The proposed removal of weight and height metrics from display in Zwift Power caused quite the community backlash – the common theme of the response was that transparency of these metrics helped the community self-police weight-dopers.
But the truth is, the Zwift community do not have a need or want to see people’s weight and height. What they do have, though, is a strong desire to ensure that racing is as fair as possible – because a fair racing platform is more engaging and more rewarding!
This article explores cheating in Zwift, and looks at ways that it could be tackled in the future, should Zwift determine that community racing is a core part of the platform that deserves development time, money and resources.
Aside: Whilst the total number of active racers on the platform may be a small percentage of the overall user base, I would argue that these are the most engaged Zwifters, and their marketing impact is huge. If you look for Youtube videos or articles about Zwift, racing is nearly always the focus. An active and engaged racing community is critical to the long term success of the platform.
What Factors Contribute to Performance Inaccuracies?
Fundamentally there are four factors that, if not correct, can lead to an ‘enhanced’ racing performance.
- Weight – a deliberate input
- Height – a deliberate input
- Power – determined by the trainer/power meter. This can either be inaccurate by accident (poorly calibrated, poor quality trainer) or deliberate (knowingly using the trainer or power meter in a way to give you an unrealistic advantage, or faking power output)
- Category manipulation – racing in a lower category than you should, either by ‘cruising’ (managing your output so that you do not get upgraded) or entering a joining a lower pen than your Zwift Power assigned category.
How Can These be Managed?
Remove the incentive and reward gained by cheating
The current category system is founded on the W/Kg metric, so falsification of weight or height can easily give you an advantage by moving you to the top of the category in terms of output, or keeping you in a lower category than you should be racing (reverse weight doping).
A focus on forcing accurate weight and height, perhaps with technology (e.g. smart scales) or by pre-race validation or exposure of weight and height metrics publicly, is a wasted effort in my opinion. Cheaters will always find a way to exploit the system to gain a benefit, so instead we should look at the behavior and the psychology behind it. If falsifying metrics is not really worth it, will they bother?
I have previously proposed a results-based ranking and matchmaking system for Zwift racing. If this were implemented, manipulating weight and height may mean a racer gets an unrealistically high ranking, but their chances of winning would not be increased – they would just race tougher opponents.
In this scenario, is cheating really worth it? (It’s worth noting that, at the highest level where there are more rewards, more stringent validation is already in place to prevent this in the first place).
Anti-cheating tools
Most big online games use anti-cheating tools to recognize cheating – be that manipulated code, or patterns of suspicious behavior. A toolset could be developed to highlight and flag suspicious performances, which either automatically disqualify a rider or flag the rider for race organisers to determine the outcome.
For example, the system may catch changes in height (height is generally consistent, so any changes should probably require a direct request from ZHQ), suspicious changes in weight, suspicious power behavior (large performance gains, sticky watts), etc.
Racing standards
Race organisers should be able to mandate a certain standard of equipment or a certain level of performance validation. I am not really a fan of dual recording, but this could be required, as well as privately submitted weight/height validation or power validation. A standard of trainer could also be required, for example direct drive trainers only, or factory-calibrated direct drive trainers. Of course, limitations like this reduce the potential audience, and would likely be limited to specific competitions.
Commitment Required
All of the above developments would require a big commitment to community racing on the part of ZwiftHQ. I hope that this commitment can be made, and that Zwift can engage with the community as this system progresses to ensure it is fit for purpose.
I truly believe that if this is landed well, it could massively improve the proposition to a large community of users that become more engaged with Zwift, promote the platform, and ultimately drive revenue. The stakes are high: Zwift racers are some of the most passionate users, and if they move across to a system provided by the competition, they will likely bring a large number of more casual users with them.
My Questions To You
I have a few questions to the wider Zwift community. Can you give me your feedback in the comments section below?
- If the above systems were developed, would there be any need to see height and weight?
- Would the above systems see you racing on Zwift more often, the same, or less?
- What other changes could make you feel like Zwift racing is fairer?
I love the idea of result-based ranking/matchmaking. Several other competitive games have ranking systems to ensure equal opponents. And the system is already available in the ZwiftPower Rankings.
It is a system much like the one most of us bike racers know from the outside categorization, where if place in the top spots you’ll eventually collect enough points to move into the next category with better opponents.
Exactly this, and many more categories so you are always, and automatically, matched with similar riders – the difference between top and bottom of current categories is huge. Could quite easily be 3.2-3.4w/kg based on last three races and it’s automatic. Can only enter the correct category.
How can Zwift develop a platform for fair racing? They can’t. And, if you take into account their most recent attempt to hide rider weight and height in zwiftpower, fairness isn’t on the agenda.
TL;DR?
Fair racing? Not even fit for racing. Zwift cannot see I am 100 meters behind the fence but claims to be able to distinguish first and second racers on the finish line by a fraction of a second, possibly to the level of the latest Amstel Gold race? Be serious, Zwift race results are just not trustworthy.
Absolutely, Xavier. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen my avatar cross the line ahead of another rider, yet Zwift places that rider ahead of me in the results. Now that they have control of zwiftpower to, the “official” result are equally untrustworthy.
I am a Cat D rider and I plan my races around weight. I am heavier myself so I am aware of the advantages/disadvantages on a specific course. My race participation would be higher.
This would absolutely make a huge difference for me, I’m on Zwift for the training benefit but also because of the community of racers that I am now a part of; if the competition started to supersede the value provided by Zwift in racing, I would change in a heart beat
You are spot on that the issue is not about height/weight per se but about ensuring races are fair. I would like to see emphasis put on preventing the cheating because even if cheaters are stripped out of race results after the event they still get whatever cheap thrill it is from appearing at the top of the results, however unfairly (they won’t care) and fleetingly; but also mainly because their presence affects the dynamics of the race in way that means a simple removal of cheaters from results and bumping the fair competitors up positions doesn’t reflect the positions if the race had been ridden fairly.
I like the idea of the matchmaking system you proposed and how it would disincentivise sandbagging.
One thing I would like to see is for Zwift to integrate/adopt ZwiftPower’s disqualification feature. At the moment, if you’re a cheater and don’t care about ZP, you’ll just look at the Zwift results where there’s no consequence for racing outside of your category.
The very fact Zwift Power was needed in the first place speaks volumes to the validity of Zwift results. As you say even if looking on ZP you see you’ve won when the cheats are removed, it’s taken a massive part of the enjoyment away from not crossing the line in your actual position.
I don’t even look at my results on Zwift anymore. Just go to Zwiftpower. That’s been less satisfying since ZwiftHQ took over ZP.
I’ll take “things that people who don’t win races say” for $2000….“34th in race, but first in my age group/weight/category/country result on zwiftpower” What is Paul Himes?
