Categories are an integral part of Zwift racing, and it would seem that the boundary lines are clearly spelled out on ZwiftPower, where race results are verified and finalized:
Mixed Races
- A+: 4.6w/kg and 300w FTP
- A: 4w/kg and 250w FTP
- B: 3.2w/kg and 200w FTP
- C: 2.5w/kg and 150w FTP
Women’s Races
- A: 3.7w/kg
- B: 3.2w/kg
- C: 2.5w/kg
While in-game enforcement of these categories still has a long way to go, these category boundaries are used by the vast majority of Zwift races today top create an environment of inclusive, fair competition.
But after observing many Crit City races, and the social media traffic they generate, I think there’s an interesting rabbit hole we can travel down together to see how Zwift’s race categorization system could be improved.
ZwiftPower Categorization Primer
First, let’s make sure we’re all on the same page in understanding how categorization actually works in all the Zwift races which are run through ZwiftPower.
Every ZwiftPower-registered rider has a category assigned to them based on their race history. This category is defined as the “average of best 3 races in last 90 days”. To be specific, this is 95% of your best 20-minute power, which is the formula commonly used to estimate FTP. We’ll call this your “FTP Wattage”.
Example: according to ZwiftPower, my strongest three races in the last 90 days had the following FTP wattage:
- 304watts / 3.68wkg
- 302watts / 3.67wkg
- 301watts / 3.62wkg
This means my average FTP wattage is 302w, or 3.65w/kg. This places me squarely in the B category, which is for anyone with an FTP wattage of at least 200w and 3.2w/kg, but under 4w/kg.
[adinserter block=”7″]
Two Key Conditions
ZwiftPower categorization as described above works decently well, but only if two conditions are met:
- Everyone is signed up for ZwiftPower: currently, any Zwifter can join any race, even if they aren’t signed up for ZwiftPower. If they aren’t signed up with ZwiftPower, they won’t show in the final results there. But they can still dramatically affect the race! This is a major concern, but outside the scope of this article.
- Everyone races in their proper category in the Zwift event: currently, Zwifters can race in whatever category they’d like. That means an A-level pro can ride in a D race and blow away the field, if they so choose. This is what we call “sandbagging”, and relates somewhat to the topic at hand.
What Is Your FTP?
So, we understand now that ZwiftPower automatically detects your FTP based on race efforts as described above. That FTP then determines your ZwiftPower race category, which determines the category(s) you can legally race.
But here’s the thing: the length of races you enter will directly impact your 20-minute power numbers. For example, think of how your 20-minute max power would probably look in a 2+ hour 100km race compared to an 8-lap Crit City race lasting ~22 minutes.
In long events, riders must race at an average wattage well below their FTP, since it’s impossible to hold your FTP power for 2+ hours. Conversely, riders would be expected to ride slightly above FTP in a max effort 20-minute event.
Clearly, ZwiftPower’s computed FTP is very much a function of race length. If I only race long events, my computed FTP will logically be lower than if I only race 20-minute events. Let’s keep heading down this rabbit hole…
[adinserter block=”1″]
Game-Changing Short Races
Short races appeared on Zwift years ago, when WBR began holding regular “sprint” events. But the shorter race format truly exploded in December 2019/January 2020, when Crit City was unveiled and 8-lap races made their way onto the daily calendar. Suddenly, thousands of racers (myself included) were taking part in much shorter races than before.
Most of my races were 50-70 minutes long, before Crit City arrived. Now many of my races are only 20 minutes long! For myself and other riders, the 8-lap Crit City race has become a sort of “fun FTP test”.
Has this changed my computed FTP on ZwiftPower? Absolutely. Because I can remember only one time in my Zwift racing history that I joined a race with the specific goal of going all-out for the first 20 minutes, to treat it like an FTP test. But when I take on Crit City races (especially an A-level race!) it can be a 20-minute max effort every time.
And so we arrive at my thesis statement: that many racers have seen their ZwiftPower-computed FTP increase due to their involvement in short Crit City races, and this has, in turn, forced them to upgrade to the next category.
Earth-shattering conclusion? Not exactly. And I don’t have access to the data required to prove my thesis. But it seems to be a very logical and rational conclusion, and if it’s true, it’s a “game-changer” – at least for those forced to upgrade.
Your Comments
If my thesis is true, then two identical riders might now be categorized differently, regardless of race results, simply because one chooses to race Crit City 8-lappers, while the other does not.
My thoughts on some of the shortcomings of the current categorization scheme have been explained in previous posts, and I think this example may illustrate some additional weaknesses. But I will leave this discussion to you, dear reader. Thanks for jumping down the rabbit hole with me today. Please share your thoughts below!
Very good point. FTP categories are being challenged by the shorter races for sure. I am a rider who has fallen for the Crits. In typical 45-70min races that
put me at what I would call my “true FTP” (60min power), I am squarely a B. But, my average power during the 20min Crit City races is now 4.0 to 4.1 W/KG, which puts me on the A/B threshold. Knowing about this 3 race average tells me that I need to avoid doing 3 Crit races in a row if I want to stay a B, which I think is where I actually belong 🙂
No it doesn’t. You can do your 4.1w/kg in the crit city races and then take 95% of that and get an FTP of 3.89w/kg which is still B. You’d need 3 crit city races in a row, all with a 20min max of 4.2w/kg to be bumped up to A.
