Reimagining The Future of Zwift Racing: Defining the Problem

Over the last few weeks, we’ve taken a hard look at the ZRL. We’ve dissected the flaws in its category system, identified exactly why w/kg metrics systematically disadvantage women and lighter-weight riders, explored an alternative watts-based categorization system, and analyzed how we might use tools like the ZRS as a temporary bridge to better racing for all.

Each of these “solutions” is just one path. In fact, my journey in writing these articles has led me to explore a wider range of potential solutions:

• Weight-Adjusted Watts
• The “Power-to-Flatness” Correction
• Physics-Adjusted Score (PAS)
• …and countless other creative approaches to data-driven equity.

But as the conversation deepened, it became clear that this isn’t just a “ZRL problem.” The issue is endemic to how Zwift is structured across the board. The systemic disconnect—the one where choosing to race in women-only fields often feels like participating in a “half-hearted attempt at inclusiveness,” complete with dwindling fields and diminished opportunities to shine—goes far beyond one race series. It is a fundamental design flaw. When the platform prioritizes mixed-gender rankings over the growth of women’s esports, it doesn’t just limit the competition; it caps the potential of our entire community.

I’ve realized that to truly fix this, we have to stop patching the holes in a sinking ship and start looking at the architecture of the entire platform. This series is my attempt to do exactly that—to move beyond the “category crisis” and look at what a fair, rewarding, and truly inclusive Zwift ecosystem could actually look like.

I know what you’re thinking: why not lay it all out right now?

Truth be told, there is a lot to unpack. The current system is layered with decades of “standard” thinking that we need to deconstruct before we can truly build something better. I’ve broken this vision down into digestible pieces specifically because I want you to have the time to sit with these ideas, challenge them, and—most importantly—digest them without feeling overwhelmed. We’re not just tweaking a few settings; we’re proposing a complete culture shift for Zwift, and that deserves more than a single sitting.

But before we can design the solution, we have to clearly define the problem.

The Physics Trap: Ratio vs. Reality

For too long, we’ve relied on w/kg as the “gold standard” for categorization. It’s a clean, simple metric—or so we thought. The problem is that it tries to categorize us based on a static snapshot of power relative to weight. It completely ignores the physics of how a bike moves through space based on the vastly different body sizes we see on Zwift.

Let’s be honest about the numbers. If you take a 50 kg rider at 2.5 w/kg (125 watts) and a 70 kg rider at 2.5 w/kg (175 watts), you have two riders with identical fitness. Yet, the 175-watt rider has a massive 50-watt advantage. In the flat-biased world of Zwift, those 50 watts are not just a number—they are the difference between cruising comfortably in the draft and redlining just to keep the wheel in front of you.

This creates a scenario where a lighter rider is forced to redline just to hold the draft, while a heavier rider with higher absolute power can maintain a steady, lower-effort tempo. The current system measures “fitness” (the ratio), but it ignores “competitive reality” (the raw output).

The Categorization Crisis: The “Sorting Hat” vs. The “Prize”

Zwift has tried to bridge this gap with the Zwift Racing Score (ZRS), but for most of us, it remains a “black box.” We have no idea how it’s calculated, which makes it impossible to trust.

Then we look at platforms like zwiftracing.app and their vELO system. I’ve been a long-time fan of the work Tim has done; his vELO system is a brilliant step forward, shifting the focus from a theoretical ratio to a results-based history. It understands the core principle that categorization shouldn’t be about awarding trophies—it should be a tool to ensure you’re in a race that’s actually fun and competitive.

But while vELO is a fantastic way to classify performance, I’ve realized it’s only one piece of the puzzle. It helps sort the field, but it doesn’t address the broader systemic issues—like the “invisibility tax” on women, the lack of age-graded pathways, or the time-zone barriers to rider turnout—that we need to solve to truly unlock this platform’s potential.

ZRS however, falls into a structural trap. The fundamental design flaw with this system is that they use the same metrics for classification (putting you in the right bucket) and reward (assigning points or prestige).

You cannot build a truly fair system when your “sorting hat” is also your “prize.”

When your categorization is tied to a reward, the incentive to “game” the system becomes irresistible. Riders will inevitably avoid certain races, pace themselves to manipulate their score, or shy away from women’s-only events because their “prize” might suffer. By linking the bucket you race in to the points you earn, both systems end up distorting rider behavior rather than simply facilitating fair, fun racing.

The “Invisibility” Tax

This goes beyond just racing categories. We have to talk about the “invisibility” tax that women pay on Zwift. When we steer women toward mixed-gender races because that’s where the “points” and the “critical mass” are, we aren’t advancing women’s esports—we’re hiding it.

When we tell women that the only way to gain prestige is to race in fields that are physiologically biased against them, we aren’t being inclusive. We are effectively capping their potential and forcing them to choose between ZRS points and a vibrant, women-only community.

Defining the Goal

We aren’t just looking for a better formula to categorize riders. We are looking for a system architecture that works for every rider, from those on Zwift to purely have fun, to the elite racer. To get there, we must solve for three core pillars:

• Physics-Adjusted Fairness: A system that accounts for the reality that absolute watts determine speed on the majority of courses on Zwift, while w/kg matters on the rare, steep gradients.
• Positive-Gain Participation: A system that rewards showing up and putting in the work, rather than penalizing riders for having an “off week.”
• An Open-Door Platform: A Zwift that isn’t just for the competitive niche, but one that welcomes the millions of everyday people who want a fun, social, and rewarding way to move their bodies.

This series won’t just offer one potential formula—it will define the architectural requirements for a system that works for every rider. We need to create a framework that finally separates categorization from reward, ensuring that the ‘sorting hat’ on Zwift is never the same thing as the ‘prize’ being pursued. Only then can we open the door to a truly sustainable, lifelong riding journey for everyone.

A Final Note: Building the Blueprint

I’ve realized that no single person—and certainly no single algorithm—can fix this. We need to look at this from every angle: physics, data science, behavioral psychology, and the lived experience of every rider.

Over the next six weeks, I’ll be laying out the architectural requirements for this new ecosystem, and I’m also here to recruit. I’m looking for a handful of community members who understand these systemic issues—people who want to collaborate on a formal proposal to Zwift. Together, we’ll build a blueprint for the future of virtual cycling by exploring:

• Article 2: The Positive-Gain Revolution – How to separate categorization from rewards.
• Article 3: The Great Disconnect – A system to make “time zones” and “low turnout” obsolete.
• Article 4: The Integrity Mandate – Defining the physics rules and age for a fair categorization system.
• Article 5: The Zwift Opportunity – Why this series is actually a blueprint for massive platform growth.

If that sounds like you, watch this space. We aren’t just writing a series; we’re drafting a blueprint for the future of virtual cycling on Zwift together.

 I will be at Zwift Community Live in Mallorca! When I’m back, we’re going to lay the foundation of this new vision—a “positive-gain” system that changes how we value every single ride.

---

What is the biggest barrier you face when you log on to Zwift? Is it the racing, the social experience, or just the feeling that the platform wasn’t designed with you in mind? Let’s talk in the comments.