March 2017

[Robyklebt]

Finally some time to listen all different inputs and make some modifications.

Times:
Don't think 12-13 are HATED. But think it's the wrong races to use them. February would have been ok other lesser races. But not TA or PN. If they are used more often from now on, get good numbers, then yes, even for GTs if they are strong enough... but they need to prove it first.

Now: Clearly better, but 16+19 missing. Historically 19 is a pretty strong, but very underrepresented time... 16 generally a bit weaker than 14-15, but did well lately, got offered a lot too. Why not change the whole thing somehow to get those 2 missing times in too? Easiest maybe Catalunya to 10-16-19-21-23... or the double thing, but there needs more thinking, more complicated.

Number of fields: 10 is a lot... but let's see, and hope it works.

Why not UCI categorization? Well, I think the question the other way around makes more sense. Why the UCI categorization? But ok, since you asked the other question, I'll answer that one.

- Because the UCI is a mess.
- Because we can make a better categorization. Easily.
- Because the UCI categorization is not just a categorization for points (as it is for us) but also regulating which teams are forced, allowed or not allowed to participate, something we don't have at RSF. So some races chose between 1.1 and 1.HC based on what kind of teams they hope to attract too

Mess.... see new WT races. they are in, sometimes without actually applying, see Frankfurt, according to the organizer there, they were asked, and just said yes. Of all the "new WT" races, one, Qatar, has already been cancelled (shows again how much work went into setting this "new WT races system" up) and one (Turkey) postponed. WT or PT teams are not required to participate in the "new WT" races. Points? It seems that the points for the new WT races won't be taken into account either when handing out WT/PT licences for teams for 2018. At least that's what was said sometime after the "new WT" races were announced. Maybe that changed again. Good luck finding information about anything on the UCI website btw And we were supposed to have 17 PT teams for 2017, but well, turns out 18 is better, so that was changed again. The UCI right now is just a complete mess, basically making things up as they go... You really think they can do a better job than we can (better than Poke, ok, I give you that, but it's closer than it should be)

Then, the UCI categorization. I can't get rid of the suspicion, that the great thinkers of RSF (everybody that disagrees with me basically), that keep demanding the UCI categorization in their quest for (cherry picked) reality at RSF don't actually know what they are demanding.

Tours: GTs-WT tours-new WT-HC-2.1-2.2
1 day races: Monuments-WT-new WT-HC-1.1-1.2
Easy, right? Wrong. What they are demanding is:

1 TdF
2 Giro+Vuelta
3 WT tours I
4 WT tours II
5 new WT tours
6 HC
7 2.1
8 2.2
Possibly a ninth category too, there's those U23 races as well. That''s for stage races.
For one day races it's simpler

1 WT races I
2 WT races II
3 new WT races
4 HC
5 1.1
6 1.2
And the possible seventh category.

And what is where is at times surprising too. In the UCI categorization at WT level (old WT, so that's where it's actually just a pure point differentation, nothing to do with participation) we have Catalunya, Pais Vasco, Eneco and Poland that give less points than the other week long races. Including Down Under. For us it's been 3 tours that give less points, Down Under, Poland and Eneco. I find our categorization better. But ok, you guys want UCI? Do we really want Down Under giving more points than Pais Vasco??? Or is that another case for the cherry picked reality, when well, it's just all WT, all the same points? In the name of "reality"?

The classification for one day races is even more hilarious. 5 monuments? Forget it, the top 9 races are worth exactly the same. Next to the 5 monuments we find Gent Wevelgem, Amstel Gold Race and 2 more. Mmh, Flèche and San Sebastian? No, sorry, it's Québec and Montréal. Yep, Grand Prix Cycliste de Québec is worth the same as Paris-Roubaix and more than the Flèche Wallone. I've been more of a supporter than a critic of the 2 new Canadian races, I think it's high time they get category 5 at RSF, or that Plouay and Hamburg get downgraded to 4, because those 4 races are pretty damn similar in their worth, but even I wouldn't think it's a good idea to have them at the same level as the monuments. Once again, I think having 5 monuments on top, then cat 5, then cat 4 which includes HC (but no need to include all, case by case) is clearly a superior system.
At least this seems to be the system. Kind of remember reading that from 2017 on all "old" WT races would be worth the same, but that seems not to be the case anymore. Since it's too hard for me finding anything for 2017 on the UCI site, finally I just trusted Wikipedia.

So, that's why following the UCI is not a good idea. But now tell me why it would be a good idea.