It’s not a three race average in that way though. It’s your best three races in the last 90 days!
Is this Dr Stephen Seilor? I bow to thee if it is! Loving the studies on polarised training.
I, as I a 58kg rider, stopped racing in Crit City because on its flat roads I had no chance of winning. In my opinion it would be a good idea to have a separate category system based on watts instead of w/kg that organizers can enable (or perhaps it should be the default cat system) for events in Crit City as well as other flat routes such as Tempus Fugit, Volcano Circuit, London Classique, and Richmond Fan Flats.
As a ~100kg B rider it shouldn’t be on raw watts. I will say I typically choose to avoid the hilly races for the sake of results. However joining race series means I got to do well on the flats and just try to finish respectably on the climbs.
However I do think there should be a one hour check added in. See some riders avg 4.1 for the hour and 20min at 4.2 and that isn’t over the limit based on current system.
On flat routes weight barely counts. My point is that routes without any significant climbing should be categorized on watts (95% of max 20 minutes) since that is a more accurate indicator of your performance in such an event.
Not in Zwift. Zwift adds a significant penalty by using weight to adjust Cd*A. So heavier riders have greater rolling resistance and higher drag as well.
This is the first time I’ve heard about this. Is this information coming from Zwift Insider or somewhere else?
Same problem for me. Even if I average my 20min critical power of 4.9-5 w/kg, I don’t stand a chance to heavier riders with higher watts but significantly lower w/kg. And even if I manage not to get dropped, I finish all the way at the end of the front group.
I’d like to do a race with a max FTP of 300 independent from w/kg.
Yes and No… My wife can’t hold my wheel IRL for long on the flats, but on a Zwift flat course I can barely hold hers. So it can’t be a straight watts for flat and w/kg for climbs.
Would you be able to compete with larger, more powerful riders in a flat road race IRL? At 58 kg, probably not. So why should you expect to be competitive on a flat course on Zwift?
That’s exactly my point. I shouldn’t be racing them. In a watts based system we would be in separate categories, even if our w/kg are the same.
56kg rider here. I’m a cat C for mixed races and I got the green cone of shame in Crit City recently while riding in the main group 10 minutes into the race. My FTP is 3.3w/kg but that is only 185 watts. I should not be flagged as a cheater for putting out enough watts to hang onto the group! I was barely hanging on at that!
I think using races to up your FTP is great. Too often, people do not push to the max during the test and those races bring something extra out of you. FTP is an estimation of your max potential and if that means having to sprint to the line or keep up with the pack to reach that level, then great. After that, if it means having to bring it each time because you have unvealed your true potential (and changed category), get out there and push…I don’t understand why an A rider would race C or D and blow up the pack. Very frustrating. Zwift should not allow you to register and ZwiftPower should calculate the results accordingly. If a strong rider want to race C to get a good workout, he is taking away from the slower riders wanting to experience the race, staying in the pack, attacking on the hills, sprinting for the finish, etc. How many time do the slow riders finish half way down the result list to realize the winners are 2-3 categories up. Anyway, Zwift is a great way to workout and remains fun ! thanks for the article.
My understanding of FTP is that the 95% of a 20 minute max effort is only representative of “true FTP” (power at maximal lactate steady state) if the test is performed following an anaerobic blowout effort (like 5 minutes all out). Using a 20-minute race to calculate pseudo-FTP values for race categorization is fine, but for training purposes, the anaerobic component and extra push from being in a race situation will cause “true FPT” to be overestimated.
Great article and relevant topic.
Adding to the rabbit hole discussion. I, a ZP “B” rider, am trying to build a new ZP Team “MBC”. Most are new zwifters and new to ZP, they have quickly graduated to “C”. I try to race with them to help teach race strategy. I certainly don’t go for the win since I am in the wrong category.
On the ZP category discussion, I feel that we have a long way to go with ZP before we get to this detail.
Some thoughts
How does Zwiftpower pick which 3 “races” to use for your FTP determination? I can’t seem to figure the link the 3 it has picked to rides I have done?
Best 20 minute average power in last 90 days. A link WOULD be good, though!
Eric, I absolutely agree and found that I went from C to A quickly doing the crit and shorter races. As my average power climbed (to unrealistic levels), also because I am a heavier chap (105kg) been having a load of chats with Wattbike and Zwift as I was wondering if my WB was giving too high a set of data and WB said they thought it was Zwift not being able to read and average the data correctly. Still dont know but if you wanted to look at my data you are more than welcome… WB claim the Atom is calibrated fine (I ran both their calibration tests and Zwift, still looking into it) but wondered if your theory might be the reason for inflated FTP/average numbers from races…
Yes, this 20-27 minute scenario is exactly what caused me to be unwillingly bumped into B (where I regularly come in towards the back) instead of C, where I had a shot at the podium in shorter races. Given my age (year after next I enter my 60th year) I am not likely to be on an upward W/kg trend, but the short races made it look that way.
