March 2017

[luques]

March 2017

http://www.cycling4freaks.com/radsport/march2017.pdf

March

01 Mar 17 Le Samyn 1.1
04 Mar 17 Strade Bianche 1.UWT
05-12 Mar 17 Paris-Nice 2.UWT
05 Mar 17 Dwars door West-Vlaanderen Johan Museeuw Classic 1.1
05 Mar 17 GP Industria & Artigianato 1.HC
08-14 Mar 17 Tirreno-Adriatico 2.UWT
11 Mar 17 Ronde van Drenthe 1.1
15 Mar 17 Danilith - Nokere Koerse 1.HC
17 Mar 17 Handzame Classic 1.1
18 Mar 17 Classic Loire Atlantique 1.1
18 Mar 17 Milano-Sanremo 1.UWT
20-26 Mar 17 Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2.UWT
22 Mar 17 Dwars door Vlaanderen / A travers les Flandres 1.UWT
23-26 Mar 17 Settimana Internazionale Coppi e Bartali 2.1
24 Mar 17 Record Bank E3 Harelbeke 1.UWT
26 Mar 17 Gent-Wevelgem in Flanders Fields 1.UWT
26-30 Mar 17 Tour de Taiwan 2.1
28-30 Mar 17 Driedaagse De Panne-Koksijde 2.HC
31 Mar 17 Route Adélie de Vitré

ONLINE, MUST BE DRAWED OR CHECKED(WHEN PROFILE STILL THE SAME)
NOT ONLINE
NEW VERSION DRAWED
AT WORK
DELETE OR POSTPONED
SAME TRACK AS 2016

[Pokemon Club]

GP E3 same than last year it looks

[Robyklebt]

Unhappy Donkey.

Paris-Nice and Tirreno Adriatico..... a short history: In 2013, the end of the golden age it seems, we had 5 editions each, all good
2014 the problems start, 9 editions 9-11-15-17-18-20-21-22-23
2015 9 editions again, ,the same 9 times
2016: 8 editions, 9-11-15-18-20-21-22-24

So, 3 years, 3 times the afternoon gets only 1 time. The late evening the same. Ok, only 9 editions, somebody has to suffer, understood. The problem is: It's the same times for the past 3 years.

And in the second similar situation in June, Dauphiné and TdS it's the same. The same principle

2014: 8 editions, 9-11-15-17-19-20-21-23
2015: 8 editions, 9-10-15-17-19-20-21-22
2016: 8 editions, 9-10-14-17-19-20-21-23

Again, 3 years in a row the afternoon gets only 1. The late evening once even cut out completely, 0

But this year everything will be ok, after all we have 5 editions each!
9-11-13-15-17-18-20-21-22-23

Yep, correct. Afternoon only 1, late evening only one. Why why why why always the same shit?
Where are the numbers showing that the morning or the early evening are THAT much stronger than the afternoon or the late evening?

The first question IMO is 8 or 10? Are we strong enough again for 10? Most likely not... the worst year is over I think, that was 2014 (or 15?) after that there was a slight recovery and now it's pretty much stable, maybe slightly slightly down this year? Don't know, you tell me. Or get your retard assistant to do something useful for once and research the numbers for January-February 2016 compared to 17. Probably we're too weak for 10, but not by much. And if it's 89 teams for 8 times (seems to have been that number last year) it might go up to 94 or so for 10 times. So 11 teams per race vs 9.. doable.

Anyway, if it's 10, morning (9-11), afternoon (14-16), early evening (17-19) evening (20-22) all deserve 2 times. Then 1 or 2 for the late evening (23-24) Logic would say 2: 23-24, or if the numbers suggest that that would be too much, then 22-24, meaning 3 for the evening.
An edition at 13h? Why not...... for unimportant stuff. Would have been good to have in February, for one of the countless tours we have. But not for an important category 4 race. And especially not if it means taking away a time for the afternoon, who has had one edition cut already for the past 3 years.

