You should not use races for training.
Races are races.
I get what you are saying and the races I do are also my hard training days.
The rules of racing should be governed by those who want to beat others.
Period.
No adjustments for people with training schedules.
There should be some kind of penalty for DNF.
Reward the slowest finisher.
This is analogous to people who want a category decrease because they get dropped.
If you get dropped, it means you are not fast.
You can work hard to get faster, chose different races or race group rides.
We should not change the cat system for people who get dropped.
The cat system SHOULD be changed because it currently makes no sense that a strong effort lowers your cat.
I agree, people can do what they want but they shouldnât expect the results to protect their race score for races they donât really race .
If you donât want to race, donât join a race.
If youâre training, donât join a race
If youâre recovering from an injury, donât join a race.
If you do join a race, expect your score to reflect the effort of a slow rider and donât ask Zwift or the organizer for any concessions.
People donât do this IRL because races have entry fees.
I donât want entry fees but I think we can treat Zwift races more like races.
i do all of that stuff, but it makes no difference to me if i am a C rider or an A+ rider. it does - iâm often told with colourful language involved - affect everyone else though
And hence attitudes along the lines that Zwift is just a game, lead to weight and/or height doping and the idea that anyone can use the platform any way they want. DNF handling though is not anybodyâs rule on Zwift. Thatâs the gist of this sub-topic â ie. that Zwift should institute some sort of policy that addresses these. All entrants to a race, IMO, should be accounted for in the results. Likewise, Zwift really needs to also solve the Zwiftpower problem, where only about half of race entrants are registered. I still donât understand why even if only the riderâs user name and time are pushed to Zwiftpower (and not their âprotectedâ personal data like height and weight and HR0), that isnât done to show a placement in the results.
no disrespect at all brother but people who think that way are doomed from day 1. the rules are whatever the rules are and they should be governed by people who have a gift for that type of work. people who âwant to beat othersâ are the last people who should have a say in them. they have to navigate them instead like the rest of us
If you have a favorite race that they keep winning and the score limit is 300. And riders are at 299. What prevents riders from intentionally joining other races to tank their rating to 260 and keep racing in their favorite race. They get back near 290 and they join something else and tank their score again. Repeat and rinse.
And there are no solution how is this different from sand bagging with CE?
Again, what organizers could (should?) do, is switch the limits around frequently⌠make it 300 one week, 290 another, 310 another day, etc⌠With CE, itâs evidently really difficult to do these custom limits, but supposedly, this new system will be more user friendly to organizers?
How would a series work? You sign up for something like ZRL. You have to expect the value is a constant and it doesnât change or you get booted out of the team because the next weeks number dropped by 25.
And if you are getting close to the limits, people going to tank their rating coming in last in Zwift monthly race.
I already see riders pushing 4 w/kg with less than 200 ZRS score next ZRL season. And they going to be A+ riders racing against Ds.
Brings up a good question, and re-raises the request that there be automatic pen reallocation at the time the race begins if oneâs score change occurs after initial signup and requires this.
With a 1000-point scale, Iâm thinking any rider can easily swing 25 points one week to another (25/1000 = 2.5%).
I wonder if the score allocations will be based on percentage of universe, or on straight calculated metrics? Exaggerated example, could 30% of all racers, in theory, have the same racing score value? Or, if eg. there are 10,000 zwift racers in the universe, and 1000 point scale, then thereâd by definition be 10 racers assigned each point value?
itâs just a number, not a category. from what i understand organisers are going to have a fair bit of say in how they distribute their pens which is probably a simpler and more elegant way of doing it. as popular as virtual cycling is proving to be, itâs not that big that you can just join an event and get automatically assigned to a full pen of people around your own fitness at any time of day
I donât care if Ole races to quit but I donât think the system should be designed to improve the experience of people who quit a lot. Their interests are 100% irrelevant when thinking about the design, and since less quitting makes for a better experience for most racers, putting some gentle pressure on quitters seems like a good idea to me. Certainly not banning them though. Transparency about their quit ratio seems like a good start.
i rarely DNF, but i really donât mind if someone quits 5km in or .2km away from the finish. when a guy is DNFing intentionally because the result isnât gonna look the way he wanted it to, that is only going to mean he gets rolled over and over until he learns how to take an L in life. if youâre salty about that guy doing it, he was probably saltier than you when he did it. some people are just incurably salty
