# MAP vs CP thresholds

I honestly think that debating the fine details of eFTP, FTP, CP and their distinctions is rather missing the point. Sure, you can use slightly different definitions and testing protocols to estimate, but they are all aiming at pretty much the same thing, that is, the maximal aerobic power over a reasonably sustained period. Depending on the test, and how well practiced, cyclists will produce different answers. Hold the front page, everyone! Shrug.

None of the subtle differences in definition of CP/FTP come close to explaining the massive gulf between CP and MAP values used in the Zwift categorisation.

lol. That’s quite the statement, but OK.

Only Zwift can tell us how many people are exceeding the MAP limit. I think it’s a good idea to move riders up with a very high shorter duration power, and I agree that the value is probably set A. too high and B. too long a duration.

Then again, maybe it is promoting a lot of riders? Who knows. They should have the data to easily model the impact of changing it, so hopefully they are doing this.

looking at my data for intervals.icu it shows the following :

Default - eftp single max effort & mortons 3P - 342 (dont ask, bloody hill climbs) zwift gives me 310 for FTP
Monod & scherrers 2 parameter CP - 315
Mortons 3 parameter CP - 312
eCP - single max effort & Mortons 3P - 334

this shows that there are a few values for CP depending on which method is being used, it would be nice to know from zwift which ones are being used to determine the vales but you can see that eFTP and eCP are different vales and are not really able to be compared or interpreted as the same

it will promote a lot of actual sandbaggers who produce the numbers in training on zwift but the typical B won’t come anywhere near it, i would guess. i assume thats the point

2 Likes

Bringing multiple threads together, does the A+/A cats need to be split officially and then bringing the Map number down to promote more riders out of B that seem to have an abundance of short duration power monsters…

On that note, was there any movement with the other Bee’s? Or is that going under the carpet and accepted as perfectly normal behaviour.

i always recommend everyone race down a cat in the current 3x20min best effort system if they can get away with it but especially people at the bottom of A. but i think short power will always be essential if you want to compete for a win whether there are sandbaggers or not, regardless of the category model used

I was going to agree, but I would rather they just allow race organisers to determine the boundaries, as many are already doing.

lol. well, consider me a convert. MAP and CP is the way forward

1 Like

I guess the issue there is the watt floor, which is there in the old system too? The FTP is manually entered and obviously incorrect. Could it also be the 60 day versus 90?

Nothing to do with CP as a concept versus 3 x 20m efforts, and nothing to do with the thread OP.

i’m just kidding, it’s obviously not by design. anyway it’s all within the last two months. i can also enter a HERD iTT as a B so these are probably the default parameters. either they’ve only just started counting data from the last couple of days or so rather than retroactively or there’s an issue with probably the MAP calculation

1 Like