[Pokemon Club]

And ? If the rules are like that and if we can technically do that, they have no reason that we don't follow that. Even if UCI is a mess. Else if it is senseless to have Roubaix = Quebec = TDU, if you must win 500 points by winning it take your 500 points. It doesn't change the fact that people will feel more pride to win Roubaix than Quebec. It won't change the fact they win a Monument, they will just win more/less points for a classification which maybe lose its interest nowaday.
And about allowed / not allowed participation, div 1-5 / 5-7 option exist for that.

[Rasmussen]

And ? If the rules are like that and if we can technically do that, they have no reason that we don't follow that. Even if UCI is a mess. Else if it is senseless to have Roubaix = Quebec = TDU, if you must win 500 points by winning it take your 500 points. It doesn't change the fact that people will feel more pride to win Roubaix than Quebec. It won't change the fact they win a Monument, they will just win more/less points for a classification which maybe lose its interest nowaday.
And about allowed / not allowed participation, div 1-5 / 5-7 option exist for that.

Since when do we follow every rule of the UCI? SOme rules just make no sense and we have the freedom to make it better for example is the tour more worth than Giro and Vuelta and we have the same category for years. I have some more examples if needed. So we can discuss the category of DDV but if your only argument is that the UCI revalues the race it's not really an argument. In my opinion category 4 is fine for the same reasons as Donkey.

I think 10 fields are too much for P-N and T-A. Today they are 10 races and just 2 fields have 10 or more teams. That's not enough for a big race like T-A or P-N. So I would suggest 8 times or maybe 9.

[Robyklebt]

Actually the Donkey would clearly prefer 3 for DDV, but can live with 4.

PS: should we delete all female riders too? Reality, UCI rules you know.

[Rasmussen]

Actually the Donkey would clearly prefer 3 for DDV, but can live with 4.

PS: should we delete all female riders too? Reality, UCI rules you know.

3 or 4 both acceptable in my opinion.

If DDV would be cat 4, that would lead (or birng us back) the next big problem. It makes no sense that DDV is the same category like half the cobbles fantasy races in the offseason. But that's another subject we have to work on...off season and fantasy in general should be max cat. 2.

[Liquigas-CND]

Dear Luques,

It seem that having 5 fields/day for Tirreno and Paris Nimes it's a mistake.

As expected and told you the tour scheduled to start 2nd has weak participation..

Tirreno 11H - 6 teams
Tirreno 15H - 5 teams
Tirreno 19H --- lets see
.....

[luques]

Instead I think that the experiment is working great.

I wait the night to see the full picture but I don't think that with 2 fields less the picture would be much better. Instead all fields at the moment are playable, every hour had the opportunity to choose between two tours that are much different and that are the most important after GTs.

[Liquigas-CND]

How can you call it a decent experiment ?

There are 3 fields with weak or very week participation... 5 , 6 , respectively 4 teams in the late evening...

Sorry to say that but you started to have the same atitude as poke!

You are the boss and you know better!



2 tours in parallel each with 5 fields is too much! It's a fucking disaster but you don't see !!!

[sgumgub]

Mhhhh,
while I totally believe that Liquis words are exaggerated and a bit harsh, if not attacking, I also dislike the fact that we think 4-6 team-fields are good or even "GREAT" o.O
Not saying the experiment flopped, not at all. But please dont get that attitude that those numbers are to be called great

[Robyklebt]

91 teams for 8 editions last year, 88 for 10 this year. The 2 editions more most likely gave us a few extra teams. Despite that less teams than a year ago. But that doesn't make it a complete failure.
And while I would have gone with 8 editions most likely, in the end I think Luques 10 decision was the right one. The reason? People like the guy with the nickname that reminds me of scumbag (not calling him that, so not an insult, let me keep my money, thanks) who aren't interested in anything but their own advantage, who would be whining and yelling for ages if their holy morning, the time with the MOST teams (numbers say otherwise, but what are numbers, pff he said it's a fact, so it is, maybe we should call him wannabe Trump) would have to make with only one edition either now or later in June during the TdS/Dauphiné thing. If there are less editions, all times (with the exception of the main evening) have to make sacrifices. Basic stuff.
As long as certain people aren't ready to accept that it's not always OTHER times that have to make a sacrifice, but that the sacrifice should be shared, but then come here and whine if there are too many editions, we won't get anything achieved. What the guy mentioned before here basically is doing is: He complains that the afternoon and the early evening got 2 editions. He's made it clear that he thinks the morning should never be cut, only other times. Disgusting behaviour.

So, in the end to keep the whining and even more pointless discussions (than this one) at a minimum, offer everything to everybody is the way to go. Unless people start realizing that less editions doesn't mean less editions for other times.

