cycling4freaks.com

Make the minimum 46 for everything and every age. NOW. Forget the rest for the moment.

46 minimum everywhere! Sprint lower never made sense. Up to 46!
Having 42 climbers with 27 or what it is never made sense. And makes even less now that we seem to get a new 8 rider standard where those ultracheap riders will very likely get more important and usual and make the races slower and more boring.

That change here is needed immediately.

Minimum skill 46 for all new riders for all skills regardless of age.

strange argument
ban riders cause they are important

and i dont see the advantage
you can have cheap riders with 46 minimum too

when cheap riders are your problem demand a minimum salary of 30,000

Having 42 climbers with 27 or what it is never made sense.

Just for skull:

Never made sense since it doesn't make sense that an amateur with 42 mountain can't become a pro with 21, 22, 23, but only with 2?.

Make it 42 mountain with 21 too, and you'll have too many too cheap flat riders, some of them will even fall under the 1 Mio limit.

So make it 46, a good number.

Do it now Buh.

Buh wants to introduce auctions? Perfect to standardize the starting values as well... no more 43 sprinters, same minimum for mountain etc for all ages! Brillant idea, wonder why we never had this before. Let's do it!

Can we get some minimal values that make sense one of these days?

Robyklebt wrote:Buh wants to introduce auctions? Perfect to standardize the starting values as well... no more 43 sprinters, same minimum for mountain etc for all ages! Brillant idea, wonder why we never had this before. Let's do it!

becouse you is the only one who tink in this game

cause nobody cares i just hijack this thread ...
due we try to simulate professional cycling a minimum skill-level make sense i think
i suggest 50-65-60-60-60-60,5-40 - for 25,000 salary
starting-minimum for young riders
and old riders cant fall below this values

The suspicion is that you just want to torpedo my proposal that is sooooo close to getting Buhmann's attention!

skull wrote: due we try to simulate professional cycling a minimum skill-level make sense i think
i suggest 50-65-60-60-60-60,5-40 - for 25,000 salary
starting-minimum for young riders
and old riders cant fall below this values

Yeah!

No minimum skill level. We could decrease the influence of the low skills, so that teh difference in races between a 50 and a 70 flat rider is not so big. But diffeernces between the riders are good in my opinion. Not necessary to cut the values to a 35 range. Okay, it is the easiest way, but really nice.

Ok, since for once you are here, can you explain the logic behind 46 minimum at 21 and 43 or something at 27?
Why sprint goes down to 43? And all the other nice stuff I wrote 750 times?

No really totally super reasons...In Sprint there are no balance problems. So we can choose any value there. Okay, max for 27 is lower than 21, thats a little bit silly. I try to find the tiem at the weekend to solve the startvalues. (you can send me a PN for remembering...)

Buhmann, the climbers, time trialiasts and sprinters with flat 55-60 just don't make sense as a standard. They are a problem at more than just one point in RSF. It doesn't help to make them faster once they have attacked. It's also about needing helpers, making problems at races with fewer riders per team, not beeing able to work properly in a race finale, keeping a group together etc pp.

What about some maximum values ?!

Buhmann:.

Before sending you PNs for x weekends in a row, I just tell you what the first logical step is here:

ALL minimum starting values to 46. At all ages.

NoPikouze wrote:What about some maximum values ?!

Well, this was clearly a rider that was trained in a team before, got 0 points and was thrown on the transfermarket again. Thus nameless.

Lol, I ride once against Tichina, It's a monster, He was from the VC Montherme team, this team have really great riders (he have also a 61/89 and another one)

Ok, since Buhmann doesn't like simply things, let's make it a bit more complicated

New starting values for riders.

21:
absolute max: 73-74-79-73-82: ONly change down from 77 to 73 for the TT. 2 years ago you went down from 79? to 77, basically announcing that it would go down to 73 in steps. Hasn't happened, let's do it all at once. Reasoning still the same, let the Hubers have their chances to win a TT too, right now they only win it if it's very very hilly.

absolute minimum: 46-50-46-46-46: 2 changes. 1 flat, under 50 just is ridiculous, and sprint 43 too, make it 46 too. That absolute minimum has to count for ALL ages btw. Won't rewrite it for everything.


Combinations:

Mountain: 73-56-79-54-59: Like now. Big change: Hidden pavé value max 70. It's a joke to have people like Fahrny in the game.

THEN: 72-56-79-56-59: 1 mountain point, 2 TT points. The differences in the mountains are just too small compared to reality. You'll see at the Zoncolan. Then you have to finally adjust and make it closer in the TT as well.
Going down:

71-58
70-60
69-62
68-64
67-66
66-68
65-70
64-72
Ok, add 63-73...

The Huber as it exists now, won't exist anymore right. 67-72... will be 64-72. No problem, lower starting value, higher training possibilty. Will still be able to go to 78-78 or so.

Classic:

56-74-79-73-66: So like now except the TT mentioned above.