8 might be safer, and if it's 8, that means most likely it should be 8 for June too. (Not fix, if you make it 8 now, but then the numbers increase dramatically, going to 10 in June would be no problem obviously) Which would mean: morning, afternoon, early evening, late evening all lose one edition. And, since it seems to be instinct for people responsible for the calendar to cut the afternoon, best NOT to cut it in March. So you can live out your instincts in June.... otherwise you might cut it twice by mistake..

So, 8 or 10?
If it's 10:
9-11-14-16-18-19-20-21-23-24 a proposal, not the only possibility, but better than what we have now
If it's 8
10-14-16-18-20-21-23-24 So cut the morning and early evening. Those 2 can start with the being cut in important race this year.

[sgumgub]

Unhappy Donkey.

Paris-Nice and Tirreno Adriatico..... a short history: In 2013, the end of the golden age it seems, we had 5 editions each, all good
2014 the problems start, 9 editions 9-11-15-17-18-20-21-22-23
2015 9 editions again, ,the same 9 times
2016: 8 editions, 9-11-15-18-20-21-22-24

So, 3 years, 3 times the afternoon gets only 1 time. The late evening the same. Ok, only 9 editions, somebody has to suffer, understood. The problem is: It's the same times for the past 3 years.

And in the second similar situation in June, Dauphiné and TdS it's the same. The same principle

2014: 8 editions, 9-11-15-17-19-20-21-23
2015: 8 editions, 9-10-15-17-19-20-21-22
2016: 8 editions, 9-10-14-17-19-20-21-23

Again, 3 years in a row the afternoon gets only 1. The late evening once even cut out completely, 0

But this year everything will be ok, after all we have 5 editions each!
9-11-13-15-17-18-20-21-22-23

Yep, correct. Afternoon only 1, late evening only one. Why why why why always the same shit?
Where are the numbers showing that the morning or the early evening are THAT much stronger than the afternoon or the late evening?

The first question IMO is 8 or 10? Are we strong enough again for 10? Most likely not... the worst year is over I think, that was 2014 (or 15?) after that there was a slight recovery and now it's pretty much stable, maybe slightly slightly down this year? Don't know, you tell me. Or get your retard assistant to do something useful for once and research the numbers for January-February 2016 compared to 17. Probably we're too weak for 10, but not by much. And if it's 89 teams for 8 times (seems to have been that number last year) it might go up to 94 or so for 10 times. So 11 teams per race vs 9.. doable.

Anyway, if it's 10, morning (9-11), afternoon (14-16), early evening (17-19) evening (20-22) all deserve 2 times. Then 1 or 2 for the late evening (23-24) Logic would say 2: 23-24, or if the numbers suggest that that would be too much, then 22-24, meaning 3 for the evening.
An edition at 13h? Why not...... for unimportant stuff. Would have been good to have in February, for one of the countless tours we have. But not for an important category 4 race. And especially not if it means taking away a time for the afternoon, who has had one edition cut already for the past 3 years.

8 might be safer, and if it's 8, that means most likely it should be 8 for June too. (Not fix, if you make it 8 now, but then the numbers increase dramatically, going to 10 in June would be no problem obviously) Which would mean: morning, afternoon, early evening, late evening all lose one edition. And, since it seems to be instinct for people responsible for the calendar to cut the afternoon, best NOT to cut it in March. So you can live out your instincts in June.... otherwise you might cut it twice by mistake..

So, 8 or 10?
If it's 10:
9-11-14-16-18-19-20-21-23-24 a proposal, not the only possibility, but better than what we have now
If it's 8
10-14-16-18-20-21-23-24 So cut the morning and early evening. Those 2 can start with the being cut in important race this year.

So cut a morning time to get another afternoon one? Sorry, no. That has already been done in february and I was not the only one complaining.
I mean even if...ok. You made your points. About more afternoon, less morning. Then someone like me comes and says 2 morning, cut another one.
Thats no argumentation. Its stupid. Clear numbers should be shown, how many race at what time divided by the number of times available for that slot or sth like that.

your argumentation about 8 or 10 is ok, constructive even. But ending with the solution to cut a time during the morning and give it to your favourite afternoon is just crying and screaming like a baby.

