VO2sday Micro Races, Week 2: More Times, New Categories

Great questions, Beccah. I assume by “longer races” you mean the more traditional Zwift races like ZRacing that are typically 15-30 km long. It also important to note that these new categories use Compound Score, which as Eric explained takes zMAP and rider weight into account. If there is a similar type of compound score that appropriately takes zFTP into account (as that is largely irrelevant for the short VO2sday micro races), then my answer is that probably yes, such categories could help women feel more competitive and just as importantly allow all the rewards of increased visibility and race podiums/wins (including comparing to Top 20, 10, or even Top 5).

Let’s be nuanced and consider though that I’m making my educated guess based on everything I know over the years about women’s cycling, but I am still coming at this as a man within our sport; I can’t say I know 100% exactly how women would feel and would turn the question back to you for your take and your direct peers’ take on that.

Again, though, if I previously was barely getting into the Top 10 based on categorization that didn’t fully take into account my power numbers AND my weight (which is generally lower for women compared to their male peers) and a revised system like what we had this week is more accurate across genders, then I personally would feel not just more competitive but also that everyone’s results were more accurate and representative of ability.

Onto your second question about benefiting women “too much,” I would want to know what “too much” means as there is nuance there as well and is perhaps somewhat loaded. If that simply means women would be placing higher than they had previously and legitimately out-ranking men in the same races more often, I would have to ask whether anyone has an issue with that and why. As I explained in my previous paragraph, if the categories are more accurate for the factors that matter for a particular race, then all racers regardless of gender, power output, weight, and w/kg can feel that the results are valid and justified.

We also have to consider this in the context just of Zwift racing or even slightly broader with eSports, where instant access to these power numbers and categories is feasible. I don’t see this system of categories as realistic for outdoor racing, although I suppose it would be possible if absolutely necessary. It’s probably obvious that it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison, but I bring it up in case anyone’s reflex is to compare to IRL categories.

Please do elaborate on this idea of “benefiting women too much.” I’m coming at this from someone who has followed women’s racing for a couple decades and has worked to lessen the disparities in visibility, opportunities, etc. in IRL racing/cycling in general, especially in the context of Half the Road, which I have supported both morally and financially. Thus, if the results are fair and accurate, this concept of “benefiting women too much” in cycling feels foreign even now after all the progress of the past decade, but it would be quite a fascinating swing of the pendulum that arguably is overdue.

Thanks for your kind words, Beccah; I’m always happy to do my part.

You bring up some interesting points worth exploring. “One thing worth considering: women’s power output relative to men’s tends to become more competitive over longer distances.” I am aware of this in the context of endurance, such as ultra-endurance (e.g., Lael Wilcox) and the original women’s Tour de France (multi-week). However, I had assumed that the typical Zwift race distances even including “Epic Race” and Fondo distances wouldn’t show any significant advantage for women, but now I see I should have checked that assumption.

Are you specifically saying that based on data and observation you’ve seen that a zMAP-based system disproportionately gives women an advantage compared to their male category peers in longer races? If so, what is the threshold for “longer” in which this begins to show statistical significance? I see now where your “benefiting women too much” thought can come into play.

I’ll admit that I don’t know the formulaic details of the vELO/vELO2 system and will look deeper into that for my own understanding. I can say for now based on what you’re sharing that for any particular race, the most equitable solution seems to be the categorization system that takes into account race type and rider attributes (e.g., weight, height, power output that is relevant to race distance and topography).

In the context of VO2sday, I’m seeing now that this could serve the purpose as being an accessible case study in equitable race categorization with more visibility and participation from the community. As I understand it, and let me know if you see other elements worth considering, the new zMAP-based categorization for MAP-oriented (MAP-duration) races is a fair and accurate system for mixed racing. As these next few weeks of the series develop, this will be a valuable opportunity for us to see how we can apply the lessons learned from VO2sday’s categorization amd results to other races.

As soon as you cited Coggan’s power chart, I thought, “Of course! That’s the obvious answer to my question.” That is interesting to consider how a zMAP-based categorization could benefit women at longer distances, that is, within the range of standard weekly Zwift races.

I did go back to find your article and a few others you wrote, and your thoughts and the comments from others are fascinating insights into what the community wants.

I am curious to see more zMAP categorization in action and its acceptance by the community. If this allows more fair recognition for women’s efforts in races through higher placings, let’s explore that! As you and others have said, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach, so a more tailored approach (perhaps using vELO as you said) should be applied more often than we see now.

Yes I love the vELO score! I think the adjustments made to the compound score based on rider size and the way the score adjusts based on performance makes total sense. Pro Tim here!