Well said, James. Your results based categories would make it very difficult for cheaters/sandbaggers to continue to foul up Zwift racing. I believe the Zwift racing community would welcome such a change. I don’t know how hard it would be to implement in the Zwift game though. Some things which would seem to be easy to change take years to get done. I don’t know if this is due to poor management or crappy code.
In the short term, enforcing race entry category to keep riders from racing down category would be a very viable change that would make a huge difference in the C & D events. The start of those events when there are down cat racers is extremely difficult. The events I’ve ridden with category entry enforcement were, while hard, much more realistic and not beyond cat limits.
Could folks who are either (1) not registered on ZwiftPower, or (2) racing down-category vs their ZP minimum category be made (electronically) invisible? – their avatars will not be visible to anyone else in the race, they will not show up on the live leaderboard, and they will not show up on Zwift Power at the end. Essentially, they get to have their down-category fun, but no one else sees them? Eventually, they will realize that it is not that much fun (or they can continue, but they don’t bother anyone else with their existence). A sort of electronic shunning. You can do what you want, but we won’t pay attention.
I think that would be an excellent solution. Everyone gets what they want!
Ah, in message boards this sort of thing is called a ‘hell ban’ (because making a troll invisible without their awareness means that no one acknowledges their trolling, hell for someone looking for attention). I think this, combined with a matching making system of the sort seen in many esports, would make for a much better racing experience.
Honestly, if you cheat, its on you. But in real life, if you cheat, and you are caught, there WILL be consequences. Big Time. Just don’t cheat, people. Riuns the fun and experience.
to the cheats, the fun is in ruining the fun for the non-cheaters
I think a point based system is an interesting proposal – the category system is poor – My W/KG is about 4.1, so I am only just an A, and have zero chance of winning in an A cat race (I do not sandbag!).
But I also think “solutions” should be as simple as possible and not prone to gaming. As cyclists we all know that weight and power matter, especially when the road heads upwards, so I am not sure we can get rid of weight (I think we could simplify by getting rid of height – I know it matters in the real world, but for the sake of simplicity … ) – the issue with weight for me is to reduce its significance, particularly on the flat.
Let me offer you this – today there was an individual time trial – 16.2kms on Tempus Fugit – so almost flat, no drafting – pure, individual effort. According to Zwift Power, the fastest rider had 327 watts in normalised power (NP) – and did the TT in 21:14. This rider was 66kgs. The fifth fastest rider did the course in 22:37 – 1 min 23 behind. This rider weighed 86kgs and achieved 335 watts in normalised power.
If I go to bike calculator (http://bikecalculator.com/) and put these weights and watts in, for a 16.2kms flat course, with the rider riding on the drops, I find that the first rider would have completed the course in 23:44 and the second in 23:54 – i.e. just 10 seconds behind.
While I don’t know what bikes, wheels, helmets, socks etc that these two riders used, it seems to me that Zwift favours lighter riders, even on the flat, thereby giving incentives for people to be less than truthful about their weight (boosting their W/kg). My simple proposition would be to make weight (and height) irrelevant on the flat. All that would matter is power. Powerful riders would win on the flat, while those with high power to weight ratios would win on the climbs. Each could select the terrain that suits them, and presumably riders not at these extremes would do well on mixed terrains.
If you are hyper competitive you might only race on terrains that suit you … but that is up to you. As I say, I am a heavy rider – but I enjoy climbing, even though I know I will not be the fastest climber. But as someone quite powerful, it would be nice to have that recognised on the terrains that should suit me relative to lighter, less powerful riders.
Thanks for reading.
Hi
I do quite a few races together with my 13 year old son. His weight is around 42 kg and I can promise you its not an advantage on the flats due to his relativly small Max power output. If the normal power output in the the group we are riding in is around 3w/kg i guesstimate he have to put out at around4 w/kg to avoid being dropped. So races in crit city are hopeless and the downhill sections are allmost as hard as the climbing
I suppose based on w/kg he should race in A category but we are still fighting for a podium in C category.
I Would prefer a ranking system that was based on race results and not w/kg. But we have both accepted tjat zwift is a game and should be viewed as a game, not a true race.
Thanks Kris for replying. I guess it is difficult if not impossible for Zwift to accommodate all of us – from your son and others through to me (age 52) and beyond.
I would race all the time if it was fair. Even Zwiftpower has gone down hill so there is just no incentive to race for me. What is wrong with saying that if you want to be in a race and be counted in the finishing results that you have to meet certain criteria. If you don’t care about racing then you can do whatever you want. This shouldn’t affect Zwift’s subscriptions since that seems to be the main concern.
Good article! I think cheating is not the problem. The problem is feeling that you do not have a chance to win, when you follow the rules. A personal example: I’m a Cat C racer on the edge of Cat B. I I’m neither light nor heavy (72 kg, 177 cm). You’d think I’d have a chance to win. However, it all too often happens that I get dropped from the lead group, nullifying my chances to win. Only to see green cones of shame flying around minutes later. Here the cheaters ruined my chances to win (or at least created that feeling). Your suggestions for result based rankings would solve that issue and make the racing experience much more enjoyable. Therefore I hope Zwift implements this soon!
Hitthe nail on the head. Nobody wants to race of you just get dropped in the first minuet every time. A good racing experience is about being in the mix, fighting it out up the climbs, sprinting for the finish. You don’t have to win, just be part of the action. I’m not sure there are as many cheaters on zwift as people think, I suspect people just don’t like getting beaten, especially when there ego tells them they’re amazing. Hit
Ideas – points based system as IRL racing. Or, a system similar to a racing game like Gran Turismo that throws you into races based on recent races? Zwift should talk to PlayStation or Xbox.
that leads to the other problem, cheating in video games exists and is hard to completely crush, let’s remember Zwift is a video game still, will never replace real life racing.
one other idea would be, as above, some kind of internal points ranking system, but also with separate weight categories as in boxing, featherweight/lightweight/heavyweight divisions?
If the Zwift community didn’t want to see other people’s height/weight details, then why was there such a big community backlash when Zwift tried to remove them..? XD
Because, as explained, it was felt that it removed transparency and therefore fairness. If these systems had been delivered at the same time, I am sure no-one would care that they could not see weight and height publicly any more.
Using community as a cover for racing community is a fallacy, there is a clear distinction between causal and fitness users which make up the community along with racers who are in and of themselves a whole different community which require different standards without the visuals we would have to compare against IRL.
Personally, I don’t spend a lot of energy thinking about fairness in zwift racing. If someone’s cheating, it eventually comes to light – or they go away after theyve lost interest. Maybe its the privilege of racing A where there technically isnt sandbagging. And its even less of a concern in premier divisions.
