No they are using the new 65 VO2 figure. This was confirmed in the other thread when James informed @Rich_aka_sandbagger that the reason he was CE Cat A was that he had exceeded the VO2 limit of 65.
Using Hawley and Noakes I believe yours might be around 70.
if it is then zwift isn’t using that method:
i’ve only looked at my garmin head unit and the golden cheetah method though (63 and 64.something respectively)
going from intervals.icu as you have seen, 382 was around the 6min mark which I’m going to guess was the socks4watts hill climb up the temple kom done on the 14th Oct which makes no real sense as i was still able to enter B races until around the 26th
We can conclude that by definition the table is wrong
What’s the point of the first column? Get out for when questions are raised?
Sam - are you saying that because you are not CE Cat A?
I believe you are doing your very best to hit over 65 VO2 and 5.4wkg MAP possibly to prove the CE chart works.
Whatever you achieve is not going to take you to CE Cat A until you can raise your FTP (95% of 20 min) to 250 or over.
Your ZP record shows your 95% at 241 and and FTP of 242 - so currently not >= 250
So using Zwift Chart
VO2 max = 70 AND greater than 250 - NO
MAP = 5.9wkg (approx) AND greater than 250 - NO
CP = 3.96 wkg (approx) AND greater than 250 - NO
(For CP I’m using your 3m, 6 min and 12 min power and High North 3 test at 100% goodness of fit)
Because of your very high short term power I don’t think any of the standard CP curves or calculations are going to take you anywhere 4.2wkg to exceed CP limit.
So unless you can put in a 20 minute ride with an average of 264 or above I don’t think you are going to exceed the CE limits.
The reason IMO is all due to the fact ZWIFT is using AND >= 250 W with each criteria.
VO2 Max and MAP might well be working for heavier riders (because 95% of 20 min is already over 250W) but it is not working with lightweight riders.
If having a VO2max above 65 or having a MAP over 5.4wkg is supposed to be good enough whether you or heavy or light then ZWIFT just need to remover the AND >= 250 from each of those two criteria columns.
Apologies if I’m a million miles off the mark.
EDIT : After seeing reply. The 250 W may not be FTP but CP.
i am trying to understand how the CE system works, not because i want to prove or disprove anything but so i can 1: explain to people why I am B and they are A and 2: give practical advice to people who think they are unfairly categorised, because i feel sympathetic towards them.
it’s true that the highest 20 minute i’ve managed since January is 261w. but I have actually been CE A twice since, both times as a direct result of two separate 10-12 minute efforts
so my speculation they are using two points on a curve and the algorithm is probably not much more complex than that (3 and 12 mins… bear in mind they have to calculate this daily for every single person who uses zwift, thinking about it practically, it can’t be too complicated)
@Ian_Attoe posted a table in his post above which makes more sense. This may be what Zwift are actually using, they just struggle to communicate it without typos:
And I agree with him, when they update their table they should show it this way with the scribbles and arrows
Reading this makes me rethink my 250 W comments. If you have not been above 261w for 20 min then you could never have been above 250W FTP.
Also reread the original post and again notice that the 250 has CP written after it, which I had clearly forgotten over the past 8/9 months.
Do you know if you have been above 250 CP or eFTP on Intervals or by your own calculations and if so do they tie in with the two occasions when you were CE Cat A?
I agree Zwift may well be using a 2 point CP calculation on 3 and 12 minutes and if at anytime you had 3 min power of 325 and 12 of 270 that would have taken you just over 250 W CP.
Checking for dates and power more than 60 days ago is difficult on ZP
Re-reading some of the posts in this thread I found this post from @gloscherrybomb from back in February which I think hits the nail on the head very well.
i actually don’t calculate anything from my own numbers, but fortunately i do keep a training diary so i have a log. 3/12min 2 point calculations from my two stints in CE A would put me over 250CP by a small amount. i don’t have much reliable data from longer efforts because i seldom do them and don’t track them because of the nature of the training i enjoy which is almost purely anaerobic… ftp and cp are just not useful training metrics for me
so i can’t be certain that zwift are tracking longer efforts… if they are, i don’t think i’m ever gonna breach them even if i could.
Actually it was another James - easy to get confused with so many of us about
Yes, I spotted this a long time ago, but shortly afterwards I realised that an even greater problem is that the MAP value is simply far too high anyway in comparison with the CP value.
9 months later, what progress has been made on zwift’s long-awaited results-based system?
(that was rhetorical)
Apologies, it was you - I lost track as there were so many threads embedded within your post ( or at least more than my head could cope with). A good spot by you so early in the game but nothing came of it.
Whenever I think I have been able to find a reason why someone has exceeded their CP limit I have found that it is almost always using 2 or 3 points and I generally find 3 min, 6 min, 9 min and 12 min are the power values doing it.
That fact that none of us can come to a conclusion proves that table does not serve its purpose.
I know my vo2 isn’t anywhere near what it was then after all the booze
I have done one effort over 261w in may and this took me in cat enforcement A. I then fell irl, broke some ribs and went back to B
So yes one effort 20 minutes over 261w takes someone like him or me to A.
About, ftp, nobody can really sustain an ftp effort one hour. The best pros achieve that for over 45 minutes. It is a theorical possibility but not possible because of the pain…