Ok, but that just means they’re being put in the correct category. The cats aren’t “the watts you will do in this race.” It’s the watts you are capable of. So if someone races crit city and finds that 95% of their 20min power in that race means their FTP is actually a category up, then they were (intentionally or unintentionally) sandbagging in their longer races. If anything, the crit city races help to more accurately categorize people.
I don’t disagree. Although it IS worth mentioning that a true 20 minute FTP test includes some hard efforts to pre-fatigue you, which means the results of “race tests” are probably overshooting a bit.
Huh? Sure, you’ll want to warmup before a 20min FTP test but pre-fatigue? Never heard of that.
An all out 5min before the 20 min is said to give a better estimation of true aerobic power. It surely is for me case !! Never heard of that ? Even Zwifts own FTP tests has that in the protocol. As is with many others like 4DP etc.
Look at any FTP test. It does not only involve a warm-up, it also involves time spent at an anaerobic power level to pre-fatigue, exactly as Eric states. The 💡 of the FTP test is to provide an of estimate the aerobic power one can maintain over one hour. Depleting your anaerobic reserves pre-FTP testing is part of the pre-conditioning to increase the accuracy of the estimate.
For some their real life efforts are the better FTP test. I did the Alpe on a good day maintaining 218W over 63 minutes. Evidently 218W – or maybe a value even slightly higher – is my FTP. However, I’m not sure I could manage an FTP test estimating it at more than 210W at present, it’s simply a matter of motivation – 20 min just pedalling hard only looking at the Watts and HR displayed on the screen doesn’t work as well for me as going up the Alpe and trying to get as close to 220W on every segment, having riders around me whose wheels I can grab, or who I can overtake and leave behind. Not that many, of course, at ~3W/kg, but some at least 😉
When Eric says something, one should listen and check the facts, rather than saying I haven’t 👂 anything like that.
I’m not dissimilar: I can churn out 3w/kg on a long climb as an 81kg rider, but putting out the same average watts in a 16km race just doesn’t happen – it’s a different cadence and therefore aerobic and muscular demand. I actually got DQ’d from zwiftpower results on the Bologna course because I climb hard, but as that power result counts in my “best 3” and now I’ve been moved up a category. I’ve gone from being competitive but not winning, to bringing up the rear.
But if you “warm-up” for the Crit you are definably going to do a bit of pre-fatiguing, though probably not 5 mins all-out.
Other point. If all you do are 20 min crits, your actual 1-hr power is probably a lot less than 20 min power times 0.95. In fact the 5% rule is an estimate and varies person to person. Though to be even close to accurate, you have to be fit enough to do an hour all-out.
Fair point. FTP test would try to eliminate a lot of the deeper anaerobic efforts that happen throughout these races.
I agree with you Brad. The FTP is an all-out effort for 20 minutes.
You’re absolutely right. In fact, the article also does say that – that the crit races could be seen/treated as a FTP test. But that’s assuming that FTP is indeed the correct criterium for race categoristion, which I think is the point here. It raises the question whether that is the case for any kind of race in terms of length.
Hi Eric,
You probably right although you can play with the boarders if you are careful. I am new to Zwift races (only 3 and 1 TT). I am a strong “real” B racer and in fact I am able to be slightly above 4W/kg for example on Time Trial. So as there is more fun to be at the top instead of the back I just test this morning that I am able to stay in the front in a Group race mix with A level without going above 4W/KG. When I see the profiles of winners in the B races, I am pretty sure I am not the only one doing that! I will have to test if it’s still possible in a 20 minutes ride 🙂
JPP
I think this would likely sort itself out over time. If you do a lot of short races, then – as you said – you’d be bumped up to a higher category where you’d race at a higher output level. If you generally race longer events, you’d be slotted into the right category over time. The hiccups would occur when you go through a phase where you change your racing focus from short to long, but you’d benefit in going from long to short. Despite it’s shortcomings, it’s still a better system than racing against your age group (like in triathlon).
Isnt’t it the other way round as opposed in this article?
Only riding longer races (or those shorter then 20m) are just another opportunity to sandbag (by keeping your zp cat below your true potential).
Those 8 lappers dont ‘force’ a promotion, it just reveals where you should have been riding the whole time.
I hope they will eventually work out a way that involves multiple time intervals.
I agree. There are a ton of Zwifters sandbagging. And they do all sorts of mental gymnastics to tell themselves they’re not. I’ve never met such tiny people with such huge egos. If you’re not dying during races, then you need to upgrade.
Honestly, I’ve done that. I didn’t see it as sandbagging. It was more a matter of preference. When I was on the cusp of promoting to B, I stopped short races to build more endurance but also because I prefer 45-60 minute races. Though I was returning from injury too. Then I got injured again, yard work this time, and finally the weather got nice. I haven’t been on Zwift in almost 2 months.
