They’ve updated it now, Gerrie is in B. See here: Category Enforcement - How is my category calculated? [February 2022]
Hi @Lin_Alan
There was an error in the pen enforcement calculations that is fixed now and I am back to the B category where I belong.
I think a lot of my data was used the track down the error and to show something is not right.
I am sure it was a long day for the Zwift team.
Hey Flint, if next week goes as well as we are hoping, will the cat enforcement be left on or will it get shut down no matter what?
I’m a new Zwifter but longtime cyclist who joined in January and has done exactly two races, and I hope to offer some fresher perspective on these changes.
- I started in early January overweight (85kg) and out of shape (FTP 265W)
- My ability was near the top of the C category so I did two C races, finishing 5th and 1st; in the race I won this morning, 12 of the top 20 riders were DQ for racing below category, including two who beat me in the sprint
- Zwift Power’s 95% of 20 min power is not a great way to set categories: the selections in the two races I’ve done involved efforts of 1-7 minutes
- I think it really makes a lot of sense to use a shorter-term metric like VO2/MAP to help capture this fact
- I’ve noted anecdotally that the riders in the top of the C category tend to be a fair bit heavier than what I see in real life races, 80-90+ kg.
- I think this is an indication of fit riders keeping their weight artificially elevated to remain competitive in the category, so to the extent riders in that camp get bumped up, maybe they can quickly “lose” some extra weight and be moderately competitive in the next cat up, especially after riders in the next cat up get bumped higher as well
- Overall I think this system and prevention of sandbagging will be a big improvement
See you all in the Bs!
4 Likes
for now, I assume the cat enforcement will only apply to the specially listed “category enforcement… test events”. I assume test events will continue for a few weeks further or more before it’s system is built into every race.
I am curious though what customization of pen, if any, event organizers can apply for changing pen designations. Will there be a way for a race organizer to have, for example, four “A” races broken up between (roughly speaking) 6 down to 4 wkg abilities? Or with the regular categories, slide the dividing mark however they want?
Welcome and see you in the Bs.
There are lengthy (very very) threads all about it and everyone agrees its a crappy metric. Best case is race ranking, next best is calculating from across a power curve to stop targeting specific ceilings. #1 is zoon, and in lieu of that, looks like we are getting #2 tested.
As to your later points, i think you’ve taken quite a leap there. Many more riders that are potentially bigger might never join a cycle race outside, but are much more comfortable doing so online. Its comparing apples to oranges. Sure, some people keep them elevated, but its a tiny tiny proportion. The vast majority are just bigger than the average cyclist you see on the road! Like me 
been on zwiftpower for 6 month over 75 races and squarely category “C”, something has to be off on the calc for heavier riders. they put me in A, hopefully they look into this before they implement it.
@tim_poppert looks like you didn’t fancy reading through the comments, but try leaving the race and rejoining again, as this has now been fixed.
2 Likes
@xflintx What is the plan for results on Zwiftpower for these races, presumably the post-race category enforcement needs to be turned off?
It appears to be turned on at the moment:
2 Likes
Be left on what? We only have test events at the moment.
I’ll try to get these sorted before they take place.
Worst case shortly after the events take place.
2 Likes
Thanks @James_Zwift, if the new system isn’t putting anyone down a category from their ZP Cat then there shouldn’t be anyone to DQ, but stranger things have happened.
1 Like
Yep, agree entirely.
1 Like
If you are worried about how people (you in particular) are getting re-categorized in the test, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR FULL IN-GAME/ZP NAME!
I and, I’m sure, others will want to have a look at your race history and make our own assessment of whether you have been badly categorized or not.
Getting promoted to the presumed lower 25% of a higher cat is not necessarily a bad thing (even though we understand you may not see it that way).
Right now this discussion is going haywire (no surprise there). I’m a self-made joke because of my long posts. The rest of you are self-made jokes for writing 100 short posts/day that unfortunately only serve to obfuscate the matter at hand. There are gold nuggets here and there from all of you, but who has the time to dig them up?
There is a risk that rational concerns about cat bounds (what are they really and are they sound/viable?) get clouded by emotional arguments. And with all these posts it’s getting hard to tell them apart. The only remedy is full transparency.
In a nutshell: I want to be able to judge for myself whether the concerns you voice are real issues (they could well be) or just frustration that you will have a hard time in the next race (it should be hard).
I DO appreciate ZHQ’s redefinition of the cat boundaries. I will explain why.
But first, I do also, like others have pointed out, think it is problematic to test several changes at once. You won’t be able to tell what works and why, and what doesn’t.
Also, I stand by my words that I feel that the ZHQ approach is backwards and counterproductive in the long run (here and now I’m fine with it). To me the redefined categories are very similar to the clergy’s weird and ever more complex astronomy models in the 1500’s, the last ditch efforts to fight Copernicus’ heliocentric model. It’s not going to work! Whereas the solution is so beautifully simple… and right in front of our noses.
HOWEVER, the redefined categories is ZHQ’s first formal and public (and quite detailed) recognition of the fact that “Houston, we have a problem…” – the current categories are highly problematic and aren’t doing a good job at keeping races fair. And that goes a long way for me. It is a first and important step. It must not end there. It must be followed by an astronomic paradigm shift, but sure, it is a start.
7 Likes
I think I’ve managed to change these all now.
FWIW, the settings you highlighted are the default ones whenever a race is set up.
4 Likes
My turn for a query @xflintx - is there a technical reason why workouts are not included? It feels like this model is most accurate when as many best efforts are taken in to account as possible, because you are trying to model the riders true capability. Workouts are probably the most useful tool for this, and add another layer to make it cruiser-proof.
11 Likes
There’s been some great analogies in this thread, but I think this wins.
7 Likes
On the contrary. In general, if you look at the power duration curve of someone who is following a plan based on a set FTP, it will look very different (weak) if compared to the same rider over a bunch of races.
There may be other reasons for not including workouts 
Sure, but we’ve already got races included 
Indeed, that’s the question I am asking.
2 Likes
While we know they look back 2 months, I don’t also think it’s been said how many events they’ll put into the cement mixer. They could be just looking for the single best result, they could be averaging the 3 best events or every event.
I agree, or at least don’t understand why, they wouldn’t include training data. Aren’t the ftp tests themselves listed as workouts?
I’d also like to know if there’s a future plan for zwifters to be ever able to see where they rank, and/or for event organizers to be able to do races that deviate from the conventional, but new, A-D definitions? Eg. a simple construct – every rider has a score from 1-100. A-Cat is 76-100, B = 51-75, C=26-50, D=1-25. Event organizers and Zwifters could rely on simple number system in the setup/category system.