Actually you started off by saying older riders should be downgraded as they have flatter power curves.
Its not a matter of me forcing my opinion until the cows come home - there are plenty of legitimate ideas being discussed, like a different threshold mechanism for lightweight riders, a different MAP duration for W’ based upgrades, etc. What is frustrating is when people chose to actively ignore the realities of how the system works because their agenda is better suited to not understanding/accepting it.
It makes no sense because in order to be effective the system needs to work off best efforts leading to promotion, not a lack of best efforts causing demotion.
Taking myself as an example based on your suggestion - I haven’t put out any big short duration efforts in the last 60 days, so I would be downgraded. Now I am far stronger than the rest of the group I am in, and now don’t need to put in any big efforts.
On the flip side if I am able to put out big short duration efforts relative (the relative part is important) to my CP, it makes sense to promote me.
In one direction it actively tackles sandbagging, in the other is actively encourages it.
But if Zwift is looking at just best performances, the most anyone could sandbag would be one event if they’re rigging their short-term power? After putting in one surprise great short-term power exhibit, boom, they’d then be upgraded.
No, no no… There’s some disconnect here. Go back to the original premise. Ian has a 3.3wkg 20min. He’s promoted to B, but has a low/flat short term power profile. He certainly does not have a CP that’s higher than the rest of the field (he’s right at the bottom edge evidently), and a quite low below average (propensity because of age was the original premise) short-term power profile.
I’m starting to think that this much vaunted CP / MAP/VO2 system is nothing more sophisticated than a simple check of best 20 minute and 8 minute power in the last 60 days. In Ian’s case 3.3w/kg for 20 minute has put him above the 20 minute limit of (I presume) 3.19w/kg. It seems the 95% of 20 minute power has been discarded and it’s just straight 20 minute power now.
I’m very tempted to use a trial account and poke around at the edges to see exactly where these limits are. Bit of rain forecast for the next week so I might have time to do it.
Still haven’t seen anyone explain the rationale behind this. One of these profiles is cat C in category enforcement and the other is Ian in cat B.
i sympathise with the sentiment because i used to have a flat power curve myself, but why isn’t that fair? if you alter the algorithm so that nobody has to go too deep into the red at any point in a given category then the only thing that changes is that the guy who wins the sprint at the end of a zwift race does it from a bigger group of riders
Isn’t the point that we’re talking about people that can’t go any ‘deeper into the red’ than they can go? With CE it seems everyone is talking about ability only at the 20 minute mark, not ability at smaller time periods unless that ability is above average, in which case it leads to a cat promotion. If it’s below average then it’s just too bad and it has no subtractive effect on how you’re being placed?
Was that event a Cat Enforcement event? ie. in which he came in 33rd out of 68 riders (49th percentile)? Were the 32 riders in front of him promoted to B as well?
Many thanks James.
I understand that the system is working the way it is designed.
What I am trying to do is highlight a specific problem with the system
I am now aware that 6 of my club member peers, who were all competing in the AusCycling eSports Club Championship have been moved from C grade to B grade at the one time.
None of us were winning in C grade (my best was 25th out of the Aussie entrants).
I was the only one of those riders who bothered entering B grade last Thursday.
I finished 120 out of 139. 8 minutes behind the leader, after being dropped at the 600m mark.
There is something wrong with the algorithm if it is making such a significant error in our grading.
My understanding from a life time across many sports, is that handicapping and grading is designed to bring people together, not to push them apart.
Also, every sport I have been involved with has had a review process for grading.
From NASCAR to horse racing to golf - handicapping and grading is designed to encourage competition in a fair and equitable manner.
This latest iteration of Zwift grading is not achieving this.
It would appear that the system is grabbing one example of good performance and overriding all previous history.
Also, it would appear the algorithm is not making any allowance for Age - which may explain why my 50-70 year old peers are being hardest hit.
Most of us are fighting to maintain our fitness - no way at our age are we ever going to see the levels we may have had as 30-40 year olds. Physically impossible.