I raced in a Zwift league through winter. I was a competitive high end Cat B at the start of the league. To stay in Cat B I had to avoid full on 20 minute efforts. I’m now Cat A since the league ended having now done some hard short races. Since Strava can estimate FTP from a number of points on my critical power curve, why can’t Zwift?
Paul, you were sandbagging. Think about it – you were intentionally reducing your power to stay within B limits. You belong in A. Race A, get your ass kicked, and get faster.
Paul, you’re describing one of the major issues impacting Zwift racing right there! You were sandbagging! Those of us absolutely killing ourselves in races (short or long) who look at the results (on ZwiftPower) and wonder how they ever get near the top of their Cat (I’m in C) can’t help but assume there are people like you holding back so they can stay in a lower Cat and “be competitive”. Well done you. But why don’t you just race to your full potential and take the risk of getting moved up? Coming last is only motivation to get better, trust me. It’s got to be better than being competitive” when “avoid[ing] full on…efforts”.
Arguably, the existing w/kg isn’t sufficiently specific as your example makes clear. Either the category you race in needs to adjust based on race length to match your capabilities (e.g. I’m a B in 20 minute flat races, but a C in 2-hour hilly…), or there needs to be some sort of curve-fitting to map race types to the right w/kg for each length (a 20m criterium sets the C/B transition at 3.5 2/kg while a 1hr loop around Watopia is 3.2w/kg). I think the second would be better, so I’d be a C in every race rather than having to figure it out for each race I entered.
It’s a very cool thought experiment in terms of identifying the perfect categorisation approach. Given that we still can’t properly deal with sandbaggers, it also feels a bit academic. That’s definitely not a complaint, though. These exercises are fun.
In longer uphill races nobody go all out @FTP, like IRL you have to pace yourself or train to hold long climbs @ftp
Many of the Tour for All short races are also sub 30 minute events. Interestingly the new workouts, released in the last update are also 20 to 40 minutes in length. Zwift seems to be looking towards encouraging more participants with shorter events. As a C rider, I’m at the upper end of the CAT for longer events or climbing events (TfA stage 4 – my 95% of 20 min power was 2.977 k/wg), but have received my first WKG DQ due to exceeding CAT limits on the recent TfA stage 5 short race (95% of 20 mins 3.325 w/kg). I accept the line has to be drawn somewhere, but would suggest that the calculation be further adjusted based on the actual time taken to complete the event to recognise a 25 min effort isn’t the same as a 60 minute one.
i have been pushed up from C to B with my w/kg being a fraction over 3.2. I believe this increase was based on several time trials 20- 30 minute events. This gives me a true FTP and puts me in the correct category. The trouble is that when in a race/Crit my Watts and therefore FTP is lower as I have spent more time drafting and staying in a good position. If I hadn’t done any time trials then I think I would still be in the C category and closer to the podium than nearly last at B. The other problem I have is that my 60 minute FTP is a lot slower than than 95% of my 20 minute power so usually get blown apart with anything over 30 minutes
That’s a good point: that a TT race may very well give people a higher ZP FTP than Zwift racing does, since it’s (theoretically) an all-out effort vs conserving in the draft.
If FTP is roughly 95% of your “best” 20-minute power, then any race is probably going to underestimate your FTP (unless it’s a 20-minute TT). This is not only because of the length of the race (a longer race will underestimate it by more than a shorter race) but also because most smart racers use tactics and aren’t going all-out all the time. So while I understand and agree with your basic point that racing shorter might cause a person’s race-estimated FTP to increase, it is still likely LESS than their actual FTP as calculated by a ramp test, 8 minute or 20 minute test, or (for the real badasses) an all-out 1 hr test. Personally, I wish more people would do FTP tests and base their category off of that instead of races. What I see happening at the upper margins of categories are racers who COULD race harder (with more power) but don’t have to do so in order to win because they’re using good tactics — drafting wisely, positioning well on the hills and surging only when needed. Their race-estimated FTP will stay below the cat limit so ZP won’t upgrade them, and they don’t do FTP tests or just let ZP decide category so they can sorta-honestly say they are in the right category. I speak from experience and I recently stopped racing in my category because I realized I was effectively sandbagging, even though my estimated FTP was still below the cat limit. I’d encourage more honesty in taking a real/hard FTP test and catting yourself up when it’s time, even if the race results don’t necessitate it.
Great comments, Suzanne! I like the way you think.
Yes! I sit in the pack in Crit City races trying to work as little as possible. I do this not to sandbag, but because I hope to have a shot in the final sprint.
So I’m in Z3 and Z4 most of the time in Crit City.
The way to go is to “force” regular TT efforts or Chase races, or even mixed-cat races. There you DO GO all out for 20min and longer, or you ride above your Cat limits to reach a better positioning.
By this you do not have to change the system as is but still get right Categorisation.
And basically this is what Zwift does now! Their scheduled races are shorter and harder, and they often have mixed-cat races.
Suzanne, I applaud you and agree entirely. Sadly I didn’t think we’ll this level of rider honesty anytime soon, so improving the categorisation is the logical next step.