Cheat all you want, you’re only cheating yourself. And I’ll see you out on the road.
Exactly the way I feel….spot on.
From the perspective of someone who uses e-racing just to prepare for the summer road months… sure. But people who see future in e-racing as a full-fledged cycling discipline will disagree with you 🙂
As the discipline matures I think the barrier to entry will be raised, and you will see some height/weight verification by 3rd parties come into play. We are at the very birth of eRacing. I think it will grow and grow. Lots people like myself wouldn’t take the risk of jumping in an IRL Crit. I’m too old for a broken collarbone. I like racing without the physical risks and I’m yet to have trouble finding good competition.
I’m happy to report that I am one of those people who recognizes the discipline for what it is; I take competition on z very seriously, I work hard to climb the ladder, improving my ranking as I go. I just don’t spend much time thinking about whether or not someone is cheating. Maybe I should? But for now I focus on my results.
Focus on your results is fine, but understanding you are riding against 2-3 80kg rider who can hit and hold their 20 minute 3.1 w/kg gives you a visual understanding of those riders you would be racing against in IRL in a virtual setting. If you are 60-65kg you are at a significant disadvantage on the flat against those riders and without not knowing that information before hand you will likely help those riders distance the weaker heavier riders who would help you on the flat. This is the primary reason a lot of zwift races are close to half knackered sprints for 400-500m to start the race before settling into tempo/threshold efforts on the front and above threshold chases to get on in the first 2kms. If you are racing you have some sort of goal or goals, none of my goals when racing is to care about where I end up fitness wise on zwiftpower, the primary goal is always winning, the secondary goals are varied from surviving as long as I can on the front to placing the best I can.
Thanks for the article, James. I hope you keep on hammering this nail! I truly believe the system you propose is a key step towards a sustainable competitive system. However, I don’t think it eliminates the need for transparency around weight and height.
A central aspect of the satisfaction and motivation people derive from competitive e-cycling lies in the fact it allows them to measure oneself with people around you, to improve upon your ranking, to see where you fit within the distribution of ability of your peer. If that distribution does not mimic the real world, there’s no point in an online multiplayer setting and one might as well be racing a couple of programmed bots.
I mean, the expectation of fairness in triathlon races is what drives you to train all year, isn’t it…? It’s the reason you pay a 500 euro subscription fee to enter an ironman race, and you expect race marshals to stop others from drafting, right? Would you still be motivated if you knew half of your fellow competitors would have a crank engine, and the other half would ride to the finish line in peloton, unpunished, while you were battling the wind on your own…?
The reason Zwift is what it is today, is because in the past, community efforts have ensured that – somehow, give or take- the ability of people riding on Zwift sort of resembles real life. Given how weight (&height) translate into e-cycling performance, I really can’t see how you can avoid transparency wrt to these variables. I think I speak for many people if I say that I can’t motivate myself chasing a 40kg, 1m20 rider, pushing at 5wkg for the entire duration of an event, and with weigth & height hidden, you just know this will be the case more often than not.
The dynamics of races would also be impacted enormously if cheating would become rampant, because the power profile of someone who weight dopes usually (artificially) favors long constant efforts. And yes – even in a point based system, people would still be inclined to cheat. That’s just how some people function…
I can’t help wondering, where’s the evidence that transparency around weight (let alone height) is such a widespread and significant problem? Don’t get me wrong… I do believe it can trigger detrimental behavior in some individuals, that are prone to eating disorders, but so do many other things in our society (calorie count of food packaging, for example). The way life works is we balance the potential harm of our choices, with their benefits.
In that context, I hope we can all agree that a healthy and thriving system of competitive e-cycling is a good thing to have. It will motivate thousands of people to exercise in a healthy way, it will bring joy and fun to many, it can form the basis of a further development of e-cycling as a full-fledged sports. Without any single doubt, the net health benefits of a well developed, fair, competitive racing system are unmistakably positive.
There will always be a need for transparency wrt weight & height, as long as these two factor play such a huge role in race outcomes. I hope those advocating to get rid of this transparency, even though I am sure they are full of good intentions, will realise at some point they are implicitly advocating against the continued development of competitive e-cycling, and hence, against all the potential benefits it brings with it.
Sorry for the long post, and generally I try not to engage myself in forum discussions too often, but I think in this particular case it’s important. There’s no real alternative to Zwift, and given how this market function, I don’t think there will be one any time soon. So it’s important for everyone who cares about competitive e-cycling to constructively contribute here.
You some good points, but if riders are getting DQ’d for suspicious behaviour that is managed by pattern recognition technology and then flagged to event organisers or auto-DQ’d, isn’t that more powerful than exposing the data publicly and it not leading to anything?
With regards to IRL racing, I trust that the controls are in place to DQ any racers that cheat. Take drafting for example – I trust that the anti-draft motorbikes and referees will deal with it. I don’t insist on seeing video footage of everybody’s bike leg.
Right, yes. The above was written assuming just the point-based system will be implemented at some point… given Zwift’s growth strategy (more = better), I don’t have high hopes of cheating tools ever being implemented (effectively) in the near future.
But I will keep an open mind about it regardless… if they ever do implement them, ánd they proof to be effective, I agree that one could indeed consider eliminating those data points.
(wrt to trust in anti-draft motorbikes: we have clearly raced in different events 🙂 🙂 )
Yeah that was a terrible example 😂
Why can’t we use points like IRL and validate the weight from time to time. If you can validate the weight then you become certified or something like that. I weigh 95.25 KG and can hold a great deal amount of power. I race C, because I just now am at 3.0w/KG. I would like to move to B and challenge myself, but I have not won a C race yet. When we start there are always people off the front that are at 5.0w/kg or some crap like that. This year IRL I have done 13 crit races and been in the top 10 8 out of 13 with 4 podiums. So I know IRL I can hang with Cat 3,4 at 56 years old. I race to stay in shape for IRL…Yes I am competitive, but every zwift race I do I have a goal in mind…stay with this pack. Try to bridge to as many groups as possible. Start the sprint early and hold it. Stuff like that. Why can’t Zwift somehow incorporate Zwift Power as the final results? Doesn’t that kick out the sandbaggers, etc. Then Zwift Power can somehow have you validate your weight several times and calibrate your trainer. This will always be an issue, but until there is money involved in winning – I am just using it for a training tool.
I think ZRL should be something be there for fair racing and all athletes forced to do weight/height verification to compete. Double verification of power at a certain level as the people putting out serious numbers almost all have the resources. At the top end it makes very little difference whether it’s ranking or wkg as you end up with the same riders competing against each other. I have almost no sprint but can hang with most bunches and am therfore unlikely to win many zwift races. This doesn’t mean I can’t be competitive in current races.
