Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I may have to consider some A races. My ranking points are stuck on 260 despite finishing highly in some B races. I think I need to target some higher ranking As to improve my ranking. My 20min av power also stuck firmly On 3.89wkg So I’m a good but off scraping back into Cat A out of right.Come join us in BIt's quite pleasant beating B riders
Best of both worlds eh?Notes from the last couple weeks.
I took off from racing last week. I'd been up Little Cottonwood for a short hike with the family and it made me realize that as slow as I am on long climbs, I miss them. So instead of racing 3-4 days, I did two climbs up the alpe. First clocked in at ~92 minutes and was fairly painful. Rested a day, then made another ascent, this time pushing hard on the double-digit inclines and "resting" on the single digit inclines and clocked in at 85 minutes. To put those in perspective, I was hitting ~75 minutes before my health crap started a couple years ago. But I was still quite happy with the improvement and I'd hazard a guess if I were to climb littlec on the bike, I'd probably be in the 80-90 minute range which is acceptable.
Not much to report for the C race I did Monday. Stuck with the leaders for the first 6 laps and lost them going up the cobbles. Wasn't able to hang on to any of the subsequent groups either for a near-the-bottom of C finish, but still only a few seconds off my PB for the 12lap crit city course.
I'd been having some foot pain before the race and the bike shoes actually made things *so* much better. Spent the whole night in pain unable to sleep and nearly fell down when I got out of bed this morning. Diagnosis is my first ever gout flare up. Ugh.
I took off from racing last week. I'd been up Little Cottonwood for a short hike with the family and it made me realize that as slow as I am on long climbs, I miss them. So instead of racing 3-4 days, I did two climbs up the alpe. First clocked in at ~92 minutes and was fairly painful. Rested a day, then made another ascent, this time pushing hard on the double-digit inclines and "resting" on the single digit inclines and clocked in at 85 minutes. To put those in perspective, I was hitting ~75 minutes before my health crap started a couple years ago. But I was still quite happy with the improvement and I'd hazard a guess if I were to climb littlec on the bike, I'd probably be in the 80-90 minute range which is acceptable.
Not much to report for the C race I did Monday. Stuck with the leaders for the first 6 laps and lost them going up the cobbles. Wasn't able to hang on to any of the subsequent groups either for a near-the-bottom of C finish, but still only a few seconds off my PB for the 12lap crit city course.
I'd been having some foot pain before the race and the bike shoes actually made things *so* much better. Spent the whole night in pain unable to sleep and nearly fell down when I got out of bed this morning. Diagnosis is my first ever gout flare up. Ugh.
Another trainer bike player, actually they're a big player in gym bikes. Looks to have some promising features, sturdy too
View: https://youtu.be/3RSx8N9jMc8
View: https://youtu.be/3RSx8N9jMc8
mjd1988
Guru
Saw this, I think he says he's going to do an updated head to head of all the main competitors when he reviews the new wattbike atom.
Saw this, should suit Tommy, Lee and especially Bob 
View: https://youtu.be/n_7gkhSjSjY
Looks great fun, if a little scary in places
View: https://youtu.be/n_7gkhSjSjY
Looks great fun, if a little scary in places
BurningLegs
Veteran
The stages bike is quite appealing - with their pedigree in gym bikes and the fact that their power meters are well regarded, this could be a sweet spot of robust reliability from the gym bike experiences, and accuracy from the power meter side. I will be watching closely...
Brendan Parker
Veteran
- Location
- essex, england
I like the look of the new watt bike. Nearly pushed the button on one. 12 week wait at moment
bobinski
Legendary Member
- Location
- Tulse Hill
The attraction of the watt bike, at least in UK, is the local support they offer. Having engineers who actually come out to your home to fix things is a real selling point.
Spartak
Powered by M&M's
- Location
- Bristolian
I don't get the ranking points on ZP .... I have a 'better' ranking than some B riders whom I never beat (e.g. Pete, Steen etc). In Monday's B race I was ranked 528 I think, well below my given 411, but as I beat B riders surely I should see a higher ranking? Or are the rankings by cat? Not that I take any real notice of them as I'm not convinced they are very accurate.I may have to consider some A races. My ranking points are stuck on 260 despite finishing highly in some B races. I think I need to target some higher ranking As to improve my ranking. My 20min av power also stuck firmly On 3.89wkg So I’m a good but off scraping back into Cat A out of right.
