cycling4freaks.com

Some teams have 3 sprinter and use an 8x for launch the train.. This is very bad,

My suggestion is to put a limit of 3 guys for a sprint (2 sprinters and 1 launcher as real) is possible to do it?

also a particular equation for flat guys - sprinters in team..

For example, min 3 guys with more than 83 for have 2 sprinters min 5 guys with more than 83 for have 3 sprinters

so limit climber, classics, flatguys and tt-riders during race too !

well 3 sprinters for 500 mt have no logic, also all this sausage teams have only 70 flat guys for limit the money spent

There are 2 things that can be done in my opinion:

1) Give flat skill more importance, especially when launching the sprint. Flat skill should be more important until 450m from the end.
This because when you launch the sprint it is like you do 550m (from 1km to 450m). The sprinters should make difference only from 400m (where he has the max strength); and the distance between a train launched by a sprinter or by a flat rider should be like the difference between their flat values.

2) Is it the salary of sprinters correct? My riders:
Mario, mountain rider, 87 mountain age 31 salary about 90000
Mauro Ciccio, sprinter, 92 sprint age 27 salary about 58000
Ok Ciccio has 7 point less in recover (but i think that recover is a skill more important for mountain riders than for sprinters)

I found this data (given by Google), hope they are real if someone has more accurate share that:

Cavendish Salary (Best sprinter): 2,400,000 GBP
Wiggins Salary (Winner of TdF 2012): 1,500,000 GBP

In my opinion if in a race of max 8 riders you put 3 top-level sprinters you should be over the cost covered by the system (let's say 3 sprinters (88+ skill) 60000*3= 180000, 5 helpers 30000*5=150000, 150000+180000 = 330000, money covered 335000). I think that a normal sprint team who remains in the budget should have 2 sprinters and the remaining helpers.

Pro Luques ... why should a team with 3 sprint sausages be stronger then a team with 90 flat with 55 sprint a 80 leadout guy and a 95 captain? No way ... cause the 90 flat guy will in reality gain at least 30 rather 50 meters advantage for the final sprint ...

90% agree what luques sayd

Eccept a little thing,

In real life we know Cav is the best sprinter in the world, like he is a 99 in this game,
Wiggins isn't a top rider, he won the tour de france of shame last year but I'm pretty sure he isn't a super climber!

We should confront maybe a normal climber with a normal sprinter wage, for a most accurate difference.

Imo, is also about fairness, because all this shitty teams with 3 climbers and 0 flat guys never help for the mass sprint, and they have good chances to win, so we have all the reason to change something in the sprinter team basical build.

I really don't want to race with TTT teams and sausages with 3 sprinter in future

Good point. There was new player who saw 2 of 4 riders in short races are sprinters, so in a real race he 8 riders an therefore should have 4 sprinters. Of course he quickly learnt about the nasty side of some people

It is an idea I brought up too. Limit the amount of certain riders. It is unrealistic to only have Sprinters or TT or even Pave. We see accounts which suddenly remember to play this game in Pave-season. Yeah, sure. Such specialiced teams don't exist in real pro cycling, so they shouldn't here.

Yeah ... i dont see a problem with teams with 2 sprinters and a leadout if the have a team for it so even more i would like a "if clause" ...

For example not more then 3 92 sprinters and not more then 5 80 sprinters in a team ... but even more for the races ... because i think a sprinter team should have the chance to build 2 or 3 sprinters at one time up and also have young guns for the following generations ... so i would more like a rule about inscribing people in a race ...

Like: 1 90+ guy anyway ...
1 90+ and 1 80+ guy if you have at least 1 85+ flat guy inscribed
2 90+ if you have at least 2 85+ and 4 80+ guys (the 2 85 guys also count for the 80+ thing)
1 90+ and 2 80+ if you have at least 1 87+ guy, 3 85+ guys and 5 80+ guys
something like that ... just example now but i think you should know now what kind of if clauses i would like to see

I don't think that limit the number of sprinters can really be a solution, probably it works but many after will ask also for a limit in number of mountain riders, classic riders etc... (like Pokemon already said), what must be done is improve the sprint system so that if you have more than 2(3?) sprinters you don't get any advantage on who has 2 sprinters, if you decrease their chances to win they will sure change their teams because they can't afford the cost.

