Mostly agree Tom. In fact when I was a cat D I did exactly that at times. the Cat B flat races were more fun, and I could just about grab mid pack.
but it isn’t quite that simple if people choose to rinse attack after attack rather than just ride consistently hard. If they can keep slapping out attacks which force you in to VO2 max or higher then you can get burnt out pretty quickly. It’s only when it’s at a consistent wattage that it’s definitely doable.
I don’t understand why zwift couldn’t put people who race infrequently into say pen E and let it go from there. Just like IRL, you have to enter as a cat 5, you can not enter anything else if you haven’t raced before (this is mainly due to bike skills and safety) everything else should be promoted just like IRL. You win, you gain points, you move up. If you don’t like moving up or getting better and putting in the training time you shouldn’t be racing. It takes dedication and discipline to get to the top…
I think they changed this. Language about not falling below seed score has been removed.
This would cause folks whose actual racing score put them into Cat E to have very unpredictable race fields a lot of the time…
Sorry, I was wrong.
If you have raced before then you would be placed into the appropriate category. I just picked E as a reference, it could be Z. It would weed out all the created accounts, all the sandbagging…ect.
I think issue is they only have 5 pens at their disposal and this has already proved to be too few to provide small enough bands for racing, so they need all the pens for actual race racers not seeding racers.
I agree 100%. Many in the Zwift community don’t want to put the hard work in and expect to jump into a race environment and do well without the proper preparation. And when it doesn’t end up they way in which they envision, they waffle on about power to weight and 15 sec power versus 20 min power…yawn. They like racing and winning, but at the expense of lesser athletes and argue it’s a daft system when they are forced to move up a category and see how they get on with racers that are equal to or slightly better than they are. If you race you have to expect there are better racers than you. They may be more fit, smarter, skillful etc. To expect to win all the time and remain in the same category is mad. Put them in pen E and sort it out afterwards. The race will clearly be an eye opener for some, great for others and rubbish for the rest. But from that point forward, everyone will have a clear idea where they stand. Points can be given based on placement in each race. Advancement into the next category should be performance / results based. Winning five races in one season (12 months or less) is an automatic upgrade. Ten top ten finishes in one season (12 months or less) is an automatic upgrade. You like winning a lot - great, but let’s see how you do in the next level up. If you don’t like your results there and you don’t fancy the fact you’re not winning as much now in the higher level, then maybe train more and learn about preparing to race rather than just expecting to jump in willy-nilly and assuming a podium is in your future.
Spoken like a true outdoor races. Respect!
I don’t think they would be repeating the attacks on the flats since they still can’t get away from their fellow riders. Sure they can drop you but that doesn’t help them win. They rather save the energy to compete against the top 5 than spend it dropping the guys in the 50th place.
Because you would end up with very little racers. They want to get more people to race. Not make a system that puts people off from racing.
This would never work. The number of races you have less than 10 racers are over 50%. You can’t even come in 11th even if you wanted it.
I was being conservative mate. Well, maybe make it top five in 12 months or less or make it top three in 10 months or less. Some form of a results-based threshold must be put in place to automatically push those racers up in a shorter amount of time, so they don’t become comfortable winning every event and subjecting the rest of the community to the same old tired complaints. This community wants to see race events that are dynamic, not the same old few racers gaming the system every time they enter an event in the same category. Letting event organizers continue to suss out pen assignments on some power formula based on a very narrow set of metrics is completely mental. Maintaining a power-based approach to determine race seed or score is not changing the landscape - it’s admiring the problem.
C group you would have podium.
B,D,E you would have came in top 10.
Most races isn’t how good you are at cycling but how small the fields are. Most Zwift races have less than 10 people.
Racing Score isn’t power-based. It’s results-based as you’re advocating. But everyone has to start somewhere for their first race and power-based seed score should at least get people CLOSE to their correct race pens. Regardless of how their seeding starts out, after five races their starting pens should be determined solely by prior results, not power.
Another thing we will have to get our heads around is that it seems categories will no longer exist once racing score is fully implemented. Depending on how the racing score boundaries are set up for each race you might be in Pen B for one race and Pen D for another. So the concept of pushing winners up to a higher category isn’t exactly accurate - it’s more like sliding them higher on the continuum of the racing score and eventually they should end up in a pen with higher boundaries.
You are correct, racing score is results based. However, the “everyone has to start somewhere” approach should be handled differently. I would have started this test using one pen. As I mentioned prior, let the cards fall where they may. Some racers will place top 5 percent, others top twenty whilst others may be in the bottom third. Coordinate the race score based on your very first race attempt. If you haven’t raced in six months, what was your last race result then? If you haven’t raced in any events ever, you must enter pen E. You finished your last race in pen E, your placing in the event provides you a results score. Next race, your assigned to the most accurate pen, based on your most recent race result. Blow out the field in your next race, you are moved up. These suggestions are just that…suggestions. Moreover, not one time did I suggest basing a beginner’s pen assignment on a power figure. I believe Zwift should create starter race events that allow participants to taste racing for the first time. They can either put fourth the effort to win or put out an effort that suits their ability. What ever the result, they are then awarded a score based on their result. Fill the event with bots if they don’t have a field of 50 to 75 racers, make the field diverse with race bots that have average to advance abilities. Create bots that appear and are identified with proper names just like normal racers of all sizes, genders, nationalities etc. (not some robotic character.) The racers should not know if they are competing against humans are bots. Do what ever it takes to present an event that will lure racers to put out a true effort and see how they place. Once the event is completed (DNF will not count) a result is then given a score.
I think that would lead to an extremely poor experience for the lower levels of racing. There are many racers who belong in Pen E and will likely remain there for a long time. Throwing (potentially) strong new riders in Pen E for their first race will only discourage racers who actually belong there.
I think we can all get through five races that have at least “some” power-based categorization. After that the steady state should look like the results-based system we’re all looking for.
i meant how it actually works. i don’t know many cat 2s who are particularly interested in being a cat 1. in america i think you can keep your category and maintain it for three years which makes it a little easier, but they probably have to travel a lot and spend a lot too once they get up there. it was just an offhand comment though. i guess if there’s a point, IRL racing categories got their own problems
Why can’t those “five races” look at results rather than power? If you won a lot, you are in a category with all the winners…go have at it now.