I would also welcome a fair share of the times by the way. But in the end, it depends on real numbers, not subjective wäääh, wäääh

[Robyklebt]

Now try to argue without insulting, without misreprenting what I wrote (after quoting the whole thing too)

[Bear]

I am not into this subject too much but I think the typical afternoon time (14-16 in Europe) could have more options for PN or TA. But I dont have the numbers... 13h always is strange to me outside of holidays because a lot of younger lads are still at school or on the way back. Recently I posted sth like... make a pre-inscription where teams can subscribe for 3 times (example). Then there will be several numbers end of the month...

by the way... what about the early birds? Why not start a race at 6:00 or 7:00 h?

[sgumgub]

Now try to argue without insulting, without misreprenting what I wrote (after quoting the whole thing too)

Roby, I would love to be able to talk normally with you, but as long as you dont even try it, its hard. By the way, where did I insult? The baby thing? I apologize, if that was offending.
But you said you would need real numbers to make a good statement and yes still suggested to cut a morning time and get an afternoon time. I cant find the logic there, sorry.

I am not into this subject too much but I think the typical afternoon time (14-16 in Europe) could have more options for PN or TA. But I dont have the numbers... 13h always is strange to me outside of holidays because a lot of younger lads are still at school or on the way back. Recently I posted sth like... make a pre-inscription where teams can subscribe for 3 times (example). Then there will be several numbers end of the month...

by the way... what about the early birds? Why not start a race at 6:00 or 7:00 h?

I like this idea A LOT. But problems I see are:
a)how many already know if they can ride there a month before/ bother to take the time for it?
b)it would need a stepped down choice rather than an absolute. Just because you prefer a time does not mean you could still ride at other times.

But generally I agree sth like this would be helpful

[Liquigas-CND]

Well, I believe we should first decide what do we want!
Do we really need 10 fields extremely bad distributed during the day... i think we will have at least 2 fields with less than five teams each...
PN : 9' 13' 17' 21' 23'
Tirreno : 11' 15' 18' 20' 22'

I believe we should have 8 fields as Big Donkey proposed + 4 fields of the 1 day races (considering the participation is important after 20' the following starting hrs should be ok.. 10-14-16-18-20-21-23-24

I have just checked the statistics for this month and we have about 100-110 teams with at least 8-9 races ridden during this February (teams with less than 8 races until now most probably ride one day races) meaning that with a total of 12 fields /day we should have a decent average of teams in the tours:
- 6-7 teams in the morning
-mabe 8-10 teams in the afternoon
-maybe 10-12 teams after 20H

With 10 fields for PN and Tirreno and 4 more fields for one day races and considering that usually there are more participants in the tour starting first...
I think all these will lead to very bad participation in Tirreno...

Let's not make the competition even weaker and keep only 8 fields for PN and Tirreno!

[Liquigas-CND]

Furthermore please let us know who is deciding the number starting times and the time for each tour ?

And how the decisions are taken?

It would be nice to have answers prior 25 February.

Thank you,

[Bear]

Now try to argue without insulting, without misreprenting what I wrote (after quoting the whole thing too)

Roby, I would love to be able to talk normally with you, but as long as you dont even try it, its hard. By the way, where did I insult? The baby thing? I apologize, if that was offending.
But you said you would need real numbers to make a good statement and yes still suggested to cut a morning time and get an afternoon time. I cant find the logic there, sorry.

I am not into this subject too much but I think the typical afternoon time (14-16 in Europe) could have more options for PN or TA. But I dont have the numbers... 13h always is strange to me outside of holidays because a lot of younger lads are still at school or on the way back. Recently I posted sth like... make a pre-inscription where teams can subscribe for 3 times (example). Then there will be several numbers end of the month...

by the way... what about the early birds? Why not start a race at 6:00 or 7:00 h?

I like this idea A LOT. But problems I see are:
a)how many already know if they can ride there a month before/ bother to take the time for it?
b)it would need a stepped down choice rather than an absolute. Just because you prefer a time does not mean you could still ride at other times.

But generally I agree sth like this would be helpful

a) I think a lot of people know that already because they have there daily routine (work, school, whatever)

b) maybe give the option to select 3-5 times... with option "works 100% for me", "could maybe work for me" or whatever

[Pokemon Club]

And DDV is at least a cat 4 !