Leave the rest of the races for mass participation with very few controls. It’s not fair to tell someone they are using a tacx vortex and therfore can’t race. If some zpower is off the front doing 6.5wkg then it’s good training trying to hold their wheel. Guess the ranking system might work better at lower levels but people have to understand that punchy races aren’t going to be perfect for everyone.
So you’re saying that fairness in racing should only be for the elite???
Zwift racing will never be fair until it fixes it’s idiotic w/kg > all. I’m a 205cm 93kg rider who can produce 351w for an hour. On the flats I should do exceptional… And yet time an again (on the flats) I see riders doing 100s of watts less than me fly right on by!
Yup, that is part of the problem – strong, heavy riders are not rewarded on the flat (see my post about this above)
You are right!
Question – who should win on a flat course (Tempus Fugit), 16kms individual time trial (no drafting) between a 60kg rider doing 289watts (rider A) and an 85kgs rider doing 357watts (rider B) – all else the same: both with the best TT bikes and wheels (Zipp 858) … well, .. on Zwift rider A passed B on the road and beat him by 18 seconds (A came 2nd overall, B came 5th). Bikecalculator on the other hand suggests B would have beaten A by over a minute. Zwift seems seriously biased in favour of light riders, even on flat courses.
The w/k system favours lighter riders for sure, but the crazy pack mechanics massively favour heavy riders. In a pack of 80 riders in a B race the peace will be about 50kph+ for the first 10-15k on the flat. Lighter riders are shoved to the back by the drafting/overtake mechanics and have to push well above threshold to stay anywhere near in contention. IRL the draft from such a big group would have you knocking out 150 watts to stay in the group. So it’s swings and roundabouts for group races rather than iTTs
Completely agree. It’s even worse down hill where heavy riders gain so much speed and there is no slow down on bends.
I have to disagree slightly with that being a heavy rider. I am 6 foot one 200 pounds and I cannot just fly down the hill because you have that little thing called coefficient of drag because I am so big it is the big equalizer. Honestly I feel lighter riders have a better advantage because they can fly up hills and they are gone before we ever get a chance to take that ever so slight advantage of our weight going downhill. Just try it once add about 5 inches to your height and double your weight and see how fun it is.
The individual time trial (on the flat) is the simplest, purest form of cycling. If Zwift can’t get the physics right on that then god help them with anything more complex. In the race I referred to none of the top 3 should have been on the podium according to bikecalculator. … it is just not serious (and shouldn’t be taken seriously)
Zwift uses height and weight to estimate your frontal area. This seems reasonable to me (though obviously just an approximation). I don’t think bikecalculator does this, so its power calculation doesn’t change much at all with height and weight.
On the flats, people draft behind you like they do in IRL races. The bigger the rider, the easier to draft behind them. At your size, you’re basically building a wall that blocks for small riders.
FWIW, if we want to play that “those guys have an unfair advantage” game, steep downhills on Zwift unfairly favor heavy riders because you don’t break in game. IRL on a downhill like the Alpe no recreational rider with kids at home goes >50mph. Riding outside the most important factor for downhill speed often isn’t your weight but your personal risk tolerance.
No drafting involved in an individual time trial. I say again, if Zwift can’t get the physics right on individual time trials, on the flat in which people essentially try to hold a constant power for a set distance then there can be little hope that they will get it right in complex situations involving climbing and descending, drafting, accelerations, etc.
An obvious question is why you think bikecalculator has it right and zwift has it wrong. Don’t you think a taller rider has a greater frontal area? In general, I’m sure they do, though there may be exceptions.
It’s pretty basic physics. Numerous analyses show that essentially power matters on the flat and power to weight on the climbs.
Only if you assume that frontal area doesn’t change with rider height and weight. How much it changes is debatable. That I have a much larger frontal area than my wife who weighs less than 2/3rds of me, and is a full 30cm shorter, is not..
Obviously a larger rider has a bigger frontal area, which implies greater effort is required to push the wind, but the effect is relatively small, compared with other factors, most importantly power. Just look at real world experience. Do you have more power than your wife? Who would win on a flat time trial?
I was wrong to say above that “it is pretty basic physics”. What I should have said is that is is complicated but well understood physics. Go to bikecalculator or other similar sites and you can see both the number of factors involved and discover what matters most in different circumstances. Simplifying a lot, what matters when climbing, and especially longer, steeper climbs is power to weight (including the weight of the bike, which people often forget, although the weight of the bike is proportionately larger for light riders), whereas power is king on the flat. Zwifts problem is that it gives too much significance to power to weight in general. This 1 – disadvantages more powerful riders who tend to be heavier (muscle being heavy), and 2 – because people understand that power to weight matters, they tell Zwift they are much lighter than they really are. If problem 1 did not exist, then then incentive to weight dope (problem 2) would be much reduced, except among those wishing to race courses in which climbing (and therefore power to weight) dominates.
Just like a real life scenario its very difficult to see whether someone is cheating/doping or not, and most of the time cheating/doping can only be controlled or checked by constant monitoring. If I’m not mistaken, weight and height can be changed any time when using Zwift, before, while, after even when saving. My opinion is that everything should be as transparent as possible. 1. All riders, if you want to partake in racing as such should be able to see each others stats and inputs, like ave w/kg for recent races, height and weight with recent changes, ftp with recent changes. 2. When selecting an event the platform should link your current in game weight and height and should not be editable till after. 3. lastly I would say that certain editing to a profile can only be done once a week, or on a certain day within a week. This might stop riders logging false details (weight & height) as this will influence there real stats and training on the platform. Like mentioned in some comments will push you to a different game category.
The above proposals will definitely not stop virtual doping but I think small in game changes like these and a monitoring system may help eliminate a great part of intentional virtual doping.
Sorry, but it is not just like real life. If I turn up for a bike race in real life and weight 85 kilos I can pretend I weigh 65. You can weigh whatever you want on Zwift, and in the privacy of your own pain cave you have only your conscious stopping you being less than truthful. It is not so easy to cheat in the real world, but extremely easy in Zwift. The first thing to think about is who to stop incentivising cheating (which largely comes down to manipulating weight) … while it is possible to cheat on power, that is much harder.
