Category Enforcement Trial - Next Steps [February 2022]

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 “game” 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 C’s… 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 can’t understand it, how would an adjustment of boundaries penalise smaller clubs specifically?

The Z-Files episode 1.

18 Likes

Please don’t ever change.

2 Likes

I love how spectacularly unnecessary the presentation is. Quality. :+1:

Also, Ben Foster :joy:

4 Likes

well in it’s final form where you would ideally be able to view your current category at a glance on the zwiftpower website it probably wouldn’t because you could plan around that. in it’s current form it does though since the fact that people don’t know their current category under CE and the fact that their ZP website category doesn’t necessarily reflect their CE category is what penalises them. it’s nothing a simple website update wouldn’t go a long way to fixing, especially since apparently less than half of the current races on the calendar are even using the current ZP website category system

Final slide: “and then Bob’s your uncle” I don’t get this reference, is it a UK thing?

Rather than post it in Zwift Racers, it needs to go into the WTRL facebook group- That will show the extent of the battle while they all have a meltdown over it.

Zwift racers is basically an advertising page now - Its a shambles.

Yeah, it’s a British saying.

1 Like

I don’t get posts approved in that group. I’ve added it as a comment.

Couldn’t decide whether or not to start a new thread or to use this one.

We’ve just made the following changes

  • Women’s CE is now operational
  • Riders without data will now start in Pen E rather than A
  • A > 3.7w/kg CP or >= 5w/kg MAP
  • B > 3.2 w/kg CP or >= 4.2 w/kg MAP
  • C > 2.5 w/kg CP or >= 3.5 w/kg MAP
13 Likes

Are those the thresholds for the Women’s CE or for all CE events?

Women’s CE.

2 Likes

James, are you able to add the orange background to your important posts (like this), like other ZHQ staff sometimes do? It helps with visibility, etc.

1 Like

Sorry :slight_smile: Not used to saying anything remotely useful or important :rofl:

6 Likes

i don’t think CE would make a difference but one thing that has always annoyed me is the big clubs always want to be bigger so when ZRL season comes around it’s them that are spamming forums looking for members. I almost feel like WTRL facebook should block big clubs from advertising to allow a better spread of riders.

There are loads of people looking for teams every ZRL so plenty extra riders for small clubs to recruit a few more would make the whole league a better

Great to see this new information added to the OP.

I notice todays information for C is
C > 2.5 w/kg CP or >= 3.5 w/kg MAP

Yet mens/mixed (is that correct?) is still
C: (2.5w/kg OR 3.9w/kg MAP) AND 150w CP

I have mentioned it before, but I have no way of knowing or testing, but the 3.9 w/kg MAP just looks mathematically wrong compared to the MAP figures for B and A. This new MAP figure for women only races of 3.5 looks more like I would have expected.

Is there a reason why Women only figure and Men/mixed figure are not the same?

The MAP numbers are all stupid and irrelevant, because they are far too high. This was pointed out shortly after the new system was introduced.

The CE system works on CP alone.

Please someone prove me wrong by finding riders who breach the MAP threshold while staying below CP, for any given category boundary.

1 Like

@James_Zwift Going to rephrase the above post so it is a bit more helpful. Calling something stupid rubs me up the wrong way and I’m sure it doesn’t fill you with enthusiasm to address this issue. Do you have any statistics on how many riders are breaking the MAP thresholds?

My feel (And James A’s I guess) is that they are set too high and probably for too long a duration too. They may help categorise riders that have no accurate longer duration efforts, but I doubt they do anything to move up riders with really strong short duration power with an accurate CP model. The good thing is this can be changed of course. Or will this be parked until race organisers can set the thresholds themselves?

Cheers

2 Likes

This ^

The hard work is to get the system in place, it is easy to move the limits now. Time will tell how they move these boundaries around. Implementing woman specific boundaries show that this all is possible.

1 Like