<Tommy>
Illegitimi non carborundum
- Location
- Camden, London
I think they're accurate in the sense that they work the way they’re designed to? (Maybe 😄). But they’re not completely clear because they seem to take so many things into account. frequency of racing seems to be a big factor. Didn’t they also change it a few months back to you got more points for aggression? I’m same boat as you really. Lower than people who’ve never beaten me. Higher than people who are much stronger. I don’t really pay attention to them.
USAC Points calculation
Note: A small field adjustment has been applied to the following rules. If there are between 5 and 9 riders we use the top 5 for quality and all riders for average.
A riders ranking going into every race is calculated from the average of their 5 best results in the past 3 months.
Rankings are set between 0 and 600 points. Fewer points means you have a better ranking. So the goal is to earn the fewest points possible.
In general USAC summarizes the ranking system as follows; “to improve ranking, a rider must beat riders who are currently ranked stronger.” This is a true statement but has some nuances, which we will discuss below.
The points system has 3 critical calculations: Race Quality, Points per Place, and Ranking Points.
Race Quality
The Formula for Race Quality is as follows:
Race Quality = (Average of the best 5 riders finishing in the top 10 places) x (0.9)
If you take any race and only look at the top 10, out of those 10 the riders with the top 5 best points are the 5 critical riders that define the Race Quality. For a race to be a high quality race 5 racers with a strong USAC ranking need to be in the race and they need to finish well. It is interesting to note that the 0.9 factor is applied to Race Quality to ensure that at a minimum a race is valued at 540 points, so that even in fields where there are not any racers with USAC ranking points it is possible to obtain a better USAC ranking.
There is an exception to the Race Quality equation. If the average of all of the riders who finish the race is lower than that of the average of the best 5 in the top 10 then the Race Quality is calculated using the total race average points instead of the average of the best 5 in the top 10. This exception applies as long as the field average is higher than that of the lowest points finisher in the Top 10.
Here is an example the Race Quality equation:
Out of the top 10 racers we first need to select the top 5 points scorers. In this case this means Racer A, B, D, G, and H have the best points.
Race Quality = ( (250 + 200 + 220 + 300 + 280) / 5 ) * 0.9 = 225
If for some reason the average of the entire field’s points was lower than 225, but higher than 200 (the best points in the top 10) then the field average would be utilized in the Race Quality equation.
Points Per Place
The Points per Place is an important calculation as it defines the difference in points a rider would receive by finishing one place higher or one place lower. Points per Place is calculated as follows:
Points Per Place = ((Average Ranking of Finishers - Race Quality) * 2) / (Finishers - 1)
If we used the example above and assume that there were only 10 racers in the field the Points per Place would be as follows:
Points Per Place = ((337 - 225) * 2) / (10 - 1) = 24.88
Rank Points
Finally using the results from the Race Quality and Points per Place calculations an individual’s points can be calculated.
Rank Points = Race Quality + [(Riders Place - 1) * Points Per Place]
Continuing with the example above a rider in first place would receive points as follows:
Rank Points = 225 + [(1 - 1) * 24.88] = 225
The points received by all of the racers in the example would be as follows:
Additional Examples
In order to see the impact of the field average ranking and the number of finishers in a race, an additional set of examples are shown below. Race Quality is held constant at 225 which allows for a simpler comparison.
In examples B and C it might look like moving the average ranking from 337 to 400 is only a small move, but this represents that all racers outside of the top 10 would average a ranking of 550. In the WSBA region this is exaggerated, but is likely as many of the WSBA riders have very poor rankings and any unranked racer would be counted as 600 points.
Given these new examples the earned points would look as follows:
The additional examples show that field size can have a significant impact on the points earned without changing the top 10 results! In the original example the racer in 10th received 448.92 points while in example A the racer earned 266.13 points; a difference of nearly 200 points!
Note: A small field adjustment has been applied to the following rules. If there are between 5 and 9 riders we use the top 5 for quality and all riders for average.
A riders ranking going into every race is calculated from the average of their 5 best results in the past 3 months.
Rankings are set between 0 and 600 points. Fewer points means you have a better ranking. So the goal is to earn the fewest points possible.
In general USAC summarizes the ranking system as follows; “to improve ranking, a rider must beat riders who are currently ranked stronger.” This is a true statement but has some nuances, which we will discuss below.
The points system has 3 critical calculations: Race Quality, Points per Place, and Ranking Points.