And to suggest that I should only bother entering events that don’t use the Grade Enforcement protocol is similarly unfair, as is the suggestion made by some that if I wait long enough my grading will stabilise (?)- which I guess means that I should not push myself for the next 60 days.
There has to be a way for a manual intervention and I trust that Zwift will look into this - please.
I feel for you, because your 3.3w/kg wouldn’t have pushed you up in the legacy category definition (since they take 95% of the value across 3 attempts which even for that one attempt is under 3.2w/kg), and due to your flat power curve just starting out of the gate and not getting immediately dropped is a challenge. Of all the category enforcement complaints I’ve seen here, yours is the most interesting to me.
In this type of case the issue isn’t “push harder to improve” as is the case with younger riders who are at the low end of the category and in a few weeks could see themselves in the middle of the pack with a few interval sessions and a bit less beer (just a bit).
That said, at 3.3w/kg you probably can keep up with the B peloton if you get past the initial surge on flat routes, but you will get dropped on any hill that requires a high 1min power (I also get dropped on any big hill but I have no issues in starting any B race).
One thing that can help the initial surge is to join the event early so you’re right at the front, if you choose flatter courses and try to minimize the chance of getting dropped at the outset perhaps that would result in a better overall race feel. It seems lately that the initial surge is less than a minute and then it settles down, so if you can push through a minute of sustained effort you might find keeping up in B possible.
Another thing to look into in the meantime is to join races that have all cats visible, so if you do get dropped by the initial B group you can easily jump into the lower B/C groups that inevitably form.
One question from the perspective of the cat enforcement algo is… If the trend for older riders is a much flatter curve with very low chance of big gains due to training and additional racing, should there be more lenience at the very low end of the cat if they don’t have the power to even keep with the initial surge at the start of a race. I get that this profile won’t be on the podium either way and someone always has to be bottom of cat, but to be sitting at 200/201 riders and consistently dropped immediately is not a great experience for someone that would not have come close to hitting a podium in the lower cat as well.
Thanks Steve,
Unfortunately I am an IT dinosaur- don’t know how to send you a link to my Zwift power profile. (actually don’t know how to find my Zwift Power profile).
My Zwift ID is 4306858 - does that help?
When I am just hanging on to race in C grade (my IRL peers are in D) I don’t know how I can be pushed up to B.
Forced to race with people half my age and twice my power and strength.
Either the algorithm needs to allow for age or there needs to be some process for manual intervention.
Many thanks Aaron,
That is the most balanced and constructive response so far. Much appreciated.
Yep, I get to the box early and go out as hard as I can - works in C for me, but my 400 watts for the first minute still sees me dropped straight away from the 500w peleton.
I am never going to make the break in a good B grade group.
And I am never going to get stronger than I am today - major battle to stay as good as I can be against the inevitable age creep.
So it appears that unless I have a few months off to let my grade reset, I am stuck with finding low level, non GE events - or going to play in some other sand pit (RGT anyone?).
We (me and my peers) need either a review of the Grade protocols or else a manual intervention process to ensure that like can continue to compete fairly and equitably with like. Any suggestions as to how we can move towards this will be much appreciated.
Ian,
enforced cat system hasn’t changed the fact that there are people near the cat limits - above and below.
Believe me, I know what I am talking about - riding outdoors in summer I start in D (Zwiftpower) each year, bumped in C some races later. I do not try to stay in the front anymore - starting with “normal” pace I always find a group to ride with. Drafting is essential!
In most races I can make up some places, a group can overtake any individual rider or join a smaller group.
I learned about my limits, happy with finishing inside of 2/3 of the starters in C.
Being older rider, too (but younger than you) I’m jealous of you, congratulations, would be happy to have your power!
Hi Milan,
Input appreciated.
Unfortunately you are a much better person than me.
I race to do as well as I can, as an individual, a team member or club member.
I am not interested in just making up the numbers in a race.
Therefore I need a fair and equitable platform to compete on.
Very happy to join in group training rides rather than training alone, so I guess that is what I will have to use Zwift for until they can come up with a way of accommodating all ages and abilities fairly.
“Ride On”. Milan. Thank you.
