Field split

[Luna]

Let's split the field on the basis of the number of riders instead of teams.

Means: maximum field size = 200 riders instead of 22 teams.

[team fl]

What is in your opinion the advantage of such a system? So this would mean:

9 riders race: 22 teams
8 riders race: 25 teams
7 riders race: 28 teams
6 riders race: 33 teams

?

[Radunion]

I think larger fields are a good idea. 24 teams are certainly better than 12 (26 better than 13). But 33 teams with 6 riders seems to be too much. I would keep the split based on the number of teams but increase the possible number of teams in 1 field. It may be unrealistic to have 24 or even 26 teams in a race, but it also unrealistic to have only 12 teams in an important race. Do you think it is a real problem to have 231 (24*9) or even 251 (26*9) riders in one field?

[Buhmann]

26 teams with 9 riders in one field? Very bad in my opionion. In reality tehre are only a few teams who have pretensions. In RSF every team want to win anything. So 12 teams are enough for a good race in my opinion. 26 teams could mean terrible races.

[Zauberlehrling]

In a one-day-race: Sure, every team has some goals, so 12-22 Teams are enough.

Stage-Races: Here 12 Teams are too few in my opinion. If it's not a very specialized tour (Pavé, Jura,...) but a tour with every kind of stages, there are sometimes only 2-3 Teams with some ambitions, that means normally "chaos", there some more teams are quite useful.

[Radunion]

I do not like small fields. Usually they are easy to control, as groups tend to be very small, and they are more predictable in the end. Field with more then 20 teams tend to be much more active and it is more important to get teams to work together. Races are not terrible because of the number of teams, usually the reason for bad races is 1 or 2 teams that ride terrible. Of course the chance to have such teams in the field (especially field 1) is higher in large fields, but in my opinion the advantages of large fields are bigger then the disadvantages.

[Robyklebt]

Buhmann, at least get the math right

26*9 is... is.... is... 58! Wrong. 200? Wrong! 234? RIGHT, 100 points to the candidate from Herne.

And you wouldn't even have had to do the math, just read Lunas post, it clearly says:

The ape is a genius!

Ah no, that's in code. What it clearly says is:

9 riders race: 22 teams
8 riders race: 25 teams
7 riders race: 28 teams
6 riders race: 33 teams

Not convinced at all about the 33 teams think, I think an upper limit with regards to the teams is ok. But
9-22
8-25
at least is good.
7-28 limit, problem could be that it then becomes like the U23 races that most of the time are just blocked, here the risk is almost bigger since everybody still has more riders to spare, but ok 28 why not, it's still rideable, plus if there is a split it's not 11-11 with 77 riders per race, but 14-15 or 15-14, much better.

[Luna]

FL:
advantage would be lesser field splits. These 2nd fields just are a weird thing, difficult to transform into an imagination that pictures the running and the value of a bike race. Bad enough that we're forced to do 3-6 editions over a day (instead of one. But no criticism here, I know it only works that way). But a 2nd field of the same edition without riders from the upper end of the ranking just continues to be a half-hearted compromise. Something I wish to find a solution for, in the long run.

@Radunion:
I admit 33 teams maybe indeed are too much. We could limit it to 30 teams, or 28.


@Buhmann:
12 teams are not enough. In a peloton there are many roles to play by the teams. Not easy to formulate them all right here. But with 12 teams, some of them are just missing. Attacking team is not like attacking team. Some go at km 0. Some wait till half of the race. Some go shortly before the finish. Some just wait and see what happens. Some go for the final sprint. At tours the possibilities are even more numerous. It's a big dynamic, that gets severely restricted when the field contains not enough teams. Not only that single styles of racing are missing, also the interaction with other approaches stay away. It makes 2 dimensions where it should be 3. The groups are smaller, sometimes there aren't even serious groups. Or it's always the same team that escapes with one or two riders, because all the others concentrate on other goals.

Every team wants to win something? Yes. But if you lose, there is always a next day with different race and profile and rivals. And those who don't get a rider amongst the first 25-30 places still get some money from the intermediates in most of the cases, if they want to.

(oops, 2 further posts in the meantime. Maybe something said twice now)

[Radunion]

Buhmann, at least get the math right

Oops, got the calculation wrong, but adding up is not math, please do not mix the 2 things up.

[ariostea]

in my opinion it would be no problem to have bigger pelotons. to 26 teams may be should be ok. there are always enough teams that are offline...for one day races no problem. i guess 26 teams (means 18 -22 online) is better than 12...

and in tours it would be good too: there everybody is racing for something else. when the peloton is too small there are only 2-3 teams competing for the same thing(stage, Gk, mountain jersey, white - whatever...) - more competition won´t hurt.