kg rider that will be 272w to 340w FTP.
So for a 85kg rider to be the top rider in B he has to have a 340w FTP.
Yes for a 60kg rider it should be easy to hit 4w/kg or 240w FTP.
This is why it is hard for a 60kg rider to compete on a flat route and a 85kg rider on a hilly route.
What need to be tested is what does it take for a 60kg rider to stay in a pack and compare that to what it take for the bigger guys to drive the pace of the pack, because if they donât drive the pace it wont be an issue for the lighter riders.
1 Like
Zwift could test it using a ride with all virtual pace bots of differing weights and sizes to see what would be ideal. Pace bots donât get tired and put out consistent watts. They would be the best testers ever.
Erm⌠okay. 
2 Likes
I may have been a bit optimistic. Sorry @Dave_ZPCMR . 
With some tests we could get some more reasonable numbers. Maybe the current ones is good. We need something to feel like real life.
I donât want to sound like I donât care about the light weight riders. 
1 Like
Didnât we have some discussion about this last week or so? 
1 Like
Gerrie
Is this the sort of thing you are thinking about testing?
1 Like
Something like that. But for every category and more detail.
What that show is the light rider (60kg) are not really penalized with a 4w/kg limit because they get draft help but the 90kg rider donât get help on the climb so it even out. If both riders are in B then both are riding at FTP.
So there need tests to see at what weight there need a watt floor and how much of a floor.
Possibly a lot of work just to prove if weight and pure watts do matter. To what end?:
Movable watt floor limits
Or
split large sized category pens by weight
Yes it is a lot of work.
Currently there is a watt ceiling that looks like it is picked by committee. Is it to high or to low.
Hey Gerrie,
From my experience. 61kg rider. Based on watching others race in B. Itâs as a percentage, harder for us smaller guys to ride on the flat against equally strong heavier riders, in a blob.
How march harder? Well, impossible to be precise. Definitely harder, if you were comparing it to two riders at say 3.7w/kg. One 61kg the other 85kg. One pushing 225w at threshold the other at 314w.
My guess, the lightweight is close to threshold the entire time in any flatish big B race. The heavier rider is doing a little less than threshold. Either a small amount, or fairly significant. It seems to vary, as one would expect.
Hypothetically, both riders travel the same speed when climbing. In fact, if both riders actually have the same FTP in W/kg, the heavier rider still has the advantage as the bike weight and rolling resistance are a smaller percentage of total power.
How this all rolls out in Zwift.
The penalty, in a blob on Zwift is tough on light weight riders. Why? Zwiftâs mathematics are wrong. Be that intentionally or by accident. Now, that is if youâre comparing Zwift to real life. Are we? Is that the intention of the game?
In real life, riders of all shapes and sizes ride together. If the road surface is smooth and itâs a large group, the draft is massive. Many many times stronger than it is Zwift.
If that was replicated in game, Iâd be doing 130w in the bunch, while the riders on the front were doing 350w. Zwift doesnât work like that. The riders on the front churn, itâs hard to even tell if youâre hitting the front. It all just feels pretty similar.
These unique mathematics are what causes the issue for light riders.
Given the negativity towards double draft, I wonder, if Zwift really did improve their game science to replicate real life. Would anybody actually enjoy it?
Yep, the lightweights. Theyâd have a huge advantage.
Iâm not sure what the solution is. That depends on ones bias. Heavies will argue they get creamed on climbs, lightweights will moan that they die on the flats.
Solution. Only allow riders between 70 and 75kg on Zwift. Just make it wall to wall mediocrity 
5 Likes
Exactly. Flats are watts and climbs are w/kg. The big and tall riders have a little more of an aero disadvantage but it is not enough to overcome the ability to put down 20% more power than a rider weighing 20% less.
On the climbs, it just comes down to w/kg. 3.2 is 3.2 whether you weigh 55kg or 95kg. Aero does nothing at 9kph.
Descending on the other hand is ALL about weight. I proved that with The Exploit descending Epic after the Rapha Rising event on Sunday. Sh*t, weâve all seen it on any ride with a substantial descent.
The only time in Zwift where the lightweights within specific categories have an advantage is when they weigh less than 50kg. When Doubledraft is on, I can hang in with heavier riders putting down bigger watts otherwise it is a very hard effort usually well above what I can sustain for 20 minutes. Then we get to hill and itâs game over.
Since my IRL moment on November 10th, Iâve put on 12 pounds and lost about 30 watts of FTP. I can sustain about 2.8 and it remains to be seen if Iâm ever gonna back to 3.5, getting my *ss kicked in B races. So Iâm embracing the Cat Enforcement thus far. We donât have dipsheit sandbaggers fouling up the C races and thatâs a plus. I donât give a crap how they calculate the cats just that the field is level. Bring it on.
3 Likes
Totally agree with all your comments Iâm 57kg itâs easy to say that I will destroy heavier riders on climbs but itâs not that simple. On short punchy climbs Leg Snapper, Hilly KOM, Reverse KOM and Titans Grove for example heavier riders can put huge watts down for the majority of these climbs which makes it extremely difficult for light riders to hang on to the pack regardless of their w/kg. On endurance races which features long sections of flat / rolling sections I could easily be outputting 0.5 - 1 w/kg higher to stay with the pack so when itâs time for the main climb I am not nearly as fresh as heavier riders so any advantage I could of had has been eradicated due to fatigue. The other point is I really donât see any need for trainer difficulty on descents to be altered by the trainer difficulty slider this should only be relevant for inclines. I have completed a few IRL races and group rides I have said previously that Zwiftâs algorithms certainly donât seem real as far as a light rider is concerned but thatâs my opinion.
5 Likes
I have said it more than once, but i will repeat; a system based in 20â power is a dumb system. Please when I use dumb I´m talking about the system, I´m not insulting the people that created it. That is not my goal.
The âfirstâ system was so dumb that was the need to put âfloorsâ in each Cat.
Then âMAPâ was added, trying to cover a obvious flaw in the system, that gave an obvious advantage to people with big 3-8min power.
And the change from 20â power to CP.
Still, lots of us will point that the system is still miles away from having the capacity to do a good job.
For exemple, I think that the system needed to look at 15sec and 1min power; that âMAPâ need a raw W floor like the CP; that Cats need ceilings; that ZHQ need to split the Cat A; etc.
A system that uses newtonian metrics to categorize riders will always face criticism, because people have different views and opinions about what the system need to address.
Having said that, I think that pen enforcement was a big improvement.
1 Like