I’m on holiday this week so pretending not to work. Feel free to email them, especially the D.
3 Likes
This cant be a surprise now is it ? We have had A+ and A riding with B and C from the start and have B’s riding with C and D since the first week.
The differences in endurence powers in cats is just way too big with this system.
At this point I just hope this whole idea gets canned and we make some small changes to the CE system and keep that.
2 Likes
I’m sorry for posting this thought here about Racing Score, but there hasn’t been an open official Racing Score feedback thread for weeks…
I really do think there should be a score bonus for at least the podium winners, if not the top 10, providing a minimum number of racers (15+?) took part.
It looks like currently, if the racer with the highest score in a pen wins and doesn’t set a new 30sec/10min power best, their score barely changes. So in theory, someone could repeat this scenario many times and not even threaten a pen promotion (presuming score pen thresholds change very little).
How much of a score bonus? Maybe 10 for winner, going down uniformly to 1 for 10th?
I’m still very dubious about the 30sec power heavily influencing the power seeding score over an aerobic 10min effort.
I still think the rolling 90-day window for power performance should be longer, to prevent a lot of the coming turbo season (Oct-Mar) races from being full of racers in pens well below their ability. IMO the window should go back into the previous Oct-Mar season.
I still think 10mins is too long for an aerobic evaluation, many race routes won’t result in a maximum effort that is so long, something in the 4-7min window would be far more suitable IMO.
I still think the apparent lack of W/Kg evaluation to produce the power seed score, compared to pure Watts, is a bad idea.
I still think we need a score modifier for at least three route hillliness scenarios, to get a better experience over a number of route types. Or at least a single score suitable for a slightly hilly course (not essentially flat routes like Innsbruckring).
3 Likes
i’m not sure it does anymore… i put a big 30s in the other day and don’t seem to have gained anything
1 Like
You went from 759W to 796W so i would not call that big gain…that’s why your Seed didn’t move that much.
The problem now is that we don’t know what riders SEED is. The only option is if you are at your Score Floor to calculate your seed.
We are flying blind at the moment 
1 Like
man, i would. it’s not a lifetime PR but it’s a year PR
from what i remember i was 661 zrs and decaying before then (so 633 floor) and after the tiny races i was 678 and also decaying and those 17pts likely came from the results because i was doing pretty well
edit: i have advocated for separating seed score from your actual results score. like vElo kinda does… so i agree with that. it would clear up a lot of “but what about this guy” type questions
I would expect your seed to move up around 20 to 30 points with that gain.
As i said we are flying blind because we don’t know much. At all times a Riders Seed should be shown on there profile.
My example show (Seed)
Racing Score - 566.02 (665.91)
1 Like
No, please!
Anyone got an idea in an result based system why the number 2 went down in ZRS when they broke away with 4 and had a minute lead over the others.
A decrease when coming 2nd after someone with a higher score doesnt make much sense when its result based …
1 Like
I of course would be guessing as we don’t know any of the calculations used for seed, decay or race points.
I suspect Zwift is trying to compare the points he now has at the end of this race 441 with the number of points he had when he last did a ZRS race on 22nd July of 444. Therefore downward arrow required.
Elsewhere I have read that decay can be up to 0.25pts per day so possibly 13-14 points lost to decay.
But since then he has improved, slightly, his 10min and 30s power but of course we don’t know how many extra points that gave him.
The winner of the race gained only 8 points but he also improved his 10min and 30sec power so again we are guessing how many actual race points that win awarded him.
Third place gained around 7 points but also improved 10 min power in this race. Guessing again at points gained through race as opposed to power.
Could look at others but no longer have the time or inclination.
We are in the dark and guessing as we don’t know any of the calculations.
I fully support a race results system, I don’t know how things are being calculated but I would hazard a guess, even though we have been told race result score volatility has changed, that the bulk of race score movements are down to power and decay and not race results. Hopefully that will be fine tuned before full release.
Could all be true. I just thought the only way to go down in a result based system would be if he got beaten by riders with a lower score than they have but that isnt the case. Yes he got beaten by one who had a higher score, but that was to be expected. Sop his 2nd place in the race coutns for nothing ?
And I presume the score of the race is calculated against his daily score when he entered the race and not some score from months ago.
This whole system still doesnt make much sense to me.
1 Like
Why not ? All the problems there were with CE are still here or have even gotten worse. And it is still not result based and heavily relies on powernumbers not even done in a race to begin with. It is not a Zwift Racing Score. It is a Zwift Score and has not much to do with racing.
4 Likes
Still seeing someone with 10 September B races, podium (inc 3 wins) 8 of them and remain comfortably within the ‘new B’ (<690) means something isn’t right with the results vs power score contribution, imo, as people who know how to perfectly ‘sandbag’ the race will keep their power bands low and still avoid promotion - which is the ‘problem’ (personal opinion of course, those doing it like that would argue they love that it can be done and they’re good at the game, I would guess) we’ve had for ages with CE.
Also surprised to see mentioned above that daily decay is a thing - there should be a 2 week period before any decay, as if anything a week or 2 break from racing should see someone gain form as their body is allowed to recover & adapts to prior training/race load.
1 Like
totally get that, i mentioned a while back the same thing, (i’m a 65 year old high D/low C) my 10 min is 2.9 , 20 min is 2.5 (so an average joe D) but my sprint is ok for a lightweight (30sec 6.85) so in a race yesterday (admittedly i am on the way back from injury) in a 40min race i was 2.4 20 min but the leaders (all high Cs) were around 3+ for the race = i was 5 minutes behind the winners (range was 180-350) so it seems that ZRS isnt that great when you have a high 30 sec sprint … i’m sure James will work it out (after a well deserved holiday!)
1 Like
but that assumes they are still riding during that time, what if they have 2 weeks off due to illness or 2 weeks spent sat in the pub quaffing 5 pints of Guinness a day?
Somehow I really doubt that. It has been like this since the first day, and Zwift hasnt mentioned changing the formula once. So it looks like the importance of the 30s values is here to stay sadly enough since they want to go live with it within a month.
I am not really looking forward to being stuck with an even worse system than what we have now.
keep the faith Peter! my only solution currently is to look for LOW races (when they split into LOW/HIGH) that has a range for C of 180-265… then i might have a chance of staying with the pack a bit longer
Racing Score decay is kicking in way too early should be a few weeks or longer just because an individual has not raced for x amount of days on Zwift doesn’t mean they’re fitness has declined they could have been doing hard intervals outdoors or racing on another platform.
My racing score was up to 520 in a day or two it had dropped to 514 I entered Racing Score Crit Race in my recommended pen was up to 520 I would have went into the next upward pen but there was very few entrants.
The race was easier than I expected for a Crit race still a good effort required but not too crazy on the rollers on the final lap the eventual winner launched an attack a few including my self pursued then I pushed hard on the last 500m or so amazingly I didn’t get caught so finished second.
Assuming racing score increases with your final position, the amount of riders, strength of the opposition and your power curve If this is the case my racing score although is showing to increase it’s still at 514.
I’m certainly not a sandbagger but in its current form racing score seems to favour those types of riders.
The score ranges have changed again?
Yesterday, the Pinarello challenge races were 520-690 for B cat (as described in the first post) but today it was 525-650 for B cat. If I recall that is what the ranges used to be. It seems like all ZRS races (monthly and crit club) have reverted back to the old ranges.
Was this intentional? Or were the changes planned to be only temporary? The original post talks about the changes being for Sep 16-22 but the race I did yesterday had the new changed ranges and that was the 24th. It seems only from today that the ranges have changed back to the old values.