[team fl]

And DDV is at least a cat 4 !

At least? I has been cat. 3 for at least the last 5 years...

[Alkworld]

And DDV is at least a cat 4 !

At least? I has been cat. 3 for at least the last 5 years...

And now UCI upgraded it to World Tour. So I'd say it's reasonable to have the same category like GPs in Quebec and Montréal.

[team fl]

And DDV is at least a cat 4 !

At least? I has been cat. 3 for at least the last 5 years...

And now UCI upgraded it to World Tour. So I'd say it's reasonable to have the same category like GPs in Quebec and Montréal.

Sure. You give a decent explanation "at least". He didn't

[Pokemon Club]

And DDV is at least a cat 4 !

At least? I has been cat. 3 for at least the last 5 years...

And now UCI upgraded it to World Tour. So I'd say it's reasonable to have the same category like GPs in Quebec and Montréal.

Sure. You give a decent explanation "at least". He didn't

Give an explanation ? It is write in the first message that DDV is a WT this year !

[Robyklebt]

DDV category 3 is fine. "Upgraded" like Qatar (then cancelled) Turkey (seems to have enormous problems to get the WT teams coming). Ok, that's stage races.
One day races:
- Cadel Evans was cat 3. Same upgrade. Went from 9 WT teams to 13. Stayed cat 3
- Strade Bianche: Same upgrade. cat 4 for us. Correct IMO. In its short history it gained a lot of prestige. And probably should have been upgraded to RSF cat 4 even if it didn't enter this "WT without really being WT" club of races. SEems all 18 PT Teams will start btw. If the thing on procylingstats is correct
-DDV: It's what it is... A preparation race for RVV. And with E3 gaining in importance a lot in the last years, DDV has lost importance. Simply because they are so close together, the big stars concentrate on E3. DDV has been more and more for the second row. And that won't change much with this new WT but nor really WT status. 16 of 18 WT teams there it seems. So not bad. But how will the teams look? We don't really know.

Cat 3 looks fine. Cat 4 wouldn't be a scandal either.

Same level as Quebec and Montreal? Actually Hamburg and Plouay should be same level as Quebec and Montreal... be it cat 5 or better cat 4!



PS. Poke, seriously. And you wonder why you keep getting attacked? It's not because people hate you, it's because you simply seem unable to argue coherently. Your answer to FL is not an answer that can be taken seriously. You wrote "AT LEAST". That means 4, 5 or 6. Saying it's WT doesn't explain why you think that cat 5 might be ok too (and this at least implies that that's what you think) "It's WT" explains cat 4. But that's not what FL was actually asking, he was asking about AT LEAST.

[Pokemon Club]

PS. Poke, seriously. And you wonder why you keep getting attacked? It's not because people hate you, it's because you simply seem unable to argue coherently. Your answer to FL is not an answer that can be taken seriously. You wrote "AT LEAST". That means 4, 5 or 6. Saying it's WT doesn't explain why you think that cat 5 might be ok too (and this at least implies that that's what you think) "It's WT" explains cat 4. But that's not what FL was actually asking, he was asking about AT LEAST.

New topic about the next season. I think that something between 95% are registered now so looks the good time to do that.
I checked the races on UCI database (http://fr.uci.ch/road/calendar/), there are a lot of new World Tour races, so it can be nice if we know the sooner how we categorize them.
Could be nice too to avoid the usual debates we have to know which tours we ride when there is a lot of races in parallel.

I simulate a calendar so, for the moment looks the most logical for me.

C4F Calendar 2017 Proposition.xlsx

Real season start with People Choice's Classic and end with the new chinese WT (if it appears from 2017) or Japan Cup/Herbiers
About the number of riders, I think we have too much races with 9 riders. I think we should use 9 only for World Tour races, so all .HC and .1 races with 8 riders maximum.
About the categories of the races I make it like that :
Cat 6: Monuments (Ex: MSR, RVV...)
Cat 5: WT Classics, GTs (Ex: GP E3, Quebec, Giro,...)
Cat 4: New WT Classics + WT Tours (Ex: Cadel Evans, TDU, Paris-Nice,...)
Cat 3: HC Classics + HC Tours + New WT Tours (ex: Laigueglia, Qatar, Turkey,...)
Cat 2: 1.1 and 2.1 races (Ex: Bessèges, Murcia, GP de Wallonie, Ster ZLM,...)
Cat 1: 1.2 and 2.2 races + fantasy races (Ex: People Choice's, Filipinas, GP Izola,...)

