|Minimum Category B 701 races|
|95% of 20min|243watts /4.37wkg|
|95% of 20min|241watts /4.34wkg|
|95% of 20min|240watts /4.33wkg|
Any reason this rider would not be an A Cat? I thought A was 4 w/kg and above.
Would like to know what I’m missing. I remember reading something about a minimum 200w, but that also wouldn’t explain it in this case.
If you’re talking about Category Enforcement, has to be >250 watts
Yep - got to satisfy both watts and w/kg:
OK - Thanks guys. He’s on 241W. He’s won the last 100 races he has entered in B, sometimes doing 2 races a day, and almost every day since May - kinda ruining races he is in. But that explains the B Cat. Just seems odd.
Zwift struggles getting the formula right for lightweights unfortunately.
Plus ‘Zwift’ have just upped the boundaries to get upgraded so that graphic above is out of date for CE
i have a huge 1-2 minute power, a relatively ■■■■ FTP because i spend all my time training 1-2minute power, and i’m 5’4. that’s basically why. I’m CE B as well as ZP B. i apologise if i somehow ruined a race for you by crossing the line first but i really don’t feel obligated to race up a cat just because strangers want me to.
if a race organiser from a series i race often (KISS, DBR etc) were to specifically ask me to race a cat up then i would, out of respect for them
You seem to get picked on a bit …lol
It’s not any Zwift racer’s job to fix the category system. The rules are what they are, for now.
most people are great, and i have thick skin anyway. if i were making more enemies than friends on zwift then i wouldn’t be involved in the community
Sam would be competitive in A cat with that power numbers…looking at his last Climb in DIRT series up the Tower he did 254W for 26mins…POWER/HR Ratio is telling me he’s capable of going above 260W for that duration with a steady pace. I don’t understand how CE would have his CP under 250W…this is a mistery to me. When using Watt Floors there should be NO 95% deduction.
On the other hand ZWIFT should use this for Light Riders under 59kg using Dynamic Watt Floors:
Cat A: 250W for 59kg (From 59kg every kg is -3W from Watt Floor)
Cat B: 200W for 59kg (From 59kg every kg is -3W from Watt Floor)
Cat C: 150W for 57kg (From 57kg every kg is -2W from Watt Floor)
Example Cat A for 55kg rider: 59kg-55kg=4kg3W=12W, For Cat A is 250W-12W=238W/55kg=4.33W/kg
Example Cat B for 50kg rider: 59kg-50kg=9kg3W=27W, For Cat B is 200W-27W=173W/50kg=3.46W/kg
Example Cat C for 40kg rider: 57kg-40kg=17kg*2W=34W, For Cat C is 150W-34W=116W/40kg=2.9W/kg
not many do, its was an arbitrary number that zwiftpower picked and has never been changed, bit daft but hey ho
thank you, i do understand your frustrations. the 250w limit is really there to protect women and juniors who might have a decent FTP w/kg but limited short power (there were a few women lighter than me with higher FTPs in that epic KOM race who were dropped on the short KOM at the start before we even got to the epic if you look further down the results list, for example), but as others have said the number they chose was basically decided with “this sounds about right”
unfortunately i don’t think any category system including the “rider score” thing James Eastwood posted on zwiftinsider, article below, really knows what to do with a light sprinter (my rider score would be approx 1100 unless i have done the calculation wrong…).
but for me zwift has always been a “fun way to train” and not a “competitive sport”, that’s just my personal opinion of it. zwift have said they are moving to results based categories in the future, i am happy to move with the times when/if they do. at the end of the day i would rather more users got into and enjoyed zwift racing as much as possible because there are a lot of empty events at the moment
Maybe there are just too many of 'em?
definitely too many of them.
I would love for the public calendar become a lot more dynamic where if an event is not populated regularly it falls back to be a club private event to put the responsibly on the organising club to promote and encourage their riders to race.
Similarly if you are a club and can get good numbers for a club event there should be a streamlined process to apply and added to public calendar
We’re looking at this currently.
My preference is to move every race/ride back to the club (as a private/unlisted event) and have an application process for events to be made public, based on the “quality” of the event and the availability on the calendar.
Perhaps fortunately I don’t get to make decisions
Certainly it’s not their job, but it would be polite and considerate for Sam to race up a category. And I would think more fun for Sam since his “wins” are essentially just exploiting a loophole. Under any decent system he would have been forced to upgrade long ago.
Well he offered to race up a category, and I won’t speak for him, but I don’t have a problem with people following the rules even if the rules aren’t perfect. Category Enforcement has been much more of a “FutureWorks” project than Pace Partners ever were. The way I see it, riders who expose the limitations of the category system without cheating are doing Zwift (and all of us) a favor. I’d rather see the rules fixed than see individuals occasionally paper over those flaws out of courtesy. We’ve heard that results-based categorization is coming, and it seems likely that his results would move him up. That’s the solution I prefer, because it’s the only one that has a chance of working.
It’s not really a favour when anyone that races on zwift has known for years that fixed wattage floors are a terrible idea.
Why wait for results based cats (unless it’s coming next month) just get on and fix the wattage floors.
Simple solutions that require little programming have been suggested on the forums.
It’s a simple fix Zwift just need to get on and fix it then I’d quite agree it’s a much better solution for Zwift to fix it than to try debate with riders why they should race up.