I had an FTP around 300w (4,2 w/kg). Zwiftpower says that I must ride in Cat.A. But with 300w, on a flat race I’m going to lose the wheels in a very short time (and this is not really funny). For flat races I think that w/kg can’t be used to determine categories. I love crit races, but not against 350w racers.
But to me this shows that ZwiftPower is getting something right? As a 71kg rider, a flat race is going to be harder for you, just like IRL. You’ll do better on the climbs or punchy races. For me as a 85kg rider at 3.0w/kg, I do better in Cat C on Crit races and get destroyed on hilly races, just like IRL.
I think the issue here is whether there should be adjustment of ranking (by whatever means) to make the fairest possible playing field. There’s definitely an argument for nuanced categorisation based on the “type” of race and/or “duration”. Lots of work for the developers, but something like this could be part of the future.
Sorry I should have written as an 85kg rider with a 255 FTP (regularly tested and updated) as its the w/kg for a given ride that’s the issue!
I think the classification is okay but could be broader. Crit city is increasing FTP’s yes, but it’s only because those who enter longer races might not be doing the proper training to increase their FTP and instead are focusing on Endurance aspects like Zone 3. If one were focusing on training in addition to racing an FTP increase is probably still more likely.
I think the classification issue is simply that racers are getting stronger because their FTP training (Crits) is stronger. We’re all playing by the same rules… in theory. Whereas by racing in only endurance events one is simply sustaining not necessarily getting that much stronger. Although I personally see improvement in the mid range races.
Maybe there needs to be more classes such as IRL, like short, medium, and long as that would break up this defining issue. I can’t imagine a TDF rider being successful on the short track. Isn’t that the real issue?
I’m new to Zwift – did my first Group ride on the weekend were I averaged 188W over the 2 hours. When the ride was done, a summary popped up and at the top was a green ‘B’ (the adjacent ‘A’ was shaded). Does this mean Zwift thinks I should be in the B category?
No. If it was a group ride you probably entered the B Group which relates to distance not power. You’re probably a Cat C. Sign up to Zwiftpower that will assist
Thank you Justin!
This is like Trump’s recent statement: “if we didn’t test so much, we wouldn’t have so many Covid-19 cases.” Yeah, if you don’t test your FTP, you don’t know what it is.
Taking 95% of your max 20min power is a generally accepted way of establishing your functional threshold power.
I appreciate the work done on this site and I don’t mean to be critical but this article makes no sense.
The problem with the FTP==95% max 20min power/kg is that it does only measure how you can perform for 20 minutes. It does not say that your 1 hour FTP is nowhere near your 20 min FTP or that you can’t replicate the same numbers in hilly races. It does not say that you are a light rider that can show big numbers on hills but struggle to keep up with the category on flat races.
This discussion only highlights the fact that max 20 min power/kg is a bad metric for categorizing riders when both the length and profile of the races differ.
What about the article doesn’t make sense, J K?
What is the purpose of categorization? To race against people who are more or less equally shpaed to you. This gives races and people in it the fun factor that is lost when an A rider smashes a B, C or D race.
Are FTP and weight two good variables to establish how are you shaped against rest of the world? My thougt is that they are probably good enough if they are measured in similar circumstances.
For instance, do you weight yourself early in the morning before breakfast or after a big lunch? To be fair, everyone should use the scale in a similar way (I’m not talking about people who cheates on weight, but about in which circumstances do you calculate your weight)
The same thing happens with FTP. It doesn’t matter how you achieved your FTP, what matters if the rest of people have achieved it in similar circumstances.
If you got the A category riding short races, but no one else did it in the same way (they did in long races or on a FTP test with prefatigue), then probably you are overcategorizated.
In a short race there will be riders with several shorts races, riders with only long races, riders who have done a proper FTP test, riders who never raced… There’s no way to assume everyone of them have achieved their FTP in similar circumstances.
Since there’s no way that Zwift can control in which circumstances are these two variables (FTP and wieght) calculated, I guess that as you stated sometimes, categorization needs a full redesign based on rankings (probably with some corrections for new/returned from injury riders).
I won an A grade race, even though zwiftpower said I should be in C grade. A few races on and it’s still sating I’m a B grader, despite this clearly not being the case…. historic data isn’t foolproof.
Ftp isn’t a good metric for short races like Crits isn’t a good metric imo. A sprinter with the same ftp as a time trialist will crush the TT rider every time. The sprinter needs a lowe ftp to make it a fair fight.
Triathletes are dead in the water unless they have mega ftp like Sanders who can just ride people into the ground.
But that’s crit racing, it’s the sprinters race.
This is absolutely true. In my separate FTP test I have 4 W/kg and on zwiftpower ~3.79 due to long races. But what could be the right strategy to align?
definitely true!! i was mid-b cat racer and never got more than 3.8wkg as 20min effort. only through shorter races in crit city but also tour de zwift (bologna tt, yorkshire) i came to the very max of my 20min, all of a sudden having 4.1-4.2 as average. since then i did longer races again and never come close to it, no matter how much i suffer.