I have been racing for quite a few years, and I think the first step should be results based ranking which would be very easy to implement within ZP using your race ranking points to draw categorization levels. The bigger issue to me is the vast differential between power meter inputs. Highly accurate Direct Drive trainers / dual sided power meters are very expensive. I would imagine their are a lot of racers out there in the lower categories racing on suspect power numbers and not even knowing it due to less than accurate budget trainers/single sided power meters. Just looking on facebook posts about how new users think their NEOs are broken because they lost 20 watts overnight highlights this phenomena. I don’t think its fair to only limit race entry to riders with DD trainers, but until power input is figured out, I don’t think you will ever solve this problem
As long as there is no money involved, it does not matter if one rider produces his watts from an accurate dual-sided power meter or a wheel-on trainer, as long as they end up racing others performing on the same level. Real power or not. A result-based ranking system will take care of this. If we get some anti-cheating systems as well, it will be enough for competitive racing. A more advanced model could have racing points for race quality levels (zpower+heart rate, wheel-on, direct-drive, dual-power, verified weight/height etc.).
The easiest thing (would require the fewest changes/least resources from Zwift HQ) would be to simply allow event organizers to toggle it so that people can race up as many categories as they want but not race down the way that women can race in women-only categories or mixed categories for certain events but men can’t race in women’s categories. Won’t get rid of the “cruisers” but would make things better.
I think that with a race ranking system (much needed), it would be good if event organizers could choose to set up the categories by race ranking ranges OR have the system create bins of 1/4th (or whatever proportion) of the racers who had signed up 10 minutes before the race. That way you might sometimes find yourself near the top of your group and other times you might be near the bottom but fields would all be about the same size.
Results based racing, rather than totally arbitrary FTP cat, please! This would make the single biggest difference imo. I can add a slight amendment to the inaccurate power issue, having recently upgraded to dual sided power. I even knew I had a left sided bias from previous Watt Bike rides and so slightly scaled my single sided 4iiii…turns out not enough. I think I was very actively/falsely trying to balance my power with the live watt Bike display resulting in that underestimate. I am actually now down 4-5%, even further towards the bottom end of A riding than before!
P.S. …and even if I had scaled more the difference varies – less imbalance at lower cadence and higher power but likewise more when the reverse is true. Plus it levels out when I stand and, when outside, when the gradient increases. Almost impossible to scale accurately, even with all the knowledge. What to do as racing has to be inclusive too, I know.
Having re-read your post (https://zwiftinsider.com/matchmaking/) I cannot find one single argument for ZHQ to not implement this. In every aspect the system you propose is way better than the current system. It will probably take some coding and testing and recoding but is an absolute must to enhance the Zwift racing experience. What’s really disappointing though is not the fact that ZHQ hasn’t built this yet, but the fact that ZHQ – as far as I know – doesn’t keep us up to date about the steps they are taking. Unless of course, there’s nothing to keep us up to date about…
For me anyway I just get on and pedal my race as I expect there to be cheaters onboard or others who make some excuse to purposely out themselves in a lower bracket I race myself and just get a goal for a range of spots to finish in .. if I meet that personal expectation I am pleased with myself … If I get a mythical trophy via Zwift power … Yay … But I don’t lose sleep over it if I don’t
Point is to have fun and I do .. If I not raced for awhile I just be sure to check my ZP category they put me in and ensure I put myself there ..
I used to be a low C rider but I lost some power with being lazy so my category is now down in the D rank again still it is nice to be running near the top of a power bracket again as I did manage a trophy or two and it’s been awhile so it was a nice moral boost
Matchmaking has long been used in the video game industry to enable better matchups of players who are at the same level of ability. This seems like a good avenue for Zwift to travel down. In addition, anti-cheating measures have also been a long been used in video games – these items could be created as scripts to catch behaviours that need to be reviewed or an account be flagged – change in height over time (allowable range would be like 1-3 cm), change in weight over time (2-4 kg would be normal, but there can be acceptable exceptions that need to be reviewed), drastic changes in power for the 15 second to 20 min power, race result power anomalies (i.e., someone with very low or high power outside the standard deviation). For something more sophisticated, some Machine Learning could be developed to look at data in a more detailed manner – this might involve looking at data files to look for power and HR abnormalities. There is lots that is possible, and Zwift is already doing some of this today.
“they would just race tougher opponents” – I’d say this is not _necessarily_ the best thing. It might be just “how cycling works”, but there are plenty of sports where someone can be the best in a given range, without being forced to compete against tougher opponents.
If I’m a LWT rower and winning everything, so be it. I don’t get forced to row in the HWT division. Similarly with a Flyweight boxer. Sometimes, being the best in your arena is fine.
The thing is that in most IRL sports geography is an issue. For your lightweight rower, they would have started off at a local level and achieved a lot of success. Then moved to regional and national level, and finally international level. Things got harder as a result of their success. You are right that they wouldn’t get forced to race HWT, but I knew plenty of LWTs that raced Open weight on a regular basis for a better race.
I don’t know where you are in the world, but England rowing has a points based system whereby your ranking increases for wins and you have to race higher status events, although when I raced in Europe they didn’t tend to do this (the only division being age related, U23, Masters, or Open. We didn’t tend to fare to well in Europe!!)
With Zwift, the geography is removed from the off, so you are racing in the broadest pool straight away.
I’m in England, but I’m only an armchair fan of rowing. My only competition is indoor/BIRC. I agree there are Open events, but it’s a choice to row those, so I think it’s still reasonable to assert that being the best in a certain cohort is acceptable. Not everything has to be a ladder or a league.
Results-based ranking and matchmaking system for Zwift racing it is the best idea. With that no weight and height visibility is needed. Second thing is division for races and event for smart trainers only. it also decrease posibbility of cheating.
Loool
Racing is fair? Come on now, those with better physiology, lighter, Better team management, more money to throw around will have advantage.
Virtual racing you cant think the same. You have to take what’s unique to the individual out.
No weight, no height, just watts.
First problem is the draft , if that would be realistic more race intelligence would be required . Now it is al about watts/kg even on flats. Which is the second biggest problem, you just can’t compete against light racers because of their advantage. IRL they’re dropped easily on the flats.
Third indeed is to base ranking on winnings more than on watts/kg .
Fourth why let A riders compete against A+ riders ??? those guys do 5 watts/kg I can “only just ” do 4.5 and therefore never have any chance of winning
My thoughts are:
# Zwift have put on record that the majority of regular Zwifters never race on the platform, they only train or socialise. It’s a mistake to describe those of us who race as “The Zwift Community” which will serve to further irritate the majority.
# The suggested points based divisions seems sound & would make even more sense if, in races, Zwift calculated speed simply from power – i.e. give all racers the same nominal height & weight for the duration of the event.
Wouldn’t that just mean that bigger riders always win as they simply put out more power?
I think a match-making system makes a ton of sense, if it can be pulled off.
