not trolling at all. the original point is that Zwift are testing a new system, I don’t remember them saying it was finalised. it’s WIP. I actually like to try new things and keep an open mind. That’s why I started on zwift in 2015. 
If anything, the old Zwiftpower boundaries are what is the problem. they’re too wide and somewhat arbitrary
1 Like
And guess what they made it even worse and added more emphasis on weight.
I seriously hope they made an error.
Isn’t this why it is ‘test’? it’s limited events so no-one is making you do them. why not give them a go, open-minded and then give some constructive feedback? yes the weight thing is an issue. I’m 76kg myself and when competing for real always at a disadvantage to lighter riders.
having only raced A or B on Zwift (mainly A) I can only imagine the frustration down the ranks for sandbaggers and wrong catters. A least something (however late) is being attempted
4 Likes
We can already give feedback, we see people are not in a competitive category just by looking at the numbers.
Agree
The pen enforcement with 95% of 20’ was step one. Was the soo many times quoted “MVP”.
But, as you said, people talked about eFTP; using more than 1 one point of the power curve to “catch” cruisers and sandbaggers that were inflating weight; using raw power (if the organiser wanted to go that route); etc.
when I was 19 and complained about it being unfair I was the weight I was compared to all the smaller riders, my coach succinctly said. “either lose some weight or get more power, preferably both”. However, that was late 1980s when things weren’t as PC or inclusive.
Yes, we do. But we also see people (for examplle me) in a competitive category. C - the same like ZP. Competitive is relative, of course - I am just above the D, so finishing somewhere better then 30-40% was ok for me.
No chance for podium - but who has the chance IRL?
Everybody wanted a change, now Zwift is TESTING one - why not try, give feedback and be a little bit patient? Yes, it is not easy - nothing happened for years… But I still hope.
3 Likes
Seriously? This is exactly why there needs to be Race Entry Category Enforcement. In many cases, the C races you’re entering are something important to those racers and your presence alters the outcome whether you in the front or the back. Obviously more so from the front but it is not just a non-issue for any of those riders. You’re a frickin’ A+ rider and can put down WAY more power than any of those C cat racers. I can’t even give you a parallel other than this: How would you feel if you were in race you’d looked forward to for a week and some guy joined on an e-bike? And promptly kicked your butt…
Sheesh… think about it.
5 Likes
I’d also argue the really small guys get worked over. maybe 4/w/kg is 240w. the w/kg is super impressive but 240w is getting you nowhere on a race on Tempus Fugit, except straight out the back, so maybe the ‘bigger’ guys who probably now have to race in a category where their 3.5/wkg is more like the riders they are racing with power outputs, non?
I have been in communication with Flint and have put a post together explaining how the model works, and also a significant change based on feedback today.
Hopefully this is a significant step forward. Check it out here:
15 Likes
I raced on Zwift when each of the categories was created. We started with one category and added categories because people started racing and were discouraged at not being anywhere close to the front. The first split was to create a B group for those with an FTP lower than 4 w/kg (self-selected). Next, there was a C group added for racers who were just starting to get fit. This threshold was set at 2.5 w/kg. Finally, there was a call to have racers for beginning cyclists, with an FTP threshold of 1.5 w/kg.
At the time, professionals and elite riders were uncommon on Zwift. As they joined, there was a move to create an A+ group so that for races with large elite participation the amateurs would also have a group of peers to race against.
Frankly, in my opinion any set of four categories is going to be arbitrary and will disadvantage a group of people. I think they key is not to somehow pretend there is a system where everyone has a chance to win a race but to give everyone, no matter where they finish in the race, an incentive to improve and strive for a better position. To me, the most promising approaches were the ranking systems that were tried a few years ago. I hope that something like that will eventually come back into the picture.
11 Likes
This post covers some details as well as some changes we’ve made, which are live now. You should be able to see if your category has changed by removing yourself from the sign ups, refreshing the event, and then signing back up. Some of you may see a change, some of you may not. Notably, heavier and lighter riders benefit more from the changes we’ve made.
13 Likes
Thanks for being open to the discussions and feedback raised here and by James. I think the changes will have removed the main outliers and this seems like a good starting point. Interested to experience how the MAP and (especially) VO2max trail for me personally as well as for others.
Many checkboxes ticked so cheers to that. One question I do have, is if all metrics are based on a single-best, or say a best 3-race average.
1 Like
I think it is all rides/races and group events over a time frame taken into account, so a bit like Zwiftpower, if you start riding like a dog’s dinner for long enough you can race lower… (and vice versa)
I really hate to complain some more about this but I’m pretty sure I’m not the only guy with this issue…
Did you consult with WTRL about the start times? I’m west coast US and I can only ride in the early morning. Typically between 4am and 7am. I can manage a 4am start but it sucks a bit. I can manage a 6am start and be a little late to work. Next week there is ONE event that fits this model, the Tuesday, 6am start. The rest of the races are 3am with a gap of 7 hours to 10am. Please 'splain this to me Loosie?
I mention WTRL because they did the same thing with the Zwift Classic Series. Except they had 7 events crammed into the WC US 10am to 3;45pm hours. Made no sense then either.
I’ll see about making the one event and hope I can hang with the C’s. Been awhile for me…
Maybe this is a question for @James_Zwift but if it’s @xflintx there you go…
1 Like
I believe it takes maximums, not averages. I say this because that it how physiological modelling works. It wouldn’t make sense to take averages, seeing as it considers all Zwift activities (except for workouts, tbd)
1 Like
Tbh, there’s only the one event that suits me - the one at 2pm UTC. I generally work 8-7 with an hour or so off during the day. Mark, I think you and I probably tend to ride at similar sort of times.
I think we have tried to cover all time zones over the various different days, but it’s important to bear in mind that this isn’t a racing series, these are test events and a single one should give you a good feel of whether or not it feels right.
7 Likes
gloscherrybomb. I didn’t say averages, I said it looks at your rides over a period of time and takes values
Yes I realise that, I was just wondering if a one-off event puts you up (eg get promoted when you PB) or if you have to show that this is a repeatable effort for you (for example 3 times). I’d just think that now that there are more metrics coming into play ‘managing’ your category is hopefully impractical and the demonstration of repeatability could come from a 6min, a 14min and a 24min max effort. It is an open question really, something to say for both.
1 Like
Ah sorry, I thought you meant the average of them. Yes as you say, and takes the best numbers.
1 Like