Flat: All like now, except: the flat-hidden pavé connection
56-70: so 56 or less flat, max 70 hidden pavé value.
60-72
64-74
68-78
70-82

Makes no sense to have potential stars like the Duculescus bought for basically nothing. They are bugs, nothign less, they "aushebeln" your "overpricing" of futere pavéstars as well. Now my Ducus never won anything thanks to a useless manager, but still...

Sprinters:
50-59-79-??-82 like now.
But add
51-59-79-?? 80
52-59-79-?? 78
53-76
54-74
56-72
55-70
54-68

An alternative to the classic sprinters basically. And an alternative for complete flat sprinters too. But they will start as sprinters, having the sprinters flat deficiency.

22: absolute max: 77-78-80-77-85 All new I think? Illogical that a 22 year old starts with a deficit. He will be more expensive anyway, plus he will cost more. It's fairly normal to start a pro career with 22-23-24. Don't make it a big disadvantage in RSF. Like now, weaker and more expensive.

combinations: Climbers:

77-58-79-54-59/77-56-80-54-59/77-56-79-56-59/73-56-79-54-61Or basically a combination of +4 mountain, +2 of another skill. Normal for a climber is +4+3 I would guess, 2 of the second skill guaranteed maybe even, not sure, maybe just one. Anyway, make it +4 mountain, +2 flat, TT or sprint or +1 downhill. If you want it more complicated could make it 4+1+1 too, like 4 mountain 1 sprint 1 flat or something, but let's keep this simple

That counts for the weaker climbers too, the 72-56-79-56-59 can become 76-58-79-56-59 and the other +4+2/1 combinations too.

Classic:

59-77-79-73-66: +3+3 guaranteed, since there is no +4+4 guarantee for training either. Oh, the complicated thing from the climbers here too. +3+3 possible on mountain+flat/TT-sprint, +3+1 mountain/downhill, +4+2 for flat-mountain/sprint/TT or +4+1 for flat-downhill.

Flat: See classics, +4+2 flat +2 other skill possible,

Sprinters: +3 guaranteed in sprint I think, not +4? Not sure on this one, somebody who knows tell me. If it's +4 then to 86, otherwise to 85.. Mmh, think it's 86 now that I think of it, so...
+4 sprint, plus 1 other skill.

23: 80-81-80-80-88

Climbers:

80 mountain, rest same max as with 22. 3 guaranteed mountain not more

Flat

81 flat. Only 2 guaranteed flat trainings actually, but let's be nice and give them 3. Rest as max with 22

Classic:
Either +4 mountain, so 64-77, rest the same, or +2+2 so 62-79 max. TT +3 max, then all other skills same as 22. Sprint +4 max, so 74, Rest like with 22 in that case.

Sprinters: 88 max, rest like with 22

24: 82-83-80-82-90
Climbers 82, rest as with 23 weaker ones the same
flat 83, rest as with 23
classic 67-77, so +3. Yes, +4 still guaranteed with training, but let's weaken them a bit here. not much combining here anymore, I know But continue from 23, so 65-79 possible too Or 58-83 (56-74 21, 58-78 22, 58-81 23, 58-83)
Sprint: 90: Just like that.
TT: +2 on whatever was the max until now... kind of forgot the TT guys.

Only those riders available as Name geben in D1-4

25-27 is only for D5-6

2583-84-80-83-91
2684-85-80-84-91
27 85-85-80-85-92

Combinatins the same logical continuation of course, a 85 mountain rider at 27 will have a max for the rest the same as a 77 mountain guy buyable with 22. etc. etc. For all 25 + basically there is only 1 + per month.

So the max classic for D5-6 will be
68-77 for 25
69-77 for 26
70-77 for 27

Stronger than now, but as you hopefully realized they won't have cheapened riders, 75-90 monsterns for 50% etc anymore. See the youth market reform thread that I've hijacked to make it the market reform I thread.

Hope this is complicated enough for you to do it, since you felt the older stuff was too easy, not worth your time.

1 week time, go!

It took me a while to read Robys post, and in many respects I like his suggestions. But I am not sure about the minimum values. Rising the minimum values will reduce the difference of riders. Well, you could argue helpers with good flat and nothing else are too cheap, but this in not a problem or minimum values, but of the calculation of price and wages. I see no problem if a rider with 40-90-40-40-40 35 reg is possible, but he will definitely too cheap under the current circumstances.

As the example illustrate I am in favour to reduce minimum values for some riders to have a wider variety of skills. A sprinter for example does not need 48 mountain (why is this minimum different from other riders with min 46?). In reality there are heavy sprinters that have huge problems on moderate mountains. An example is Jaan Kirsipuu who won some stages of the Tour, but likely holds the record of retirements during the tour. He was just too heavy to have a chance to finish the Tour in Paris. Which mountain value would you give him in RSF, 40?

Additionally I see no reason to deny sprinters a good flat value. In reality many or the riders preparing the sprint for the stars are themselves good sprinters, not to forget the achievements of sprinters in pave races. So I suggest to give a 21 year old sprinter the maximum values of

48-73-79-..-80 (minimum mountain down to 44)

I do not think we have to such riders. You can train them to 65-80, but they are still no match for classics riders. You can train them to flat monsters, but they are to expensive to be used as helpers, and you can train them as sprinters. The reason to reduce the max sprint value from 82 to 80 is the keep the old sprinters on an equal level with the new sprinters.