One discouraging aspect to me about the current racing tiers is that there is such a wide gap in skill between A and A+ riders. There should be another tier added (or taken care of by the match making system) to further segment this rider grouping. An A tier rider can be racing hard and riding at threshold the entire race while the A+s are riding in zone 2. It’s way too big of a gap and demotivating. Would rather stay in B where it’s competitive!
I don’t give a crap how tall/short or heavy/light someone is, and I’ve agreed before that results-based rankings would allow cheaters to CAT up to 1,000,000+ and nobody would care. It would end sandbagging, because let’s be honest: we are ALL sandbagging for the final sprint in real life. And it would make racing more fun to go head-to-head with people of similar skill, rather than being “just an A” facing a field of 5.5W/kg+ neo-pros. That’s been a bigger factor in my recent waning interest in Zwift racing than the cheaters, but having to cross the finish line, wait up to 30 minutes, and then check ZP for results to see if my 5th place result is actually a win? That makes it really tough to decide how much to invest in the race. It’s gotten nigh impossible to figure out what even constitutes a win. Is it the moral victory of being the highest-positioned ZP-registered rider whose sensors all worked that day?
I’ve suggested it before, but for some worlds/courses I really think neutral rollouts would improve the overall racing vibe. Jungle races used to be won or lost on the ramp to Epic KOM Reverse. London races are often lost on the 4% rise to the start. Stop that garbage and cap power output at 50% of category limit until the start line.
Maybe introduce relegation (instead of DQ) for power-limit infractions. Virtual commissaires to escort you to the back of the peloton. Do it with power limiting, as above.
The goal with all of these rules has to be to encourage equitable participation, not just to punish people. So if you do something wrong, there needs to be a path to redemption, often within that same event.
And for the love of all that is holy slow us down on tight turns! We don’t want people going back out into IRL racing thinking they can hold 40 mph+ on a hairpin!
I understand your idea about neutral rollout, but Im still going to drop watt bombs as soon as the flag properly drops. You cant stop the inevitable sorry 🙏
James, you speak a lot of sense – on this and on your article on matchmaking.
I’d be really interested to know what percentage of Zwifters update their weight regularly – among the Zwift population and the racing community. It could be a good reality check to see how seriously (or not) most people consider accuracy to be.
I’d also be interested to know how often “the average Zwift racer” competes. If there are lots of people who only race once every month or two, then a results-based system may also need to lean on data from outside of races in order to work well.
I’d like to see the riders not on Zwift Power not appear on the screen during a race—to become ghosts. On their screens, they see themselves in the mix. But registered riders never see them at all. They don’t affect positioning or the draft, and the results that a ZP registered rider sees at the end are what appears on the website. Sandbaggers who now cruise through most of a race but make big efforts that blow up in-category riders who try to follow have no effect. Cheaters who lighten their load by 20kg get to throw up their arms in victory for whatever satisfaction that gives them, but honest riders never knew they were even there.
The solution is simple ,races only in specific places with the same equipment. So is necessary from zwift to organize one ride center network and all the official races be on it.
Making height changes something that has to be requested rather than is done by the user would be a easy start.
Blocking people entering the wrong category in the first place would be another great improvement. Currently almost all the control is done post event.
Treat racing as not part of the standard price of Zwift. No, I’m not saying charge more. Make it clear its a free add-on but one from which you will be locked out after more than N infringements.
As I have said before all this enforcement of weight recording and height recording is useless in zwift unless your Pro riding and there are accredited referee in attendance.
There is nothing to stop a simple cheat on zwift from your own garage.
Person A stands on the scales and against the wall with a tape measure.
Rider B then rides the race.
How can anyone verify what has just happened.
You can’t.
Cheaters will cheat A, because they can. B, because they are allowed. C. For the prestige of a win regardless of what it took to do it.
As long as zwift calculates our speed from weight and height its flawed for racing.
Zwift Power can hide weight and height and that’s easy, they then only need to highlight a rider if there is a sudden and severe change in those metrics…. But without a visit from zwift to the home address how do you verify the true stats of the rider riding that race. There is NO WAY TO DO THAT without a Judiciar at the riders side.
I don’t know what the answer is……
Everyone race atthe same set weight n height.
The amount of people who’s root problem is that THEY do not have a chance to win speaks volumes about peoples delusion of what they deserve. I sign up for races all the time that I have ZERO chance of winning. I don’t think anything should be changed to make it so the system favors my personal characteristics so I can get my trophy. Should basketball hoops be lowered to 8’ so you short dudes can experience what it feels like to dunk?? Just accept people go their whole lives without dunking. And that may be a metaphor for you on a bike.
Then why even bother with categorization at all? Let’s all race in the world tour and just accept that some of us won’t make it. Again the goal is to encourage participation, and we all race for different reasons. Personally I like to do well in a race, and if I’m constantly getting beaten up by dudes a full W/kg higher, the shiny wears off and I get bored. If I’m bored, I’m going outside and pausing my membership, and Zwift loses money, meaning you have to wait yet another month for new roads. So let’s lower that hoop and make sure everyone can play for their own purposes.
That’s how it is once you race A. The categories below A all have a range low/high. The A group only has a low. So from 4.0wkg to infinity is what you race against. I accept that some days, depending on who shows up, I wont make it and get 60th. Some days, courses and competition suit me and I get a win. Just like in real life. Its all about who shows up. If I want to race better I can work harder and improve. I started road cycling Jan 2019 and Zwift August 2019 at 37 years old as a legit C rider. Now I occasionally win A races and almost always can hold the lead pack. The only thing I contemplate needs changed when I get 60th is the guy in the mirror. Not how the format can be changed to favor me. I entered the game knowing the rules. Cant be mad about them after the fact.
What about A+?
Anyway I thinking you’re missing the point. At the top of any league or category there is nowhere to go and some will be better than others at highest level. The issue is when these people choose to race at a lower level to win every race. Imagine if WVA, MDVP and Tom Pidcock raced your local CX race every week, rode round in Z2 and then rode away on the last lap instead taking the podium away from good local riders turning themselves inside.
I don’t think I have right to win. Previously I have always taken the moral high ground that I give everything, it’s all good training and look at ZP later. But sandbaggers now destroy the races anyway so all the fun has gone. I just use Zwift for training and race IRL and leave it at that. Anyway I’m off my my 25TT F2A/25 where no one will benefit from sandbagging 😬
i don’t expect to win, I know I am not a world class cyclists. But it is nice to win or podium on a race against a random set of people on Zwift. What is annoying is where you do less well than others because of Zwifts biases – in my case I grumble about individual time trials on the flat for which I can hold high power but am heavy. I get overtaken and beaten by very light riders with moderate power. Came 5th yesterday – should have been 2nd. .. ok, it’s not the end of the world, but still annoying.
You have to accept its a game and not real life.
