I’m not really sure what you are asking for? Are you saying that people who start slow, don’t pedal hard and don’t take turns at the front should win races?
mbecks2 wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:47 am
Just race on Zwift in whatever category you want. Don’t come here and look just look at results on Zwift. These guys are trying to be the authority on race fairness but it doesn’t work. I’m 80kg but how doesn’t anyone know that? You never will know for sure. Just like the guys who push 400 watts for 90 mins who say they are 60kg no one will ever know for sure. So why put yourself in or worry about a category that this site says you are. It doesn’t matter. No sense entering as a B and getting dropped right off the start and fading into the bottom of the B standings forever. Race in the C’s and take a shot at a few race wins. Zwift will not disqualify you and you’ll be listed as the winner if you do so. Until someone figures out a better way to verify these things it will always be a crapshoot filled with cheaters.
Please feel free to opt-out if you don't like the service we provide.

If you intend to stay then change your rider name and bio to something less offensive.
Fozzzer wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:48 am
I’m not really sure what you are asking for? Are you saying that people who start slow, don’t pedal hard and don’t take turns at the front should win races?
No, what I basicly meant was an improvement for the categories. If you notice the questions and if you do a little research on how it reallty works you will discover that the current system is not fair. I have been thinking and some slight changes could make it more competitive. Just define some sub-categories within the main categories and think about a matrix in which you group by weight and wattage. Also the type of course could be considered.

For example, on a moderate hilly course a high-end lightweight rider will likely perform the same as a low-end heavy rider. The first wins on the climbs and the second wins on the flats. But on a course like Road to Sky, the value for w/kg will be dominant in the result. But on a course like Volcano Circuit the raw wattage will win it.
“FTP is considered to be your maximum average over an hour”

It most certainly is not. Andy Coggan has been strenuous in correcting people on that misinterpretation but people will stick to their beliefs even in the face of categorical facts from the original source

“95% of 20 mins can be considered as a well prediction of this value. However, it is quite important that the effort is steady and your muscles are free of stress of any other previous effort”

Again, wrong. The 20-min FTP test has a very specific protocol, which includes an all-out 5-minute effort to remove freshness from the legs. Without it, the 20-min average will not give an accurate estimate. And that’s directly from Hunter Allen, the source of the test.

So, within a race, any given best 20-min window is liable to report an effort just above FTP because of the high start, unsteady power, etc. A whole race cannot be taken to be FTP, more likely at least 5% under, unless it’s a 40km TT.
First of all, to which Andrew Coggan you are referring? The one of 10 years ago, or 5 years ago or last year? It differents a lot since he always has new insights, both meant positive as well as negative. He is a guy who is always right, no matter what. But he did great research on the subject and we all take the benefits.

But don't take it all to literally, whatever FTP exactly means or is, it is for most riders physical impossible to ride two days in a row an hour on FTP or CP60 or MLSS or whatever metric which means about the same and has more or less the same value. Even a day rest won't be enough to perform this same effort again, unless you are well trained like a top-amateur or a pro. Most riders on Zwift will face their physical limts.

That will also be true for the best 20 minutes. When I stated that you should be free os stress of any previous effort in order to perform a good 20 minutes test, ofcourse I meant you should be free of stress of any effort of the previous days, for example don't do an Alpe du Zwift a day prior to your 20 minutes test. And ofcourse every test has it own protocol for warming-up etc. That is not to be considered as any previous effort, but it is part of the test. In fact when I do a proper 20 minutes test at the lab it is advised no to do any intensive efforts 2-3 days prior to the test since it may inluence the test badly.

Anyway, I am quite sure that for most riders on Zwift for most events their best best 20 minutes should be below of 105% of their FTP or even 100% of their FTP. Since most events take far longer than 20 minutes, do have a hard start and all courses are quite irregular.

Just use your common sense.
So you negate your original complaint? What was your point?

You said categorically that it is wrong to use 95% of 20mins in a race on any given day. So what should we use? Care to offer an alternative?

For some, yes, it may be closer to actual FTP. For others, 95%. For those who perhaps race once a week, 105%. So use your common sense and apply the highest, not the lowest, to estimate that person’s FTP. Who cares if they race every day? For the purposes of categorisation it is sufficient. If someone really wants to know their FTP, they can do a proper test. We can’t force them, so 95% of best 20mins in a race is what we have.
Lets assume that most riders are fair about their entered FTP on ZP and about their weight entered on Zwift. I proposed an alternative to make sub-categories based on a matrix on both weight and FTP. Ofcourse there are cheaters, but lets think about a system to satisfy who is willing and to think about a system to identify cheaters, don't make a system in which a cheater can be lucky and someone who is fair can be unlucky.

My original complaint was only about the rounding being not correct. It had nothing to do with the value of the metric. ZP is a site full with numbers and people get UPGed or DQed by a fraction of hundreds, so then make sure the rounding is always correct.