It's just so much simpler to change the starting values then to recalculate the wages.

On the sprinters, minimum value 46 I think, mountain 46? The only one I put up in this proposal over 46 ist flat, which even at 50 makes not much sense, it's low.

The problem with the sprinters and their achievement on cobble stone races: They didn't win it as sprinters, they won it as complete riders. Like Bernard Hinault won PR, like even Claudy Criquelion was on the podium in Roubaix. Yes, all in less specialized times, now it would be more difficult for a GT contender to play a role in PR. So we need to rise that too. Ok.. .the problem then becomes: PR is always a sprint: 48-73-95 sprinter, put a strong flat team around him and it will be a PR sprint. Our sprinters won't do it the Boonen way. they can't, they still are not good enough. Similar situation with the climbers, they will too often be too strong, away in the mountain, they stay away in 10 km flat, regularly. Milano Sanremo, favorites will be climbers. A team with 2 of them siebs on the Cipressa, continues till the Poggio, attacks there with the other one and won't be caught again. And if, then only by classic riders. To actually give the sprinters, climbers would involve some work on the whole race engine too. Which will be needed sooner or later anyway, but the place to start on that one is the basis, energy etc. not building more on top each time.

Radunion

In reality there are heavy sprinters that have huge problems on moderate mountains.

but 48 mountain has heavy problems even in moderate mountains... there are just few sprinters who have 55+ mountain, because it makes them more expensive and often it makes no difference if it is 48 or 55 in sprint races. i would give Kirsipuu 46... we have good sprinters with mountain skill like Trueba 70 mountain and 90 sprint... but in between not very much, cause you have to ride it alone...it is not a problem of the (minimum)values i think. that most of the sprinters are finishing tours has some other reasons - our time limit in tozrs is quite moderate. i don´t know, if it has to be harder (could lead to even more passiv riding... - but that is a point you should discuss with Roby - in another thread!).

48-73-79-..-80 (minimum mountain down to 44)

the reason probably is: we don´t want sprinters to go (and destroy) groups. typically sprinters stay in the peloton and their teams work for a sprint. how to simulate this? make it unattractive for sprinters to attack. a team with 6 or 7 riders with 80 flat and 90 sprint would probably not be funny to have in a race.

and it is somehow similar to the "one leg rider" problem we have already discussed several times. i.e. here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=214

the Roby Post: i agree more or less completely. is an improvement. do it.

in general: in opposite to Radunion i even think our riders are too different concerning some skills. would be better make them more equal for having a more realistic simulation: flat - one leg rider problem, downhill (still! half of the riders can´t win a race in a solo escape cause they absolut descent-idiots! losing 5 or more seconds per km in every descent - don´t know this phenomen being such a huge one in real cycling) and finally sprint skill too: in the lower values we have bigger differences than we should have - it is too hard to beat a rider with 55 sprint for a rider with 50 sprint even if he has a huge energy-advantage. (ok. at least our sprint system might help him). but Lutschen is not effective enough...

The sprinter thing is quite easy... as long as 56 flat losers can stay in the peloton no matter how fast the pace is, you dont need to train those riders... and they dont lose enough energy still... deVlamingh will always have 820+ before the bunch sprint, no matter what happens. If flat losers could fall out of the peloton, everyone would have to train their sprinters to 70 flat at least, only reaching 90 sprint as max possibly but so what. And same for climbers. So they rather have 83 climb and 65 flat than 88-50 because they cant keep the pace... seriously, 50 flat while a 50-90 makes tempo and he stays in the peloton? UNREALISTIC!!!

Lizard wrote:The sprinter thing is quite easy... as long as 56 flat losers can stay in the peloton no matter how fast the pace is, you dont need to train those riders... and they dont lose enough energy still... deVlamingh will always have 820+ before the bunch sprint, no matter what happens. If flat losers could fall out of the peloton, everyone would have to train their sprinters to 70 flat at least, only reaching 90 sprint as max possibly but so what. And same for climbers. So they rather have 83 climb and 65 flat than 88-50 because they cant keep the pace... seriously, 50 flat while a 50-90 makes tempo and he stays in the peloton? UNREALISTIC!!!

It isn't that easy. Cause: A rider with only 50 flat starting value exists? UNREALISTIC!
However, if you change that than there will be the problems, Roby mentioned.

To prevent PR from being decided in a mass sprint just let the teams ride with 8 riders per team. Then it's very difficult, not to say impossible to control such a long race against all the attackers.

Furthermore massively reduce the number of top skilled riders, so that it's hardly possible to build a team that could even dream of tryintg to control PR from start to beginning.

Then there will be 3-4 Teams with a flat-sprinter... and we have the Sprint in Roubaix. And the climber who wins in Meerbeke and San Remo.