The only way to race properly is to do it IRL.
Seems a rather defeatist attitude. Why not identify and call out the problems with the hope that something might be done to make the game more fair. That is what this thread is all about, and why I have participated on it.
This is a fascinating topic and discussion. I’m a 60-year old (no idea how that happened) who has always done fairly well at many different sports. I like to win, but frankly at this point in my life winning is relative. I’m in the unenviable position of apparently being too fast now to race C, but I seem to be a perennial low B. I can’t blame my bike because it has three power meters (SB20). I might never win a B race that has another racer in it but that’s not the point for me. Improving is really what I’m after. I see cheaters pretty much every time I race and they do momentarily irk me. That’s why I quickly learned to be happy with improvement on Zwift, and not winning. I do wish cheaters all had three power meters too though. I also wonder where I’d really finish if races were more fair and accurate. If Zwift had a better system I’d love that, but cheaters really don’t affect my enjoyment of the game.
When I became a lawyer many years ago I was shocked to discover that people lie (under oath), cheat and steal all the time. I’m no longer shocked. I expect it and plan for it, and everyone reading this should too. Minimizing cheating is fantastic, but I don’t think any of us can expect too much from a game that has so many variables. Having said too much already, I like the results-oriented approach. It ignores a lot of variables that can be manipulated and really throws people in the most appropriate category for how they perform, whether it’s through cheating or not. At least the non cheaters would give the cheaters a good race, and the cheaters would push the non cheaters.
The power meter issue is, in my opinion, a big variable. I started on Zwift on a modified spin bike. That was really fun! A constant 400 watts! When I switched to the SB20 I was quickly brought down to earth. I see what appears to be very inaccurate wkg all the time, and it doesn’t always appear to be weight doping. I did 2000 watts unexpectedly today simply because I hadn’t updated my bike’s software for a while. I can’t think of another (legitimate) sport that allows the competitor to select, maintain and use their equipment with zero oversight. It is probably impossible on Zwift, but requiring racers to use accurate, verifiably calibrated equipment would help immensely.
Having raced IRL and knowing my strengths and weaknesses, they just don’t correlate in Zwift. Like others have mentioned, heavier riders who excel on the flats and smaller rollers get passed easily by lighter riders. To me, it’s discouraging to think that I have no chance to win any races I enter. Plus, I’d like to see rolling starts versus the mass pedal fest once the banner drops. I’ve never been in an IRL race that started out like Zwift races. The closer Zwift can get to mimic IRL riding the better.
Cyclocross races, MTB races, and some crit races start exactly like a Zwift race! In fact I would say a cx or MTB race is a more brutal start. As a CX and MTBer and (TTer) zwift starts are fine, just takes getting used to.
If you win IRL then you can win in Zwift. If you dont win IRL them you probably wont win in zwift-and you shouldnt expect to.
The algorithm can use alot of work though. IRL I can take care of smaller riders waaaay easier than zwift on flats/rollers. And I have lost iTT in Zwift to riders putting out 270w compared to my 370w on Tempus-that wouldnt happen IRL
I think people often assume others are cheating when others are just stronger then they are, not to say cheating doesnt occur but I think the majority of users are truthful.
Its the ranking and category system which is broken (non existent).
Implementing a ranking system and dividing riders on the start linw based on entries and participants would be where to start.
All in all we just want competitive races where we feel we have a shot.
One thing to remember is that the cat based system is actually pretty important for average zwift users, so you can’t do away with it altogether. If you want a group ride for instance that you can comfortably Keep up with, or one that will challenge you, it’s useful to see what power the group will (by and large) be putting out. For those riders who don’t race, your can’t use a ranking system to help them see which rides they should do, as they won’t have a rank. So the race system would need to be a separate avenue for zwift events rather than an overhaul. See no reason why the race rank system couldn’t be implemented. Perhaps what we need is a community to set up a race League that works in that way with the data already on ZP?
Good point, as a rough guide for group speeds it works fine for casual riders. This is specifically for racing (and maybe only ‘ranking’ races. You could still have non-ranking races I suppose)
I think if the category system were better enforced it could work well. Another big problem with many races is that all the categories start together which gives a B or C rider with a strong 2-3 minute power out of the gate the opportunity to draft in a lead group with A riders for a good portion of the race. Different categories should have staggered start times to avoid this and have people racing against their categories.
Any races that I’ve done in real life generally have different starts for different categories.
I have been reading the various responses and do think that to satisfy their customer base, Zwift need to make the whole racing system both fair and transparent. This is, as @JamesEastwood succinctly describes not an easy feat.The results based and match making system does seem like a viable solution, however you could end up with cheaters (undetected) racing their own kind in any upper echelons of racing league – with where you say ” …they would just race tougher opponents…” , maybe they would just race ‘better’ cheaters; with the fair performers one level below. You dismiss the use of smart tech – i’m not so sure this is a fool’s errand. If you are serious about racing on Zwift, and fair competition matters to you, then you may do 1 of a couple of things – 1) use dual power 2) time stamp video of you racing (maybe with weigh in/height check) 3) make use of some function in the Companion App (e.g. link to time stamped smart scale + video etc…) auto upload and takes no time at all in reality.
The final one I think is most viable. Zwift at it’s heart is a tech company, and therefore they can come up with a tech solution. For us as riders, any ‘change’ may seem uncomfortable, but if we are serious about fair racing, then we must adopt the change (whatever it may be) and it will quickly become second nature. If you don’t want this, then maybe you are not as bothered about the cheats as you may think.
I love racing on zwift, however I’m often left feeling a little frustrated with people that cheat. Zwiftpower.com is where l concentrate my interest in results as it on most occasions weeds out the cheats. It’s amazing how many users blatantly weight dope during the current TOW. I’m a top 10 A grader in most races l do, but then get blasted in ‘group’ rides that don’t influence standings on zwiftpower.com. It’s really obvious who is and isn’t legit. In my experience I’d say 5% are manipulating the system.
I guess my expectations of zwift itself policing fairness has waned in the 12 months I’ve been on and l don’t believe we should expect all users to dual upload power data, own smart trainers or add scales before every ride.
If you’re that concerned about your result use zwiftpower, it’s mostly accurate l believe. I think the points system would work.
What my wife finds frustrating is that she is forced to race in B grade men because her 20min power disqualifies her in most events. She is always dropped close to the finale or smashed in the sprint by stronger men. I think women racing in open events should be given a watt dispensation of perhaps .5w/kg. In this case her 3.5w/kg avg would enable her to remain in C grade and be competitive rather than booted.
There are quite a lot of women-only events, which my wife enjoys. Recommend your wife searches them out.