Recently i raced the alpe du zwift. me with my 4.1wkg best 20min could hold 3.8up the climb with max 3.9 for 20min… others in the same cat had a total average of 4.1 and more…
“If my thesis is true, then two identical riders might now be categorized differently, regardless of race results, simply because one chooses to race Crit City 8-lappers, while the other does not.”
Erm, I don’t see that big of an issue there? If your thesis is true, these two identical riders will never race against each other. Each is categorised properly for the type of race they usually enter.
Interesting read, thank you!
So what I just learned is that my ZP category is A because my FTP is below 300 watts even though I’m >4.6 w/kg.
Does that mean if I gained a couple watts to get above 300 and also gained a couple kilos to stay at 4.7 w/kg I would be classified A+? And more importantly, if I lost several kg to get down to 54 and also lost some watts to get down to 249, could I race in B even though my w/kg was still 4.6?
(On a serious note, I highly doubt I could get down to 54kg without losing a lot of muscle mass or UFC style weight cutting)
Yes, it means exactly that!
Zwift should just put a tag or special jersey on those not registered on Zwiftpower. This way true contender’s can strategize with race tactics based on who potentially will be in the final results.
lol are you mad? Why would zwift want to do that? Zwift has nothing to do with zwiftpower.
I understand why you’d want this, but I also know it’ll never happen!
An interesting article,I do agree that you are more likely to get upgraded if you ride these events more frequently, but I also believe this stands for long hilly events such as the Innsbruck kom. However I disagree that they are a good ftp 20 min test as zwift races are brutal at the start and these are more so, so you are likely to flood your system with lactic acid (with a heavy reliance on your anaerobic system) early on and then after 5 min your power is likely to drop dramatically. In a true Effective 20 min ftp test you would start no more than 25 watts above the average power you want to sustain and try to meter your effort out evenly and efficiently. The best 20 min ftp test on zwift for me would be a Tempus fugit itt at just over 11 miles with no draft, removing the temptation to go off to fast chasing the draft.
I agree they’re not a “true” FTP test, for sure. They don’t follow established protocol, as you’ve said.
Dead right Eric
As an ex strong C, I specifically avoided crit city for a few months because I was pretty sure it was going to push me to B class.
Pretty much any 20 minute race would do the same thing, but there’s so many crit city races they are the easy pick for a short race. Plus crit city is fun
If you are perfectly categorized you should end up in about the middle of the field every race. Sandbaggers don’t want this….but I suspect most racers don’t want this either. Therefore, perfect categorization isn’t the goal for anyone.
Well it would come down to how you hide in the draft. If all things are equal, ie everyone was equally adept, then those that get the better power ups during the event should be at the front. Ive had crit city races where all I get is BB and ghost power ups, it’s effect is like taking an extra turn at the front, or missing that downhill section, your sprint at the end is affected.
Thanks Eric. Something to consider down the road. If the estimate is 95% for 20 min FTP and an hour is 100% it seems the wkg could be adjusted based on length of time in a particular race. I have been using Zwift for about 1 1/2 years with a couple of races per week. I will consistently be in the “D” category or low “C” (75+ years old) but still love to race even knowing those in my category are sandbagging. Zwiftpower does help but you really don’t know the results until after the race rather than in the live race. Keep up the excellent work.
A flat crit is essentially a 25 minute sprint which is in turn a long FTP test with drafting. I agree Zwift should modify wpk classifications and have more divisons too. Like many others, I can bury myself for 25 minutes at 4.5 wpk and turn in a decent result , but no way I’m doing that for 46 -60kms. High B , Low A category at best.
4.6wkg for 25 mins, you either are a trick sprinter who is using your fast twitch muscles to achieve that 25 min effort, or you really suck at ftp tests and don’t realise you are an A grader, not a B.
Even high A-graders do not hold average 4.5wkg for 46-60km. Most of the time it is below with some surges in the middle. It is almost pro level to have 4.5wkg average.
Exactly, I started racing In D with 3 crits and zwiftpower immediately bumped me to C at 2.6. Now switched to longer races and rides and I am really a 2.4-2.5 and would love to race for podiums in D for a bit before moving up to C. In effect, I never should have started on zwiftpower by doing 3 crits in a row as initial 3 races. Maybe after 90+ days will be reclassified, but that may be wrong again as I plan to get stronger in those 90 days, so by then will likely actually be a bottom C and will have missed my 3 month chance at some D podiums …
What is point to take a podium from someone weaker than you? Where is pride and honor of that?
I deliberately raced crits and races up to 31kms to do the hard work. It has helped me focus and raise my threshold. I can ride 3.9wkg in a 2hour race which puts me nowhere but I am in the right category as even in these long races I still ride a chunk at plus 4Wkg so I’d say a racers true category will still come through.
It would change if we start understanding that being at the bottom of cat A is better than being at the top of B. In my opinion, Zpower should change the way its ranking is (giving more points for competitors at Cat A, for instance) to incentive people to ‘move up’.
If you are top 3 at Cat C. Congrats!! Let’s challenge yourself: move up to Cat B and see how you perform.