[sgumgub]

The world your are living in has to be great and colorful. Kind of jealous to be honest. But it is definitely not the reality

But anyway, if you need to use lies and lay things in my mouth that I never said, then I guess I can be satisfied because you dont have any more arguments. ok with me

[Robyklebt]

Oh, if that's not what you think, as you claim, then why aren't you able to actually post what you think?

[Liquigas-CND]

Why every single time when I write something the same person has to respond with a long message containing almost always contradictory ideas?!
As sgumgub said, this guy / lady is living in a great and colorful world otherwise there is no other explanation for vomiting such phrases...

In addition he / she is just trying to say something which is completely in opposition with what I say which does not bother me but just makes me laugh.

I know this kind of behaviour is specific to persons suffering from mental disorders or to very frustrated persons but I am not saying he/she is suffering suffering from mental disorders or he/she is frustrated (you all know that i am not insulting).

Sleep tight have a silent night!

[Robyklebt]

I'm male, Liquigas, you know it, I told you. So all you're trying to do, once again is provoke. Why? Because I dared post something in the fairness forum when I thought what you did was unfair. Live with it, try to stay fair during races and stop bothering me with your behaviour that is very indicative of not only mental disorders but also paedophilia, necrophilia and high blood pressure. Very very sick stuff (But of course I'm not saying that you are a paedophile, necrophiliac or have a mental disorder, or god beware, have a high blood pressure. So no insult)

Stay on topic, try it at least. No need to start personal attacks when somebody disagrees with you. Like Luques did. You then immediately compared him to Pokemon, if that's not an insult, I don't know what could be an insult.

Topic 10 races or 8. It was 10, not a catastrophe like could be feared, not a huge success either. But with the whinestorm one could expect from Sgum and maybe others if the the morning was cut, which would have happened either in March or then in June.... easier to offer all.

btw, you seem to suffer from a persecution complex, I can show you how it would be if I posted something with contradictory ideas after each time you post, if you want. Although your ideas usually are more of the "butter is a milk product" kind, rather boring and basic stuff, if you request it, I can persecute you a bit.

[luques]

Actually I think that cutting fields is not something good, but something necessary (unfortunately) to make good groups.

Why I think it was positive?

Different factors. Actually by analyzing it:

- The time with less players was 24h (only 4), it was also the only time of the day (23-24) that had only one tour running, maybe 23h better than 24h especially because Tirreno stages are long, but less than this we can't.

- Other times with less players are the morning and the afternoon, with 6 and 5, both not big, true, but in my opinion with a number of teams enough to make the tour funny/playable and with the big pro that everybody had a tour to choose (considering also the importance of the tours).

- Other times are fine.

So basically in a 4+4 or 5+4 what had to be cut was morning or afternoon, and I don't think that the advantage was big enough to make the cut.
-

[CircleCycle]

Catalunya...
profiles are out, i started to draw stage 1 today.

[Rasmussen]

This discussion we had for years. Always when they are two big races parallel like P-N/T-A or Dauphiné/TDS. So accusing the others for doing everything wrong wont help us to find the best solution.

More than 10 editions in my opinion are senseless and I think nearly everybody agrees because we all like peloton with more than 4 or 5 teams. So we're talking about 10 or less editions.

My suggestion would be to observe in the next weeks with parallel tours (Pais Vasco/Sarthe, Turkey/Trentino or Romandie/yorkshire)(Of course not perfect comparable because one race is less important) which times are the least frequented and then cut this time for TDS and Dauphiné and testing their with 9 editions. Like that we have almost every starting time and maybe have more teams per race. For the moment it looks like 11:00 (6 teams), 15:00 (5) and 24:00 (4) have the lowest teams (maybe not correct cos they overall are less teams in T-A than P-N for some reason). If the result looks the same the next time we have parallel tours, we cut one of these times for the TDS/Dauphiné.

So. Now everybody can call me an idiot or dislike my suggestion....but I just wanted to say my opinion.

[Robyklebt]

You're an idiot and I dislike your suggestion! Happy? (Probably now Liquigas thinks I'm talking about him again.... he thinks his username reminds me of scumbag But he doesn't have a perscution complex, really!!!)

Anyway, this observing thing is not fully convincing... PV Sarthe, do we even need Sarthe?... Ok ok, we do, but IMO 8 is enough. PV 5, 3 Sarthe. And that already changes the numbers, let's say the afternoon and late evening don't get Sarthe, Normally their numbers for PV then should be slightly higher than they would be with Sarthe. Same as would have happened if we only had 8 times for PN-TA. No PN at 14 the Donkey for example would have changed to TA 15. Thus helping to make 15h a stronger time than it is now. The numbers you'll get will be skewed, less options around the same time, more participation.
Turkey Trentino won't even happen, since Turkey has been postponed. And even if, that's 4+4 as an absolute max again. Possibly less since we have FW in parallel. But ok, won't happen anyway.
Romandie Yorkshire the same. 5+3 seems logic.

