8 or 9 riders per race?

[Robyklebt]

Klebt opens a new thread.... somehow doesn't make sense having the discussion in MSR thread. If Leso wants it in the Calendar section, just move it.

Standard so far was 9 riders for RSF.

Reality says http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... 8&LangId=1

Bah,

2.2.001 Riders belonging to teams with the same paying agent or main partner may not compete in the
same race except in the case of an individual event.
(article introduced on 1.01.05).

No multiaccounts in the same race

2.2.002 The number of riders participating in a road race shall be limited to 200.

Change the splitting system. From 22 teams to 200 riders. Regardless of the standard, still works with 9 riders 22 teams, 8 riders 25 teams

2.2.003 The number of titular riders per team shall be set at 4 minimum and 10 maximum. The organiser
shall indicate in the programme or technical guide and on the entry form the maximum number for
his race. That number shall be the same for all teams. No account shall be taken of any riders
entered in excess of that number.
If the maximum number of riders per team is 4, 5 or 6, no team may take the start with less than
4 riders. If the maximum number of riders per team is 7 or 8, no team may take the start with less
than 5 riders. If the maximum number of riders per team is 9 or 10, no team may take the start
with less than 6 riders.
In the UCI ProTour events, the number of riders per team is 8. However, subject to prior permission
by the UCI ProTour council, the organiser may fix the number of riders per team at 7. The organiser
shall request the permission of the UCI ProTour council on or before 1st January of the year of the
event.
For the WE 1 races, the number of riders per team is set at 6. However, subject to prior approval by
the Road Commission, the organiser can set the number of riders per team at 8 for WE 2.1 races.
(text modified on 1.01.05; 1.01.07; 26.01.08).

The part that is interesting for us. Standard in PT races 8.


Don't really care if we change, don't really mind if we don't. But I wouldn't like having 8 for some important races like MSR but still 9 for almost everything else. I like a standard... Then don't know if if we change to 8 we make exactly 8 or follow the UCI rules and say 6-8 etc.

[Lizard]

The stuff with 200 riders max. is good, shall be changed by Buhmann. The important part... well, I think when we think of all races to be ridden with 8 riders (you know, important races.. ) we wouldn´t like it. I don´t. Against riding MSR and Tour de France with less than 9 riders.

[Buhmann]

The stuff with 200 riders max. is good, shall be changed by Buhmann

A race with 4 rider per team...50 teams? Chaos.

[Cerro Torre RT]

The stuff with 200 riders max. is good, shall be changed by Buhmann. The important part... well, I think when we think of all races to be ridden with 8 riders (you know, important races.. ) we wouldn´t like it. I don´t. Against riding MSR and Tour de France with less than 9 riders.

Well, i have to admit i have never seen a Tour de France with less than 9 riders (per rules)... there may be an exception, or they are not ProTour any more (by the way what does Pro Tour really mean to a race more than it is called one ?)

[Robyklebt]

Actually heard speculation that the ASO thinks about inviting 25 teams with 8 riders this year....Otherwise yes, GT have always (or for a long time at least) been ridden with teams of 9. Hope stays that way, ASO/RCS would really prove how idiotic they are if they invite 25 teams now... few years ago they moaned about 22 being to many, we want only 20! (one of their 700 arguments against the PT at the time)

Buh here? Thought you retired and decided to do only the stupid things.. jerseys...

[Quick]

Do our realistic-freaks know, that in real every leader has a usuable flat-skill? And that in realitiy a leader can work too in the peloton, without losing every chances of winning. Here you lose all your chances, if you work 3kms...

[Cerro Torre RT]

Do you know quick, that .. what do i call... 95% of the riders and normally 80% of the teams do not have a chance worth mentioning but do so because earning the money they live on by telling they would?

[Luna]

I've never seen any winner of a one day race working in the peloton during the race.
Except Boonen or Devolder sometimes smashing the whole field at the Oude Kwaremont or so.
But those types of riders do have a flat skill in RSF as well.

[Buhmann]

I think in future we should only split if there are more than 200 riders (or 198). But no races with more than 30 teams. This would be too much. Or 25 teams? I don´t know. In my opinion, if the most teams are online (and in Field 1 they are) , 12 teams are better than 22...If there are 22 teams, any team will make tempo for anything. And i don´t know what would happen if we have a race with 30 Teams with 7 riders.