When I joined Zwift my goal from day 1 was to be an A Cat – I’d rather be last A than 1st B. I wanted to be true to myself and frankly I am thinking about when I get to race on the roads again.
So zwiftpower don’t weight wins over higher grade competitiors higher? Seems a big error?
ZP gives you more points if you beat tougher competitors. It’s all explained on their site. Similar to USAC points system.
Does the 3 race, 90 day average have to be a race or is it any event that posts to ZP? For example one of the Tour for all 2020 group rides.
I have not done an actual race yet but I’ve done group rides, etc, and this has me classified as a B on ZP – part of the reason I have been put off racing to be honest as I a little wary of getting my a**e handed to me straight off in a B race!
I got spat out in my first race as a B cat, it was an eye opener and a motivator. You just have to suck it up and race man. Once you get the start nailed and can stay on a bunch it gets better and better. I still get a kicking some days but that is the same as normal racing.
Good Luck !!
Thanks buddy!
From ZwiftPower: “Your category is calculated by taking an average of your best 3 FTPs in completed races and group rides in the last 90 days.”
Surely the issue here is that there is only four simple categories covering all types of race; hill, flat, short, long, tt, double draft… for all types of riders who have their power measured differently.
I’ve been racing cat c. On a recent SZR race I got dq’d for too much power, but I only finished 16t. I’d out out way more power than everyone ahead of me. Why? I’m a ‘clydesdale’ and kept trying to pull a lazy group back into contention. I tried bloody hard to get back on the lead group to get dq’d!
Am I annoyed.. a little with the lazy group but I’m made up that I’m now considered an ‘almost b’ .
Races are as much about tactics as as they are about strength, weight and fitness. You cant win every discipline but you can enjoy them for what they are. A bit of fun.
I’ve always considered calling it a FTP a bit useless if everyone is using 95% of 20min. FTP is a threshold over an aerobic effort. The 95% came about as an estimating tool if you didnt have enough data over long events. It was supposed to be ignored once you did.
But if everyone is using the 95% we may as well just call ‘the watts you can hold for 20min’ something and use that. Rather than everyone slicing off 5% and calling that the standard.
Ideally it would be a results based system. Ftp is a poor performance measure
Agree! Call it CP20.
I bet many riders would struggle to hold 90% of their 20 min PR for 60 min (true FTP).
95% is valid with a good protocol, experienced athletes used to hammer high Z3/Z4, etc.
Perhaps there should be an additional filter for the racing series that you have done a formal FTP test on Zwift or have a sufficient number of short races to have an FTP number that is approximately correct. As others have pointed out, your FTP is what it is, and a short hard effort is a decent approximation (short of lab testing). If you only do long efforts on Zwift, then any auto-calculated number is not correct. The only difference between that and weight doping is that one involves sloth, and one involves “optimism”.
I still don’t get the ZP categorization. Most of my crit races are 4.7w/kg or above and, theoretically, that should put me in the A+ cat. Yet here I am in comfy-cozy in the As.
4.7 x .95 = 4.46. So that explained your A categorization.
Oh, okay. Numbers have always confused me. Ha!
Eric you are completely right crits bump up your ftp compared to longer races. I also agree that they artificially bump up ftp because pre-fatigue is a key component of a 20 minute ftp test. The average w/kg I can manage over a 20 minute crit definitely exceeds 95% of what I can hold for 1 hour if I am fresh when entering the crit. I also find that if I use my crit based ftp as a gauge to measure myself against other riders in longer races I often get a nasty surprise when I get blown away by guys with lower ftps
Spot on!! I was just pondering this earlier this week.
As it has been said by some, the FTP concept is one of many attempts to create a parameter to mesure cyclists properly. From that stand, the right way to aproach it is to do a real 1 hour test, since the 20’ protocole was created for practical reasons. That being said, if we are just looking for a number to categorize riders on an indoor game rather than optimizing their training routines (and that is just for normal riders, since sports science keeps struggling to find the best way to do that with elite cyclists), it seems to me that 2 or 3 different category systems to be applied depending on the type of race are in order…
Do you think we could close racing to everyone until they complete a few evaluation tests? Maybe test FTP and ramping intervals in separate tests, all while wearing a HR monitor.
Basically, you could join group rides without completing the tests, but the events classified as a “race” require you to complete the evals
I think the better approach would be to hold “open” races with no categories. Then take people’s initial numbers from that, and classify them accordingly.
I would favor an additional ‘E’ category in races, in which E-riders are able to see and draft everyone, but the other cats cannot see nor draft E-riders. My reasoning being: 1) people that want to under-Cat in a race because it is a recovery ride or to guide others can choose the E-cat without influencing race dynamics; 2) people that have no clue where they fit in due to insufficient data can build such data, whilst benefiting from a racing experience without influencing race dynamics; 3) Those at the threshold/lower limit of the cat can choose this Cat to try and hang with the ‘big guns’ of the Cat, but now if they get dropped they will still be able to find a group to ride home with – again, without influencing race dynamics for this group; 4) Sometimes the most appealing ride at your planned time slot is a race rather than a group-ride, and this would offer everyone a group-ride experience in all races; 5) This would eliminate the need to use A/B/C/D for distance based categories in Zwift tour group rides. There could simply be a Stage 1 short race and long race with the E category serving the purpose of the traditional group ride; 6) This would eliminate all the excuses I have seen thus far for riding outside your category.
