@Gerrie_Delport_ODZ can we merge the various CE threads or close some of them and route to a single thread please?
1 Like
I can try, but it is a bit all over the place. 
But I first have to finish my workout.
2 Likes
Did all the races last season and just the first one of the current season and thatâs it for me (no great loss to ZRL 
).
Wonât even consider participating in another until they address the blatant sandbagging/cruising (cat C was a nightmare). Wonât hold my breath.
2 Likes
It has category enforcement. Just not the new categorisation but those are two completely different things. Zwift shouldnât have implemented two things simultaneously as this keeps tripping people up.
What two things did we implement simultaneously?
Iâm guessing he means wtrl autocat and the category enforcement
Does seem stupid using 2 sets of rules for races
Okay - They werenât simultaneous by a long shot.
1 Like
And Zwift didnât implement autocat - that was WTRL.
1 Like
yes we know that but iâm sure that some people see zwift races as 1 single entity and wtrl just being another race organiser like herd/3r etc but wtrl have their own rules outside of zwifts, which is a bit daft really
Whatâs the âAutocatâ system?
Some people donât though. I was replying to Stanâs comment that âZwift shouldnât have implemented two things simultaneouslyâ.
Yes, I know that some people see WTRL as some sort of part of Zwift.
1 Like
Autocat is WTRLâs own take on a new category enforcement system that doesnât use Zwiftpower. Itâs based on speed rather than power. It has nothing to do with Zwiftâs own new cat enforcement system. It also isnât normally used in ZRL (it was used in a WTRL Classics series).
WTRL are desperately trying to patch up the shambles of large numbers of DQâs in last nightâs ZRL race by using bits of autocat even though their rules explicitly say that the old existing category system is whatâs used for ZRL. So WTRL are moving the goalposts, post-race, in a big way to try to save their own embarrassment.
Talking about embarrassment, WTRL are also making themselves look amateurish and desperate by trying to claim that autocat is the best thing ever and much better than Zwiftâs own new system. If itâs so good, why havenât they used it in ZRL before?
4 Likes
Category enforcement and a new definition of categories.
ZRL had category enforcement based on the old categorisation with the private links. Now people, as above, state they donât have it as they mistake categorisation (which category do you belong in) with category enforcement (to race in correct category which is enforced). The second needs the former but is independent of whatever categorisation is chosen. Unfortunately Zwift rolled it out and solely for a new set of categorisation. And only for that one (as of now). It clearly confuses people as from same individual Iâve seen complaints about TFC and ZRL for not having category enforcement⌠While they were one of the few that had it (with the private links) for a long time when Zwift did not natively support it. Now it does but only on new categorisation so people complain about TFC, ZRL etc⌠Which is unbecoming if you ask me.
Personally I donât care about the categorisation and at least there are moves to improve it. However such comments are just stupid and uncalled for and partly driven by Zwift combining new categorisation and category enforcement in one update. Which just obscured things unnecessarily and leads to such unfair gripes.
Dunno about that? Looks like they used the rather vague, get-out-of-jail card rule 3.2.8 âWTRL fluctuation limitâs definition â WTRL uses the traditional ZwiftPower category
limits and *MAY apply an additional fair margin considered acceptable for the type of *
course the event has taken place on. This additional margin is not publicised as to do
so would allow riders to race outside potentially and deliberately of the traditional limitsâ.
Looks like they simply increased their FTP leeway from +0.1 w/kg to +0.2 w/kg. A couple of our riders received code 7s initially but theses were reversed overnight.
Not sure I understand this statement?
As far as Iâm understanding things, Zwift have only introduced one new system recently which is being called âCategory Enforcementâ and is based upon CP/MAP/VO2max values. This isnât currently being enforced on all events (up to individual race organisers). Were CE isnât enforced, the âoldâ (FTP best-of-3 average) is still being used.
Sure, that sort of thing would be fine. But thatâs not what Martin was implying when he posted whatâs in Category Enforcement Trial - Next Steps [February 2022] - #343 by Lee_H and what he seems to be telling team captains that enquire via email about DQs last night.
1 Like
Heâs referring to Zwift implementing (1) new definitions of A/B/C/D based on different metrics, as you mention, and (2) enforcing these new definitions.
CE would probably exclude smaller IRL clubs and groups of friends who are struggling to make 4 starters per race to begin with and reduce participation to large established zwift clubs like dirt and herd etc who already are winning every division as it is. personally i think allowing riders to cat up mid season is stupid though, unless theyâre in D since they are probably beginners and are actually likely to significantly improve legitimately over the span of 2 months
I agree that the new D has a good chance of moving up.
I will lose some this season which is good as they are improving.
What ruins it is teams who âgameâ the system and have C riders who drop down to a D to take all the sprints then ease off⌠we see this every week⌠you only have to look at profiles and see riders who were mid Câs⌠had a few months easing off and now smash the sprints.
It will happen again in the Autumn when guys race IRL in the summer then lose all their power and do a few group rides to drop to D again.
Personally I would extend the 60 day CE and 90 day ZP to 180 days, otherwise it just opens the door for sandbaggers.
2 Likes
This has been suggested before but I canât understand it, how would an adjustment of boundaries penalise smaller clubs specifically?