And why don´t change? Why should we have a standard? I don´t see the problem if this often change.

[Robyklebt]

The splitting at 200 has been questioned by some geniuses who are too lazy to post here, just ingame.

Why the split has to be at 25 teams if we ride with 8 is:

MSR group 1 14h. 88 riders. Unworthy of MSR. Yes, yes, we will all get rich and points and what not, but who cares. MSR deserves a good race. Not some local Herne kermesse with 88 riders.

Of course today the problem is not only the 200 split. It's the way of splitting as well, I think there were 25 teams. Split 11-12. Possible that 2 went away and it was only 23 too, not sure. But think it was 25.

We really need to make the split after it's clear how many teams are really there. so today here it would have been 23 in the end. Then split in favour of group one. 12-11. In every race. (with 8 riders of course 23-0)

THAT we need to have for every race. Split the field AFTER the teams with no riders have been kicked. We could end up having MSR with 40 otherwise...theoretically a group 1 with 0 riders is possible? Or with 8... stupid!


Then, what we really need to do as well for IMPORTANT races is: Not 50/50, but more in group 1 than 2. No disrespect (ok, only a little bit, well quite a lot, bunch of losers in group 2 ) but group 2 is less important than group 1, we need to insure group one has a decent amout of riders. the 23 teams split like today of course is the most difficult (with 9 riders) . I'd say something like this.

First: Bottom 10 group 2
Second: Top 15 group 1
Third: Split the rest evenly. If it's an uneven number, group 1 gets the extra spot. Up to 22 of course

So from group one would always have at least 13 teams for IMPORTANT races. cat 4+, Rest can stay as now, 50/50

With 23 teams it would be 13-10
With 24 14-10
with 25: 15-10
With 30 18-12
With 35 20-15
With 40 22-18

That's with the old 9 per team system, if it's 200 more or less the same, guarantee group 2 10 teams and so on.

Today for MSR that would have been 13-10. Much better than the 11-12 we have now. And with the 8 riders rule 23-0

So, 8 or 9, my vote goes clearly to 9 until we have at least the 200 riders rule in place, it's really a shame to ride such a race with only 88 riders. (to be back on topic, since the split-talk is kind of offtopic)

[Buhmann]

Split the field AFTER the teams with no riders have been kicked. We could end up having MSR with 40 otherwise...theoretically a group 1 with 0 riders is possible? Or with 8... stupid!

What are you talking about? A group with 0 riders is possible? Sure????? Then it´s a bug, but i think you talk bullshit

Not 50/50, but more in group 1 than 2.

Not my opinion. In group 1 the most users a online and have ver very good teams (okay, not mine...) and 11 are enough...in group 2 we need more.

[Robyklebt]

Not sure, but IF the split is done including teams that are "angemeldet" but without riders then it's possible, no? If not, good.


For important races real freaks want to win in the hardest group possible. with as many good riders and good managers as possible. So in important races the split that favors group 1 in my opinion is a logical choice.

[Robyklebt]

Ah, and another thing

Normal races? 50/50.

Important races? More to group 1. Especially for the cat 6 races, should be no problem, since only d1-4 can participate. And most of them are notorious ONliners.... so even a group 2 with 10 teams should usually easily get 8 onliners.

[Robyklebt]

8 or 9?

Nobody has an opinion, cool.


Pro 8: Reality
Pro 9: Worked well so far.

Go down to 8 what happens?
-One day races: Everybody has a rider less. For certain races, where many people have chances to win in the end, the race risks becoming even more passive, think we saw a little bit of that in MSR, where in all groups it was even more passive than in the years before. Probably we would adapt a bit later, not a big change. In races with a clear favorite or a clear group of favorites, the race might become harder to control... but don't forget that the attackers have one rider less too... Basically don't think in general it would have a negative effect. One negative effect though: Leaders with not much flat skill, that often are favorites that are expected to ride have a disadvantage. 2 climbers for Lombardia, 2 sprinters for PT, long flat parts, when the race becomes fast, you need 4 support riders for those too, and they still lose more than a 70-80 or 80 flat 80 sprint with one support rider. That's one thing that probably would have to change. But basically I don't think there would be a problem with changing the standard from 9 to 8. Doesn't mean we can't have races with 9 from time to time, according to the UCI it's allowed to have races with 10 riders too... so some fantasy races we could have 9, some 8 like the standard, a few 10, a few 7, 6.

