MECHANICS: Increase Climbing Rating Importance for Races with Significant Climbs
Summary:
When calculating event ratings for races that include categorized climbs (Cat 4, Cat 3, Cat 2, Cat 1, or HC), the algorithm should place substantially more weight on a rider's climbing rating rather than relying heavily on TT and Endurance ratings. This would create more balanced competition in hilly/mountainous races.
Problem:
Currently, the event rating system appears to favor Time Trial and Endurance abilities in any longer race, even in races with significant climbing. This leads to several issues: Climbers with lower overall ratings but strong climbing abilities are placed in lower pens than appropriate. Larger/heavier riders with strong TT/Endurance ratings are placed in higher pens despite climbing limitations. Race predictions become inaccurate (predicting top-5 finishes for riders who realistically can't achieve this on climbs). Some riders avoid climbing-heavy races due to poor pen placement.
Proposed Solution:
While I understand some weighting already exists, I propose a more substantial emphasis on climbing rating. Significantly increase the importance of climbing rating whenever a race includes categorized climbs. Use the established climb categorization formula (distance × gradient²) to determine how much weight to give climbing ability:
600+ points – hors catégorie
300-600 points – 1st category
150-300 points – 2nd category
75-150 points – 3rd category
Up to 75 points – 4th category
I would advocate that races with a cat 3 or higher climb, climbing rating should be the primary or sole factor. Any race with a cat 4 climb it should still be the primary factor.
Example: The first climb in the Marathon route: 9.9km long and gradient of 5.7%. (9.95.75.7)=321 or Category 1
Benefits:
More accurate race predictions and event ratings. Improved racing experience as riders compete against others with similar climbing abilities. More participation in climbing-focused events. Better bot selection for riders to train and race with.
For races with multiple climbs, the cumulative impact should be considered when determining how heavily to weight climbing ability in the event rating.
-
Skyler Sopp commented
I think the fact that Ludvig was seeded #2 when there were two steep climbs is a strong indication that something is wrong with the climb metrics. Ludvig is incredibly strong in a sprint, but he’d agree that 2nd was being very generous with the course profile in stage 4 of the Spring 2025 GT
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1P9jLpeodxXxcZeI1N_35x7Tx7NcIpn-2CMs3qDdFFYg/htmlview#
-
Sontian commented
As one of those bigger riders, climbing is absolutely the decisive factor in a bunch of these races. I admittedly do tend to skip races with significant climbs because I'll get absolutely shelled on the climb in the pen I'm assigned.
-
Jamie Bishop commented
I do think it’s all a bit skewed at the moment and not even sure of an event where climb rating does affect line up. Other than very flat races climbing ability will almost always split the race, which is fine but then the rating should be reflected in this. It’s a critical for me.
-
Skyler Sopp commented
Great idea - thanks Ryan! A “critical” from me!
-
Ryan Yates commented
Well... thanks!
-
Christophe Contant commented
I don't understand all but i trust in you mate