I think it’s a problem to calculate the physical ability of cycling and decide the category. zwift is far from reality. So it doesn’t match zwift’s racing ability. I think it’s better to just think about how to calculate zwift’s racing ability.
1 Like
Is it me or does it seem like a lot of responses come from self proclaimed sandbaggers that are upset that they have been upgraded and are being villainized. Now they are at the back of the pack in the next level with what they feel is no chance of winning. Welcome to real life. If you want to win put in the work and earn that right. You don’t think you are doing anything wrong by sandbagging but you are essentially the bully in the schoolyard picking on the weaker kids just so YOU can win. And I love how they even admit that they will be able to “work around” the new system. Yes we know cheaters are going to cheat no matter what.
3 Likes
JamesA - I think you are 100% right on. In addition, as I mentioned using Zpoints AND race points would easily help prevent the relatively few racers with 0 historical data being categorized low. C.E. could be a useful floor for a points based system. Nonetheless, I think many people are underestimating the general frustration people will/are feeling with shifting to another power based system that at best marginally improves the old system.
Zwift’s strength is that it is not constrained by IRL rules (geographically localized racing with smaller talent pools). To try to ONLY emulate what exist in IRL racing will continue to limit Zwift to being a sometimes useful training tool instead of growing into something that can be its own competitive sport.
[Jeff]
Is it me or does it seem like a lot of responses come from self proclaimed sandbaggers that are upset that they have been upgraded and are being villainized. Now they are at the back of the pack in the next level with what they feel is no chance of winning. Welcome to real life. If you want to win put in the work and earn that right. You don’t think you are doing anything wrong by sandbagging but you are essentially the bully in the schoolyard picking on the weaker kids just so YOU can win. And I love how they even admit that they will be able to “work around” the new system. Yes we know cheaters are going to cheat no matter what.
I fail to see how these types of comments provide anything productive to the conversation or changes being discussed. Instead, its counterproductive - it serves only as a distraction from the actual problem of how to create a system that is less exploitable and more competitive. Intuitively, the vast majority of racers who sandbag or cruise do so because the system is implicitly designed to encourage it. My point is C.E. moves the boundary slightly but does not deal with the fundamental problems - lack of transparency/trust in the system, ability to manipulate effort to stay within cat., categories created in a way in which discourage the vast majority of riders from even being competitive.
2 Likes
This is EXACTLY my point
2 Likes
the stated purpose of this subforum is to discuss and provide input on features that are currently actively still in development, such as this one
It looks like you are not aware that a fixed w/kg doesn’t give the same speed across riders with different BMIs, thus upgrading riders with relative lower BMI before others for a similar ride. The new system is still just a fixed w/kg limit in the end and have nothing to do with the speed of the rider compared to others. E.g. where in the game is it an advantage to be taller than the opponents? The speed of the riders in Zwift is not a simple linear formular, why the category calculations can’t be either. Zwiftinsider have documented this in several articles. Zwift could at least have proposed some more advanced calculations to fix the BMI issue, they (should) have all the data avaiable to create a Watt_on_wheel CP model if they wanted, and the appropriate watt floors for each rider individually.
1 Like
Which is an argument for getting rid of categories completely. But apparently some people like the idea of having 4 categories so we can have 4 groups of people with a chance to win, 4 groups of people who can finish mid-pack and 4 groups of people who get the ■■■■ beaten out of them every time they start a race and all of it being based on whether or not you are lucky enough to fall just below some arbitrary number generated by some arbitrary system that isn’t even based on actual performance but on w/kg which is only effective at determining performance in 20min+ steep hill climbs (see last round of WTRL at Innsbruck).
1 Like
That scenario I don’t mind (much) so long as I’m beaten fairly and squarely and not by a sandbagger or cruiser gaming the system.
4 Likes
This is what I would like to suggest in determining the category.
- Evaluate the effects of height and weight.
Dissatisfaction with weight/height and weight / height doping will probably decrease. They will move to the A category and will not be able to compete. - Evaluate short-term power more than long-term power.
Sandbaggers and cruisers will probably be reduced. They will move to higher categories and will not be able to compete.
Exactly…I fail to see why sandbaggers come on here and cry about being bumped up. If you have a solution then let’s hear it and it’s merits but we don’t need to hear you cry about why you cant win all the time anymore.
1 Like
The solution is to promote winners and demote losers (in some sense). This is not rocket science, anyone who takes the trouble to think about it could work it out easily enough.
There are lots of possible flavours of how to promote winners though. Points, rankings, whatever.
The current system, and also the newer CE and the abysmal autocat system that WTRL briefly tried, will all promote a loser if they pedal too hard, and never promote the winner if they don’t pedal too hard (for a specific definition of “pedal too hard”). The details differ but they are all fundamentally idiotic in exactly this same way. It’s ok to roughly group people by W/kg for a group ride, it’s nonsense to use it as a basis for racing categories.
1 Like
There is another far easier way to address all these concerns- sandbagging, cruising and cat boundaries.
I’m thinking outside the box here but what would happen if for 1 month, Zwift said all races, no cats.
Just race your best.
How many people would still race?
I would. All my races are like that anyway.
I think the best thing for Zwift racing is get rid of cats - maybe just temporarily, occasionally, let people see that they are making a big deal about a small issue.
Loads less.
Seems like a risky thing to try.
You’re probably right but why is that so?
I ride a bike because I like to ride a bike. I don’t know why.
I don’t know why I like to race but I do.
I never win the race but I try to stay ahead of the next guy.
1 Like
Demoting losers would not eliminate sandbagging. You could just lose some races by going easy, go down a category, then smash it in the lower category and have a good shot at winning. Factoring winning into category promotion sounds like a good idea to me, and it’s standard practice in IRL racing.
1 Like
Why do they have to test it, there are already races that does not use different pens or just start everyone together and it is not very popular .
Even before Zwift had starting pens or categories the community had races for people at different levels. In fact the current categories was defined by the community.
3 Likes
I have run “No Cat” series usually in the summer months and not a lot changes.
In general we still had good numbers and all that happens is you race your rivals, if that is down at position 60 - 70 then it dosent really matter because you still had a good race trying to beat the guys you race every week.
Yes you do get some riders who can hang on to higher groups for longer but it normally evens out and when you look at the results with the Cat’s added they are usually not far off what they would have been.
We are all in agreement that we need some sort of a results based service but that can be quite difficult to set up and it will get there but not today (or tomorrow)…
1 Like
I kind of understand the no cat thought process…
If your racing for B,C,D then your not racing for the win - but people want a little digital trophy to aim for and then we end up with where we are now.
Zwift have allowed the current culture to develop and are going to have challenges in fixing that culture - I fear, they don’t have the backbone to see it through.
Has there been a change in outlook from zwifts perspective? CE doesn’t fix this long term before people jump to their defence, it merely moves the current boundaries (for the better, but it shouldn’t be the long term fix)
CVR implemented a ranking system in weeks/months, zwift have had years and are still hesitating…
I agree winning B is not Winning. But it is not just the digital trophy it is about competing against “similar” athletes.
Having categories makes it more competitive for me. when I know I am ranked high in the category I know I have to finish in the top and that will motivate me during the racer to push hard to keep in that position so when 3 people go up the road I will try to keep up, or I will make sure not to get dropped from the bunch.
But when it is just one big race I am less motivated to stay in the pack because in the back of my mind I think “well they are A+ riders” or when I win the sprint from a little group I would think the only reason I won is because they are in a lower category.
We have different starts IRL as well most sport have categories to keep it competitive.
2 Likes