- stage races: Here I see it a bit more critically... GTs still with 9, clear, Andes and maybe dec tour as well? Rest with 8. Basically already now no team can control a stage race by itself, which is good. But a race like Tirreno or Pais Vasco as a favorite with 8? Even more difficult. There the risk of Chaos increases I think. We probably would adapt a bit, but then chaos exists too much even now for my taste... and only 8 would make it more likely. At RSF already now the same profile can result in one over controlled race in one group, in one chaotic race in the other, depends on the managers. And the I think that the risk of chaos would become slightly bigger. I think we would adapt a bit too of course, don't think everything would be uncontrollable, but the average would move slightly towards chaos. The second concern is the same as with one day races, but here bigger. 2 climbers, 2 sprinters would become even less common. 2 climbers even now is not a really good option already in most races, even Tirreno Adriatico which I rode with 2, two 70-80 instead of the second climber would have made more sense. With only 8 riders that would be even more the case, part of the problem here again that those climbers just need more support. Ok, could ride with only 1, no problem, but is it realistic? No. And more importantly, is it good for the game? Not necessarily, it standardizes the teams more. But don't think it would be a huge problem, could adapt. But I think we would need some adjustement in how the energy is lost, 70-80 with one helper fitter than 80-55 with two can happen and happens.

Another thing I wouldn't like too much about 8 riders is: Big teams have to leave even more riders at home.

Wrote more negative things than positives now, but actually I'm pretty much 50/50... For one day races I see very little negative effects, (positives as well, simply not much really changes) introduce it, even without adjustments, is ok, let it be, is ok too. For stage races I would like to see adjustments though.. if it's introduced without, not the end of the world either... BUT I would like to have a kind of standard. Not 8 for Monuments, 9 for the rest of the real one day races. Ok, not that consequent when it comes to stage races, standard 8 for 1 day races, 9 for stage races would be ok for inconsequent Roby.

[Bear]

I totally agree with Roby. I am also 50/50 in my decision. And I also think that we need a standard. If we change the number of riders too often it is confusing and the races are not on the same value.

8 riders, like in the real races, besides the GT's, is ok for me. But in my opinion the standard has to be 8 riders then. Different standards for real or fantasy races I wouldn't like very much.

[Buhmann]

For one day races only 8 rider would be better i think. For long tours 9 rider maybe better, but for short and flat tours 8 rider woulb be nice, too i think.

[Luna]

I think, it's a general problem, that the captains need helpers for maintaining their maximum energy level. That's not very realistic. If Conatador is isolated after the second last climb, he nevertheless remains the best climber in the group and rides away at the final climb. Yes, he must get his bidons on his own, drop back to the team car. But he's always looking quite relaxed while doing so. Don't think that costs him more than maybe 1 energy unit. And it also doesn't happen on every km, while in RSF a rider looses energy continuously if he hasn't got a helper by his side. That makes it a little more difficult with one rider less. But I don't have a solution for this right now. Helpers shall not remain useless. On the other hand, they would still be necessary for controling the group, chasing breakaways, dropping back to their leader in case they lost contact etc...

[ariostea]

i like 9 riders better.

[team fl]

i like 9 riders better.

me too, and perhaps just because I am used to it.

[Buhmann]

You are afraid of trying new things. We wanted races with fewer rider. Also, where is the problem if we change it often?

[topsport]

i like 9 riders better.

me too.

topsport

[Rockstar Inc]

same opinion like top and ari

[Lizard]

Yes, stay with 9 riders please.

[Robyklebt]

What a bunch of idiots here...

Is there ANYBODY who can actually say WHY he is for or against something?

[Luna]

That's no opinion. It's only fear of change. You will overcome that. Don't worry. If there's no factual consideration than I see no real problem.

We could as well stop any further developement of the game...