Race Quality
The Formula for Race Quality is as follows:
Race Quality = (Average of the best 5 riders finishing in the top 10 places) x (0.9)
If you take any race and only look at the top 10, out of those 10 the riders with the top 5 best points are the 5 critical riders that define the Race Quality. For a race to be a high quality race 5 racers with a strong USAC ranking need to be in the race and they need to finish well. It is interesting to note that the 0.9 factor is applied to Race Quality to ensure that at a minimum a race is valued at 540 points, so that even in fields where there are not any racers with USAC ranking points it is possible to obtain a better USAC ranking.
There is an exception to the Race Quality equation. If the average of all of the riders who finish the race is lower than that of the average of the best 5 in the top 10 then the Race Quality is calculated using the total race average points instead of the average of the best 5 in the top 10. This exception applies as long as the field average is higher than that of the lowest points finisher in the Top 10.
Here is an example the Race Quality equation:
| Racer | Place | USAC Points |
|---|---|---|
| Racer A | 1 | 250 |
| Racer B | 2 | 200 |
| Racer C | 3 | 400 |
| Racer D | 4 | 220 |
| Racer E | 5 | 500 |
| Racer F | 6 | 350 |
| Racer G | 7 | 300 |
| Racer H | 8 | 280 |
| Racer I | 9 | 540 |
| Racer J | 10 | 330 |
Race Quality = ( (250 + 200 + 220 + 300 + 280) / 5 ) * 0.9 = 225
If for some reason the average of the entire field’s points was lower than 225, but higher than 200 (the best points in the top 10) then the field average would be utilized in the Race Quality equation.
Points Per Place
The Points per Place is an important calculation as it defines the difference in points a rider would receive by finishing one place higher or one place lower. Points per Place is calculated as follows:
Points Per Place = ((Average Ranking of Finishers - Race Quality) * 2) / (Finishers - 1)
If we used the example above and assume that there were only 10 racers in the field the Points per Place would be as follows:
Points Per Place = ((337 - 225) * 2) / (10 - 1) = 24.88
Rank Points
Finally using the results from the Race Quality and Points per Place calculations an individual’s points can be calculated.
Rank Points = Race Quality + [(Riders Place - 1) * Points Per Place]
Continuing with the example above a rider in first place would receive points as follows:
Rank Points = 225 + [(1 - 1) * 24.88] = 225
The points received by all of the racers in the example would be as follows:
| Racer | Place | USAC Points | Race Earned Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Racer A | 1 | 250 | 225 |
| Racer B | 2 | 200 | 249.88 |
| Racer C | 3 | 400 | 274.76 |
| Racer D | 4 | 220 | 299.64 |
| Racer E | 5 | 500 | 324.52 |
| Racer F | 6 | 350 | 349.4 |
| Racer G | 7 | 300 | 374.28 |
| Racer H | 8 | 280 | 399.16 |
| Racer I | 9 | 540 | 424.04 |
| Racer J | 10 | 330 | 448.92 |
In order to see the impact of the field average ranking and the number of finishers in a race, an additional set of examples are shown below. Race Quality is held constant at 225 which allows for a simpler comparison.
| Race Attributes | Original Example | Example A | Example B | Example C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race Quality | 225 | 225 | 225 | 225 |
| Average Ranking | 337 | 337 | 400 | 400 |
| Number of Finishers | 10 | 50 | 25 | 50 |
| Points per Place | 24.88 | 4.57 | 14.58 | 7.14 |
Given these new examples the earned points would look as follows:
| Racer | Place | USAC Points | Original Example: | Example A: | Example B: | Example C: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Racer A | 1 | 250 | 225 | 225 | 225 | 225 |
| Racer B | 2 | 200 | 249.88 | 229.57 | 239.58 | 232.14 |
| Racer C | 3 | 400 | 274.76 | 234.14 | 254.16 | 239.28 |
| Racer D | 4 | 220 | 299.64 | 238.71 | 268.74 | 246.42 |
| Racer E | 5 | 500 | 324.52 | 243.28 | 283.32 | 253.56 |
| Racer F | 6 | 350 | 349.4 | 247.85 | 297.9 | 260.7 |
| Racer G | 7 | 300 | 374.28 | 252.42 | 312.48 | 267.84 |
| Racer H | 8 | 280 | 399.16 | 256.99 | 327.06 | 274.98 |
| Racer I | 9 | 540 | 424.04 | 261.56 | 341.64 | 282.12 |
| Racer J | 10 | 330 | 448.92 | 266.13 | 356.22 | 289.26 |
| Racer Y | 25 | 550 | - | 334.68 | 574.92 | 396.36 |
| Racer AX | 50 | 550 | - | 339.25 | - 403.5 |
<Tommy>
Illegitimi non carborundum
- Location
- Camden, London
Well that clears that up then 😄
