Firstly, I’m not a decision maker so I’m really just thinking aloud 
But yes, that was my implication.
Nothing is firm here but I would expect so (if we decide to go ahead with it). Worth noting that I would expect this to be opt out, mainly for organisers that use split categories and that sort of thing.
I’m hoping that the demonstration that Zwift can supply metrics as seen in our zwift…/feed profiles (zftp, vo2, etc), means that they’re working to create a new home for, or at least alternative location than ZP for race and performance results.
Aside from power & cat definition issues, there’s still the larger issue (in some ways) on participation. Race yesterday… CA says 119 riders, yet CA results only go to 85 positions, and ZP only shows about 50 results.
Probably only 85 finishers.
probably… when I finished, it said there were still 25 riders still on the course. After I finished, only 6 more actually showed up afterward. Whatever eventually comes for race reporting should include DNFs IMO, even if for some reason there’d be a legal need to not include their names.
I don’t really see the value in that tbh.
Race in D’s and you’ll take any DNFs you can get into the mix for how you ‘really’ placed.
Slightly different suggestion: make CE a requirement for putting any race on the public calendar. Whatever people want to promote on their own is their business, but if you’re going to let organizers opt out of CE, then they should be opting out of the public calendar as well.
If WKG and UPG DQs are going to be applied to CE events, organizers should be obligated to explain that up front IMO. It should never be a surprise DQ. That is completely unfair to users who don’t understand what they signed up for.
I think most problems of this kind can be solved by reading the event description?
Why not show DNFs at the bottom of the stack? I know a few times I have been in multi-lap races where people just quit after getting dropped on the first few laps (they leave after the legsnapper snaps their legs for instance), and I’ve come in dead last a few times because I keep trudging along after getting dropped in a solo TT of shame for last place. It would be slightly more motivational to see the list of DNFs as a reminder that I at least placed higher than a few folks who just rage quit.
Yeah, that’s ridiculous, isn’t it.
I look at the w/kg of every other rider in my C races (in which I may not compete). They’re almost all way higher than mine. One or two are lower. It takes another 40 to 50 watt higher average just to be able to finish with others. My 200 watts is piddly, nowhere near “B” racer and just barely able to race “C”.
And B racers are out of sight compared to my numbers.
Totally agree, Aaron. I want to see the riders that quit while I soloed on.
Those power categories are set wayyyyyy too low. 200 watts is puny, IMO. And I rarely see a 200 watt average in a C race. Sometimes they’re above 300 watts!
Some people are light.
I think WKG (your 95% of 20 minute power has to be at least 0.1 over category limits) are okay but definitely agreed on UPG.
To exceed C category limits you need to exceed both 3.2w/kg and 200w.
For someone weighing 67kg that would be 67 * 3.2 = 214.4w / 0.95 = 225w for 20 minutes.
Yup, and as you get lighter you can (theoretically) be producing 20 min W/kg values way above C-cat limits but raw power numbers still below the ceiling.
A decent lightweight C-cat rider could be capable of putting out 4+ W/kg and still be under 200W.
The main reason Ken “rarely see a 200 watt average in a C race” is primarily because (male) rider weights tend to be on the higher side. If you weigh 90 kg it would be relatively “easy” to average 270+ watts for many Zwift races if you’re a decent C-cat.
The 200w limit is not for average weight riders it is for the extreme lightweight cases.
This statement is always strange to me, cyclist are probably the most weight sensitive of all sports, they pay thousands of $$ extra to save 200g on a set of wheels and they go to extreme weight loss diets. But still we see people equate more weight to more power.
The problem is the event descriptions don’t explain what will happen. Most are unclear and some are completely useless. Disqualified riders routinely show up here confused about why they were excluded. They should say things like:
“If your ZwiftPower category is higher than your Category Enforcement minimum category, you must enter the higher category or you will be disqualified”
“If your 20 minute average power in the event is more than .1W/kg higher than the ZwiftPower category power limit, you will be disqualified.” (Or whatever the limit is - I’m not sure I know)
Also the game tells riders to check the Companion app for official results, but if ZP DQs are applied, the Companion app results are not official.
I would advocate for UPG to be removed if we used CE on all races (barring exceptions) with the exception of an UPG only categorisation (which is different from current)
I agree with this but only for extreme cases. But on principal I think a rider that got past CE already influenced the race. The nice thing about CE is you can have a breakthru day and be proud of your win before moving to the next category.