Thanks James, she certainly does aim for all women events however I’m sure your wife also experiences events with extremely low numbers or late discrepancies in ability. I think zwift should alter the w/kg caps for each cat me generously for women.
It seems that everyone has a specific circumstance that they want zwift to change so that it’s easier for them to win.
It’s unfortunate the women’s only races are fewer and there are lower numbers, but the reality is that she would most likely get beaten in real life sprints in men’s races as well. Should zwift alter the categories to level the playing field in sprints between men and women because of this?
Forced result-based categories together with ghosting out (they can race but others won’t see them and can’t draft them) Zpower riders will make racing a lot more fun for me. Throw in minimal possibilities to changes height (max 1 cm a year?) and some AI/algorithm on weight, e.g. unrealistic combinations of weight and height or high changes in weight, and you will have a system that is probably good enough for non-elite level of racing.
As mentioned in the article, I don’t have the need to see riders height or weight, but want fair racing. Lately I’ve enjoyed racing less (and therefore doing it less) than when I started. Especially Zpower riders bringing back complete groups, or rejoining the front of the race and influencing the race in an unrealistic manner, are really irritating me.
Agree on pretty much all accounts and it would make the public display of weight and height superfluous for me personally. There are many issues intertwined with the current wkg-based category system for racing (creating questionable incentives, body profile manufacturing, separating riders of equal ability due to weight differences), so the sooner we depart from it and start rewarding tactics and results the better. The major benefit I see is that it provides a better grouping of riders of similar abilities, whilst these could still have completely different rider profiles i.e. sprinter, climber, puncher, time triallist, all-rounder thus allowing each to play tactics based on their strengths.
Being utterly optimistic, I hold hopes that ZwiftHQ is working in this direction. I know these are two different entities, but much of the functionality that is developed by WTRL could be the basis for implementing these changes. I hope ZwiftHQ can allocate budget and resources towards this aim, even if only for a ‘pilot’ results-based race series initially. The overhaul it requires shouldn’t be underestimated though:
Must-haves:
– Full integration of Zwiftpower with Zwift, or similar solution to include all riders in the results
– Riders leaving the start Penn should always be included in ranking calculations, even when DNF
– New riders should be given an ‘estimated’ ranking based on their Zwift data
– Category enforcement whilst still allowing to ‘ride up’
Nice-to-haves:
– Automated control for height and weight changes over an x-month period. Unreasonable changes should lead to a suspension from racing for x weeks. Select race organizers could be given access for manual verification, but ideally this would be refrained from as it requires manual interpretation. Rather, I’d propose select race series to be classified as ‘rider verified’, meaning that participants agree to provide height or weight videos when asked.
– Integration of an open ‘E’ penn to public race events would work extremely well with any category format and I’ve proposed this before. Race categories would only see and draft their own category riders, whilst ‘E’ riders see and draft everyone. This opens the ‘E’ penn for anyone who wants to race with different intentions, without ruining anyone’s experience: think of injury, a period of inactivity, guiding friends through their races, option to use to seed new riders etc.
– Easy-to-access rider profile, displaying 20 min – 5 min – 1 min – 15s power together with race ranking (this could build a database to estimate rankings of new riders)
Most of the “serious” riders got a Strava account. When I observe some impressive performances in a race I try to have a look on the Strava of the rider. If he got no KOM IRL I became suspicious… My Alpe or Ventoux personal best are quite similar on Zwift and IRL (2mn better on Zwift, probably because Zwift doesn’t integrate the weight of the water bottle and the wind). I believe most of the serious riders have climbed long climb where it’s possible to derive there real w/kg. A link between strava and Zwift may reduce the incentive to cheat ?
Unless they live somewhere where there are no big climbs, and don’t travel to cycle, like many people who ride for fun and fitness, and have discovered more opportunities in e-riding than iRL
Sure, but those cyclists aren’t the ones I am calling “serious” riders. I guess 95% of the racers have already done a significant climb (at least in cat A & A+).
I guess that we just have different definitions of serious 🙂 Mine doesn’t require a particular level physiological gifting or spending your holidays cycling, yours does – thanks for clarifying.
True, we have different definitions of “serious”. Mine consider passionate riders who train hard in order to perform in races (mainly in cat A and A+). People focus on sandbagger in lower cat. But there is also problems in cat A/A+: people using a poorly calibrated HT and averaging 400W on a race without realizing that’s impossible (and without realizing that IRL they average 150W). A connection with Strava make it easy to “ZP” them on Zwift Power. On many race we observe this kind of rider. I believe they even no intend to cheat. They just don’t care that other riders may look for a fair e-racing…
I think we probably do agree that there are real challenges with the current way of categorisation because of all sorts of power based issues. Some, but not all, would be made better by results based systems. Obviously the challenge you highlight would be solved. However, I have wondered why the most recent trainer calibration date, make, and model isn’t transmitted in the race data (.fit file?) from then zwift app to Strava etc. That could start to highlight the situation, and gradually a list of acceptable trainers and calibration timings could get set, and eventually enforced.
I’ve raced on Zwift for years but it has been getting worse and worse lately to the point that I will no longer race. I took a break last Autumn from racing and went back early this year and joined ZRL thinking it would be a better experience (it wasn’t) low and behold the front of race is flying just inside cat limits. The same people can race 0.05wkg within the limits winning race after race, never getter any better, never getting upgraded. This is not how IRL racing works or most other sports with leagues/categories. If you constantly win you move up and race/play tougher competition.
If a sandbagger knows that after 3 wins they’ll be racing tougher competition then the motivation to cheat will be diminished. Even if you’re using badly calibrated equipment to inflate results you will still move up and up until you no longer can win at will and completion will balance out.
Zwift want to legitimise racing as an e-sport with the UCI and now the IOC but don’t seem to care about the paying customer that wants genuinely competitive racing or just fair racing. They are too busy not wanting to upset anyone while simultaneously upsetting the racing community.
For whats its worth, I race Crit, TT and CX IRL, I know my ability compared to other IRL riders yet on Zwift everyone seems to be a Neo-pro 😂
The category system destroys team-building in the ZRL. Ladder League structure is the way to go. And the new restrictive rosters rules are helping.
Moving to a racer ranking system would be an excellent idea in my opinion. I would note that rowing is another sport where people regularly recombine to form different teams over a season, and British rowing have développés a system that allows for ranking individuals who compete both as individuals and in constantly changing teams. In my view their system has a lot of merit e-racing on cycles.
this would also help to separate a bit the racing categories issue from the eating disorders issue. Both are significant, and the current system means that they are deeply intertwined. It would make it easier to address the eating disorder question, for example by setting a minimal acceptable BMI, without interfering with achieving fun and reasonable racing categories.