TBH, I enjoy racing but currently stand no chance in the B-cat since I was just upgraded. Of course my aim is to improve so that I can compete in the B-group, but until I arrive at this point I cannot be motivated to join a B race filled with riders at the Cat limit and maybe 1-2 other riders around the 3.3-3.6 W/KG range for the simple reason that it is a long way ‘home’ after I get dropped by the pack. An ‘E’ cat could serve as an intermediate base until I am able to stay in the pack for the majority of the race length.
As far as results go, I wouldn’t mind if the E-cat would allow you to filter your time against all individual Cats, such that it would be able to join E and then show your time against – for example – the D-race results. If you come out on top, great for you and feel free to make your screenshot to prove what you already know from your FTP (that you are faster than the D-pack). To me this way of racing below your cat just seems silly, but if an artificial win is a strong motivator for some then maybe just ‘go with the flow’ and allow it in such a way that it doesn’t affect the race experience for others. Showing your time against other E’s would also be possible, and unfiltered results could then show your time against all categories (effectively merging the Group rides and Race ride results).
Seems to me the problem is the categorization scheme itself.
First of all the “mixed race” w/kg vs actual wattage FTP numbers only make sense for someone who weighs in the range of 60-62.5 kg. More than that, and you’ll be over the wattage limit without being over the w/kg limit, possibly slotting into a lower category than you’re capable of. Not sure how one is to make sense of that, but a 300W FTP, it seems, might belong in the A or A+ category?
Also, maybe more substantively, the categories are too broad. Putting together someone doing just over 3.2 and someone doing just under 4.0 is a big mismatch, never mind the impact of different rider weights as has been mentioned. A small person doing 3.3 w/kg stands no chance vs a large person doing 3.9 w/kg, for example, but seemingly this scheme lumps them together.
Not sure what the fix is. Perhaps some sort of handicapping scheme?
My Crit City race this morning lasted 19:44 for 8 laps. Not enough for ZP to credit me for holding on with some of the fastest folks I’ve ever ridden with.
I slightly disagree with the FTP-based categorization. I am a light rider, so my ftp is going to be high but I might be putting out half the watts as someone else. This is EXTREMELY frustrating when signing up for zwift races because I must sign up for the A Cat but put out B Cat watts. My idea is categorize by 60 min FTP for long races (over~45 min) and by 20 min ftp for shorter races (less than 45 mins). Just a thought.
Basically, ftp categorization only works if everyone weighs exactly the same.
I’m not going to rail against the validity of establishing one’s FTP based on the best 20 minutes of a 30-minute race. Even though I’m only a D racer, I know how my numbers rise in short races.
So: a modest proposal.
Let’s create a new measure: ZTP that can’t be confused with FTP, which was originally to supposed to represent your maximum average power over 60 minutes.
To my mind, the ramp test is a 400-meter sprint while the one-hour FTP is a cross-country run. Let’s keep the measures separate.
As the owner of a race team (BIkestrong-KTM) and also someone who competes and coaches, I find the fact that many people are doing what equate to FTP tests 2 or 3 times a week, not only isn’t good for you physiologically it also changes your physiology.
If you’re not following a decent training plan and making sure you mix up your efforts, you’re going to be an FTPony without any ability to surge, rest, surge, sustain, surge etc.. and when we get back to racing outside together, you’re going to struggle, especially in the very competitive and surge based nature of many crits.
The way the w/kg thing on Zwift works is fine on the hills but if you’re putting out 400w on the flat vs someone doing 250 but because of the weight and w/kg is the same, it just isn’t accurate. It will give some people a false sense of being able to stick with a group when they will be blown away on the road.
Finally, there seems to be a lot of category A riders all over the world… never see them out on the road though 😉
LOL Brett – I have never seen so many great climbers as I have seen on Zwift. I would say this about the CRITS. I have been using them because I can’t just sit at FTP, if I don’t respond to the surges I get spat out the back. I’m a CX racer so a 40 min race effort is good for CX. Stepping out into the longer races is far more challenging as I’m having to do endurance work I don’t normally need.
Theres does seem to be something off in Zwift’s speed modeling. The speed I go on Zwift flat sections for the wattage I’m doing is too high by at least 5 km/h. I was also just in a flat race in a 3-person group where someone at 50 kg hung on the back the whole time just doing 100-120 W with myself and the other person doing 190-230 W. They shot past us in the last 2-300 metres.
Brett: My not having draft racing experience in real life (only triathlon and TTs), do you think this person could have hung onto a 3-person group for so long at that wattage? And what’s a good tactic for shaking off this dead weight? Long harder push or short bursts? Or is the answer ‘yes’? ; )