Starting values for riders

[Robyklebt]

No, only when you come up with make-up.
Calculations? You

[Radunion]

Finally I have to write about skulls proposal. My first reaction was "no way" followed by "why not". After some thought about it I came to the conclusion that it would not chance very much except that riders would become more expensive, especially as young riders if you plan to limit the amount of 70+-70+ riders. You limit the difference between mountain riders (85+-70) and classics riders (80+-80+), but what you gain in the flat you loose in the mountains. The difference between leaders and helpers will be bigger, and the races will more often have a clear favourite, that wins the race easily. No the changes I really want to see.

Roby:

All I read here about pave races tells me that in is a good idea for sprinter teams to buy a rider with good sprint pave combination, train him in flat and sprint (the perfect distribution of training is still in doubt) and dominate the pave season next year (of course 1 or 2 of your flat riders need very good pave skills as well). If this were the case there would be something fundamentally wrong with the simulation of pave races. As nobody really complaints about the fact, that pave races are to often won by the best sprinter within the pave riders (and there is little difference if this rider has 75 or 90 sprint), maybe there is to much panic about the influence on pave races. But of course we are all just speculating about this matter.

[Buhmann]

Can anybody give me a short summary what i have to do now? The post Sat May 14, 2011 7:09 pm is crazy...

[Luna]

Mainly philosophy and debate on principles.

[Robyklebt]

Basically you don't have to do anything.

And if you wanted to read a post, one a few days earlier would have been one that makes sense... but well, the usual cowardly "discuss" to death tactic was succesful and it's so faaar back nobody remembers it now. But instead now you now that the best solution for a start values reform is 8 riders per race

[NoPikouze]

Stop being mean to each other, be nice, be a sheep!

Beeeeeeeh !

[Robyklebt]

about the radunion idea, sprinters up.

pr no problem, actually he could be right. the pr sprinter, with lots of pave would risk being very expensive. since sprint itself is expensive, unlike flat. so a 92 roubaixsprinter with 80 pave or so.. risks being too expensive to ride many other races, so unpopular, so he's probably right that the risk of seeing a group with those pavesprinters riding for the sprint is not that likely.


but, other thing...

5 and 6 too, but mostly 5. by letting them start higher, the 5 would become less critical, less siebable. and now it works ok. tdf, sitting fl, 2 fives, at the first schmarotz fights, at the second he's gone. loser, not sure why, another guy with similar values stayed. another 5 a few km later, that guy is gone too. if those 2 sprinters now would have had 10 more flat, no way to sieb them i think. and 5 should stay siebable. even 4 should become siebable actually.
of course that is mostly a length problem, a single 6 now has too big an influence, but a series of 4 5 has too little influence, sooner or later will have to do something about that, but my guess is that will take forever. killing the siebing potential of the 5 now until forever.. don't like that at all.
increase the flat skills of climbers too, to 70. both so. like it better actually. much better. even though the siebing would likely still decrease, some of it should stay. the problem here then is more the old one, 73-70 is easily an 80-80, something like that.. who then risk just being too decisive in races that shouldn't be for them that much. milano sanremo. yes, ok, the sprinters can get one too, try to get back after the cipressa, wait after the 6, carry up the flat team, ride like hell with that until the poggio block and ride there again.. ok.. but somehow still, they are still to decisive. no spritner team with a 80-80 or something similar, no chance.
yes on one hand an increase for flat is necessary, agree, but then it would make the mountain too important in some respects, in flat races, and maybe less again in mountain races... since a 88-74 would not necessarily get a big advantae over a duo with 84-74 and 80-84... the 84 does the mountain, the 80-84 the flat between the mountains... don't really know.
how about a lower increase. minimum 50 for everybody anyway, even 52 maybe. max 60 for climbers, 64 for sprinters? or do it over the engine, like buhmann maybe wants, make a 60 flat guy faster compared to a 80 than it is now?
don't know. but actually don't want this bigger problem, and it is the bigger problem, but the much more complex one as well, derail a smaller problem, that on the other hand would be very easily implemented and very easily adjusted to new things about the bigger problem later.

so i prefer just the proposal i made many posts and moons ago in, than nothing. if a good proposal about the flat that convinces everybody immediately comes up, no problem, i'll support it. but as long as we get only idiocies from luna and skull... not really helpful, let's push a 22-24 start skill reform, easy, simple, small, and logic. with adjustments if there are strange things in the proposal of course.