That is borderline funny. I find it so weird that Zwift are fine with a system that works so clearly in favour of sprinters. But let’s hope that the coming results based categorization system will change something. At least then people would have to choose between winning and sandbagging.
1 Like
Interesting because 15/30/60 seconds is supposedly not part of CE any more. I would have expected this change to accompany a MAP PR, not VO2max.
Yep, 15/30/60 PBs all set this week. zMAP adjusted upwards to 305w, zFTP 253 watts which at 75kg gives 3.37w/kg and is above the CAT B threshold of 3.36.
So as Thomas points out, the system does appear to give sprinters an advantaged. In last 7 days, I’ve improved peak powers, podiumed twice in Cat B, and gone up 100 points in zRacing. The result is I can now enter Cat C again?
2 Likes
@Steve_Jukes Dont hate the player, hate the game.
@Thomas_Sorensen_eCKD my name’s are King Bath Salts, “Supreme Chancellor of Zwift”
It’s definitely not.
- nobody is hating anybody
- what we are doing is exactly that: complaining about the game, not about its players
I wonder if the Cat definitions changed again?
Someone explain ZP profile ID# 2638639 now being a Cat C, when history like yours, was all seemingly correct as B ?
They haven’t changed.
The profile you have linked is a B.
1 Like
sneaky 
it wasn’t B 5 minutes ago.
I refreshed the profile. They’ve been B since today’s effort which increased zFTP by about 20.
1 Like
I guess this is part of the point. You probably have good reasons not to include them, but the downside to the current system is that if you’re a good sprinter who otherwise sits in the draft the whole race, you’re free to win every event without getting bumped up to next cat. Whereas if you are a good climber, or if you’re the type to animate a race with breakaways or by setting a hard pace for the pack, you’ll risk getting bumped.
That begs the question if the drafting and sprinting type is type of riders you want to see most of on the platform. In which case the current system should be fine. If you want more varied events that are less likely to end up in bunch sprints, maybe think about changing it up. But as I understand, something new is on the way.
2 Likes
This has always been the case and is a recognised issue with w/kg based categorisation.
If your complaint is that the rider blows up the race, it makes no difference at all whether they are DQed after the event or not.
3 Likes
More than auto DQ, there should be gradients.
-
A Cat C rider sets new PR and gets Podium but is over cat limit by (insert number) 0.5-1 w/kg, gets a congratulation, the result stands but they get moved to the next cat.
-
If a rider finishes race at above cat limit by > 1.0 w/kg (insert number), then no result and they get moved up.
-
If rider is blatantly demonstrating supra human performance or a 5 min or 10 min power way above limits, immediately make them invisible and remove from the race.
Inform the rider that there may be a problem with set up and his ranking wont be affected until it is sorted out.
If he is the greatest rider on Earth, he will understand and the fix will be simple.
The rider will complain but that is only 1 rider and 1 race vs 1 race and every other rider in the race.
Penalties after the fact have no weight.
2 Likes
this is where you get it all wrong. With CE a rider can only ride in the category that is open to them.
1 Like
i race probably about as often as anyone on the platform and i’ve witnessed people starting a race in one CE category and finishing it in a cat up exactly twice. one of them was me
No, this is a reasonable point.
Yes, DQing riders after the event may hopefully help them reconsider their actions, but the fundamental issue is that they are able to enter in that category, which is James’ point.
Clarification… with CE, all cats equal to, or harder than your Zwift-indicated minimum, should be open to you.
Tomato tomato 
In short only those that are open to you.
Some people think about consequences in advance. For those a DQ would be a deterrent. Seasoned racers know what they can get away with. (I think) I see James’s point that they should be there at all, but saying a DQ makes no difference seems unreasonable. Even a results-based system will initially allow bad actors into a cat when it has insufficient insufficient data, so this problem will persist. A DQ is a lot better than a reward. Tim Camden’s gradient proposal is good one. There is no good reason not to address flagrant violations.