So now cat 4 is also beginners category?

The irony in this post is extraordinary. I have just shown that I am right and you still pretend that I am wrong? You must live in quite the fantasy world.

Aww what a lovely circle jerk you two got going on.

Alright. Well, ZHVelo has established himself as a resident of trollville.

Have fun with that.

You proved that you're right by showing that a broad-strokes power: weight chart has him in the ballpark of beginners? :foo:

rubik: "It's at a beginner level, which fits, since you're a beginner."

Also rubik: "At USA Cycling races, riders typically start at the beginner level(category 5) and work their way up the ranks with upgrade points."

This guy has literally just started cycling and has no prior endurance background. And yet rubik references competitive cycling. But ok, let's go with that. He then referenced cat 5 as being the beginner category (how many beginners are there and how many because they simply aren't better?) and then I linked a table showing despite being a complete beginner to cycling, this dude is already above the cat 5 category.

Not to mention the entire claim is ridiculous anyway. How many non-beginners are at 3.21 w/kg or below? He could have said amateur, or low or medium or whatever, but 3.21 is neither a beginner level by racing category w/kg estimate (yes, since he has never raced he would still be in cat 5 and probably get dropped because he has no tactics but that is a separate matter) nor is there any meaning attached to calling it beginner level in a general sense. In fact, that would imply more advanced cyclists are above that level, and yet so many are even below it (according to this, 39%, that's an awful lot). The statement '3.21w/kg is beginner level' makes very little sense in and of itself.

Then rubik's statement that I am out of my depth - in what way? This discussion has very little to do with cycling. You can have it purely based on the numbers. You could even argue beginner level is higher than that - if you consider crossover athletes, e.g. rowers or skiiers, when they become beginner cyclists they are very likely to have a lot higher FTP given their aerobic capacities.

Thanks for welcoming me Mr. Mayor.

:lol:

Cool story.

It is... if you know the story.

Not what I meant.

Look I have no idea how the cats work and maybe all are beginners in cat 5 and then automatically move up after a certain number of races. Doesn't' matter. You responded to everything I wrote with an emoji about one irrelevant part. And that says everything.

We know.

And that is completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion. As I said, the fact that you are so hung up about that sole fact and ignore everything, says it all.

Just read a little - it's not getting better for you and your bum buddy. Everyone starts in cat 5 and you need 10 races to move up - that implies even someone with a > 4.0 w/kg ftp will be in cat 5 to start with. So would you say 4.0w/kg is a beginner's ftp? Do you now see how irrelevant the cats are to the question posed in the OP?

This reminds me of the time when I raced Cherry Pie as a Cat 5. Nate English lapped the field. He was a little older than the OP as he had just graduated from Cal, where he ran XC. By the end of the summer, he had promoted to Cat 1. The next season he signed a pro contract. I was still a 5.

Very few people had power meters back then but I have a suspicion that his FTP was over 3.2 w/kg.

Someone with a XC background reminds you of the OP who has no endurance background? Odd.

Read more.

No, the point was that everyone's first race is in Cat 5. As I recall, he was upgraded before the normally mandatory 10 races.

I will if you reply to the rest i wrote and show me that the statement does in fact make sense.

This thread (and the recent one in General Cycling, damn you, WhyFi ) remind me to be glad not to check into Bikeforums too frequently.

You're just asking to be @'ed more frequently, ain't ya?

;)

The only accurate and sensible thing he's said in this entire thing!

Yes Mr. Mayor tell us more about your amazing insights.

Wrong. Again. He referenced it first. You've ignored his quote.

In these ways:


This wouldn't be nearly as comical if you weren't snowballing your mistakes into even bigger mistakes, but you go from decrying the association with bike racing to then admitting you know nothing about bike racing while trying to argue against bike racing! It's hilarious.

The doubling and tripling down on their ignorance is what makes so many posters on this site so entertaining. And you're the big winner this week!

There's no "us", here. There's just you parading about showcasing how you don't know what you don't know, don't know what you think you know, and don't know what you're asserting you know.

Tables have nothing to do with bike racing or the category in which you race. There may be averages that may be descriptive of certain aspects of categories, but neither race results nor categories are based on tables.

Much like FTP!

Which is kind of the ironic point that you and the OP both miss. But he's a beginner, so that's fine. You're just ignorant and arguing about something you don't understand.