Of course look at the numbers, but making the few parallel tours before that some sort of qualification round won't necessarily work either. A time might be popular for one time of stage race, not for another etc.

But my biggest problem with 9 is: 5 Dauphiné 4 TdS? 5 TdS 4 Dauphiné?
4+4 or 5+5 better I think. If 4+4 obviously 2 times will lose something, let the fight start.

Ah, and since we are under new management I will just repeat my demand that the Vuelta only be offered in the afternoon this year, to make up for the scandalous short term cancellation of the afternoon Vuelta in 2009!

[Rasmussen]

Of course not the best solution. But I dont like status quo and the discussions continues endless...so we should try something and I do like compromises so I suggest 4 + 5 editions instead of 8 or 10.

I dont care if we have 5 Tour de Suisses or 5 Dauphiné. Maybe we just take a look at last years editions and give the race more who had more participants last year. 46 TDS vs. 40 Dauphiné in 2016 but with 4 editions each. Hmmmmm.

[luques]

MSR, Harelbeke and Gent Wev, just for division 1-5? (not that there is much under that...)

[Robyklebt]

IMO just MSR is enough.
1) With the few users we have.. only cat 6 restricted makes sense
2) So far it was kind of different for every cat 5.. .some restricted (Amstel), some not (Fleche). Probably those on the weekend were restricted? Somehow doesn't make much sense.
3) Especially in the case of E3 and GW seems like an own goal to restrict it. There's Catalunya parallel!

[luques]

MSR still doesn't provide full info on altimetry and so on. Anyway the track looks the same of last year.

Just a question left so... Poggio 5-4-3 or 4-4-3? Imo, relooking all this after one year the 4-4-3 looks the best option. Poggio is 3.7% of media, with 5-4-3 you have a 4%, with 4-4-3 a 3.666% .Moreover it should also be something like 4-4-3-2.

[Alkworld]

MSR still doesn't provide full info on altimetry and so on. Anyway the track looks the same of last year.

Just a question left so... Poggio 5-4-3 or 4-4-3? Imo, relooking all this after one year the 4-4-3 looks the best option. Poggio is 3.7% of media, with 5-4-3 you have a 4%, with 4-4-3 a 3.666% .Moreover it should also be something like 4-4-3-2.

Check out http://www.salite.ch/poggio1.asp?mappa=
If that profile is correct, then it's 4.7, 3.7, 3.7, 2.8, rising 149m in total, so you could argue for quite a few options, depending if the focus is on 1) actual altitude at each km 2) the spirit of the climb or 3) making it realistic in the game:
5-3-4-3
5-4-3-3
4-4-4-3
(maybe even more)

[Liquigas-CND]

This is going to be tricky...

If you put a 5% then the chances for a sprinter with 55+ mountain but less than 60 mountain to win this race are almost zero, after 280 KM of race...

If you dont put a 5% then i think reall classics with sprint are not favos...

It depends what do you want:)

[Robyklebt]

Ignore Liquigas, he has no clue what he's talking about. As usual really. 55-59 mountain no chance if there is a 5? Yeah, right. Best ignored.
[/persecuteWhinygas]

But don't only concentrate on the Poggio, look at the Cipressa too, 2 very different versions in the last 2 years.
Weird that the Gazzetta doesn't seem to publish the details this year...

Here a link from 2010, http://www.gazzetta.it/grandeciclismo/m ... _ukm.shtml
The climbs haven't changed, only the part after the Poggio downhill, so for the climb still correct.
A 5 or no 5 in the Poggio...

A 5 can make some riders drop, so it simulates it better than a 4. Since in reality riders are dropped in the Poggio. BUT, at RSF I think there's never been a single rider dropped at the 5 in the Poggio (ok, caught escapes). Why? The selection is done in the Cipressa, those sprinters that would risk being dropped in the Poggio are already dropped in the Cipressa, and don't get back usually. And if they do, they then hang on in the Poggio. So actually 4 or 5 in the Poggio at RSF is pretty irrelevant. 5 favors attackers a bit more, that's about it. 4 seems closer than reality, I trust the Gazzetta profiles more than the salite one to be honest.

More interested in the Cipressa actually, the version from last year isn't really convincing I think. 5.7 km up, from 5 to 239, so 230 meters (or 240) How?
2-5-4-6-4-2? The first 2 for the first 200-300 meters that are clearly steeper
5-4-6-4-2-2? The 2 for the last +/-400 that are less steep in reality?