I don't put more than 2 tours at the same time. Higher categories have the priorities.
In my opinion, it is better if we put a fantasy race in parallel of a monument instead of a cat 2.

And history is cool, but it is only history. If an new race as Cadel Evans give more points than a historic race as Paris-Tours, there is no reason to have Paris-Tours cat 5 if Cadel Evans is cat 3 or 4.

[Robyklebt]

You're still not able to answer the question FL asked.....

And history is cool, but it is only history. If an new race as Cadel Evans give more points than a historic race as Paris-Tours, there is no reason to have Paris-Tours cat 5 if Cadel Evans is cat 3 or 4.

The are reasons. You don't see them? That's because you're a narrow minded simpleton, not because there are no reasons.

[Liquigas-CND]

Now I realize that the management of this game does not care about our improvement ideas!

At the end all our ideas are rejected and everything remains how Poke wants...it's sad but true...

[Pokemon Club]

You're still not able to answer the question FL asked.....

Alk answered already, and I already gave my point of view 2-3 months ago. After if luques want to put it cat 3, 4, 5, 6 or even create a new cat especially for DDV, he can do that

And history is cool, but it is only history. If an new race as Cadel Evans give more points than a historic race as Paris-Tours, there is no reason to have Paris-Tours cat 5 if Cadel Evans is cat 3 or 4.

The are reasons. You don't see them? That's because you're a narrow minded simpleton, not because there are no reasons.

And no I see no reason definitively. And I don't need to see it if the game goal is too fit as much as possible with a real cycling season.

[Robyklebt]

You don't need to see it if you're happy being narrow minded and superficial....

[Pokemon Club]

Now I realize that the management of this game does not care about our improvement ideas!

At the end all our ideas are rejected and everything remains how Poke wants...it's sad but true...

My ideas ? You overestimate my power here. I draw, I put races in calendar if luques/leso, I give my opinion as I give it since 4-5 years here but it is all.

[luques]

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

Categories - Actually with the modification I kept Strade Bianche as 4 and raised DDV to 4. Why raise? One good argument was brought by Alk, UCI raising it, this should bring a better startlist and more attention to it. At the same time also Nokere is a cat 3 but it seems to me that the startlist there is weaker generally. Giving Nokere 3, Dwars 4 and Harelbeke 5 seems to me a good compromise.
Even if probably comparing Omloop and Dwars isn't that true either, but on this I stay on UCI motivation.

Actually a question that was in my mind during the post was, has it some sense that RSF has different categories than in real life? Should we just adapt it or there is some cons I don't see? I mean literally abandoning the 1 to 6 system and taking the UWT, HC, .1, .2 .

Times - Times have been changed, the 13h was simply moved to 14h. Seems that 12h and 13h are pretty much hated. Also in the night there are some shift, Catalunya to 23 and De Panne to 24h. Everybody is covered I think.

Number of fields - I perfectly know that 5+5 for Tirreno and PN is a risk. But it has imo the big pro of giving the possibility to everybody to play those tours that actually are the most prestigious after GTs. With 9 tours in parallel the game seemed to go ok, hope that with 10 and considering the importance will be ok too.

I may have missed something, let me know

[Pokemon Club]

[Liquigas-CND]

Number of fields - I perfectly know that 5+5 for Tirreno and PN is a risk. But it has imo the big pro of giving the possibility to everybody to play those tours that actually are the most prestigious after GTs. With 9 tours in parallel the game seemed to go ok, hope that with 10 and considering the importance will be ok too.

I may have missed something, let me know

Thx Boss! Hope you will cancel the fields with less than or 3 teams! even if i know you wont do that because some guys like MG ... will enjoy riding in a 2-3 teams field and win almost everything in such a tour...