Zwift Chat

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

alex_cycles

Veteran
Location
Oxfordshire
@Whorty , do you now you've signed in the E pen ? ,I joined you we raced D last time , I presume the league scores won't count ,didn't bother me I've missed a week

This one could be a bit tough for me. I've sorted the entries by 5m w/kg as Petit KoM is a 6m climb. I also know that Parky won't be racing.
I shall aim to try and stay on for climb 1. If I can do that, I'll be very pleased.

Screen Shot 2024-09-16 at 16.51.36.png
 

bridgy

Legendary Member
Location
Cheddar
I get trounced by quite a few riders who are in the old B cat, but have ZRS scores in the 200s or low 300s There are a considerable number of riders with too high or too low a ZRS still. I hope when they rejig things in October they do a better job.

"do a better job"? How do you suggest Zwift create a baseline score for people if not from their power data in the last 90 days?

Take Martin as an example - he hasn't ridden on Zwift all summer so what would you do differently with his baseline score if you were Zwift, bearing in mind there's no way they can know what he's been doing during that time.

And as for theses B Cat riders who trounced you - do they still have a ZRS in the 200s or low 300s or is ZRS working exactly as it should and increasing their score appropriately so they have to race in higher categories now?
 
OP
OP
CXRAndy

CXRAndy

Guru
Location
Lincs
Hi Paul, there are some anomalies with the racing score probably the earlier part, where a few B cats have low scores, I raced a few

Maybe this is from less races they had done. I admit there does seem to be less 'out of category ' riders now RS has been up and running for a little while.

Results for me are aligning between the old ABCD categories and RS. A few more months should see tighter categories

This is tomorrows event.
1000015492.jpg
 
Last edited:

bridgy

Legendary Member
Location
Cheddar
Hi Paul, there are some anomalies with the racing score probably the earlier part, where a few B cats have low scores, I raced a few

Maybe this is from less races they had done. I admit there does seem to be less 'out of category ' riders now RS has been up and running for a little while.

Results for me are aligning between the old ABCD categories and RS. A few more months should see tighter categories

This is tomorrows event.
View attachment 745817
Yeah sure I do get that some people are under-scored and others over-scored based on their current ability. And I also fully accept it's not perfect - nothing ever is. And there's always room for improvement, especially with a new system.

But my point is WHY are these people initially categorised like that? It's not an "anomaly" if it's actually based on their actual past 90 day power numbers (which seems like as good a thing to base the initial score on as anything).

And if they then get upgraded as they finish highly in races and/or do higher power numbers then that's the system working exactly as designed, not the system being flawed.

Are there loads of people who have been given really low or really high ZRS for literally no reason and that bears no relation to their 90 day power numbers? And are these people retaining that excessively high or excessively low ZRS after winning or losing races? If yes then I 100% agree - there's anomalies, the system is badly flawed, they need to do much better.

But if there's logic behind the initial scores - even if it doesn't reflect a reality Zwift have no way of seeing - and if the ZRS scores are adjusting quickly with results as they should be, then I really don't see the problem and we all just need to give it a bit of time?
 

alex_cycles

Veteran
Location
Oxfordshire
Yeah sure I do get that some people are under-scored and others over-scored based on their current ability. And I also fully accept it's not perfect - nothing ever is. And there's always room for improvement, especially with a new system.

But my point is WHY are these people initially categorised like that? It's not an "anomaly" if it's actually based on their actual past 90 day power numbers (which seems like as good a thing to base the initial score on as anything).

And if they then get upgraded as they finish highly in races and/or do higher power numbers then that's the system working exactly as designed, not the system being flawed.

Are there loads of people who have been given really low or really high ZRS for literally no reason and that bears no relation to their 90 day power numbers? And are these people retaining that excessively high or excessively low ZRS after winning or losing races? If yes then I 100% agree - there's anomalies, the system is badly flawed, they need to do much better.

But if there's logic behind the initial scores - even if it doesn't reflect a reality Zwift have no way of seeing - and if the ZRS scores are adjusting quickly with results as they should be, then I really don't see the problem and we all just need to give it a bit of time?

Spot on really. I think it will take a few months for enough data to be collected to get it really good. Zwiftracing.app was no different.

At the moment everything is compounded by the time of year, too.
 
OP
OP
CXRAndy

CXRAndy

Guru
Location
Lincs
Yeah sure I do get that some people are under-scored and others over-scored based on their current ability. And I also fully accept it's not perfect - nothing ever is. And there's always room for improvement, especially with a new system.

But my point is WHY are these people initially categorised like that? It's not an "anomaly" if it's actually based on their actual past 90 day power numbers (which seems like as good a thing to base the initial score on as anything).

And if they then get upgraded as they finish highly in races and/or do higher power numbers then that's the system working exactly as designed, not the system being flawed.

Are there loads of people who have been given really low or really high ZRS for literally no reason and that bears no relation to their 90 day power numbers? And are these people retaining that excessively high or excessively low ZRS after winning or losing races? If yes then I 100% agree - there's anomalies, the system is badly flawed, they need to do much better.

But if there's logic behind the initial scores - even if it doesn't reflect a reality Zwift have no way of seeing - and if the ZRS scores are adjusting quickly with results as they should be, then I really don't see the problem and we all just need to give it a bit of time?

If I get my arse handed to me today with a few B cats listed in the event, then the initial ranking is somewhat off point.

I'm not personally bothered I self filter those who aren't in my categories or race series
 
Top Bottom