About wages, honestly Cavendish and Wiggins were the only wages i could find of 2012, i know there are differences between them, what i thought was simply that if a team has 4 top sprinters (88+) should be over the max cost covered (another way to decrease team with many many sprinters) and sometimes this don't happen, but in general i think there should be a wage reform (maybe in another topic).

Anyway about sprint i repeat and add something new:

- Launching a sprint must be done with a flat rider, who take advantage over a sprint rider of the difference between their flat skill; if two flat riders have the same flat skill (or similar) the sprinting skill will influence who starts in front.
- From 400 real sprinters should have more importance than flat riders
- If you build a train with many sprinters you don't get advantage because your train will be long and your real sprinter will be back (like now 3 riders in train i think is good)
- Maybe insert a factor that in the last kms take in consideration the average value of flat skills of your riders and higher it is , less the energy consumption of your sprinter will be.

Increase the wages of sprint value...I like it, looks normal that sprinters who have a lot of opportunity to win pay there sprint value.
But there is a lot of consequence of that. What to do, if the wages of sprint value increase, with hillsprinter and klassic sprinter ? 110k for their salary. Maybe can be nice to have a better balance between mountain skill and sprint skill npw the new sprint system appear.

Pokemon Club wrote:Increase the wages of sprint value...I like it, looks normal that sprinters who have a lot of opportunity to win pay there sprint value.
But there is a lot of consequence of that. What to do, if the wages of sprint value increase, with hillsprinter and klassic sprinter ? 110k for their salary. Maybe can be nice to have a better balance between mountain skill and sprint skill npw the new sprint system appear.

Stronger mountain skill = high chance to get away with an attack. In sprint, you need luck or a good train. A 90 mountain means you win most races vs 88. A 96 sprint doesn't mean you win more races vs 92 or so. So to me a higher mountain skill has a higher value than a higher sprint skill.

glasgowracing wrote:

Pokemon Club wrote:Increase the wages of sprint value...I like it, looks normal that sprinters who have a lot of opportunity to win pay there sprint value.
But there is a lot of consequence of that. What to do, if the wages of sprint value increase, with hillsprinter and klassic sprinter ? 110k for their salary. Maybe can be nice to have a better balance between mountain skill and sprint skill npw the new sprint system appear.

Stronger mountain skill = high chance to get away with an attack. In sprint, you need luck or a good train. A 90 mountain means you win most races vs 88. A 96 sprint doesn't mean you win more races vs 92 or so. So to me a higher mountain skill has a higher value than a higher sprint skill.

In fact youre right ... if increasing the cost i would increase more for less good sprinters and less for better sprinters so that a 96 will maybe cost 5% more a 91 maybe 10% and a 85 like 15% cause the problem aint teams with a 90fl-90fl-90sp-96sp train but those with a 80sp-85sp-88sp-90sp without flatriders ... even more as mentioned please please make the influence of flat at least for the first 100 meters higher ...

Chense wrote:

glasgowracing wrote:

Pokemon Club wrote:Increase the wages of sprint value...I like it, looks normal that sprinters who have a lot of opportunity to win pay there sprint value.
But there is a lot of consequence of that. What to do, if the wages of sprint value increase, with hillsprinter and klassic sprinter ? 110k for their salary. Maybe can be nice to have a better balance between mountain skill and sprint skill npw the new sprint system appear.

Stronger mountain skill = high chance to get away with an attack. In sprint, you need luck or a good train. A 90 mountain means you win most races vs 88. A 96 sprint doesn't mean you win more races vs 92 or so. So to me a higher mountain skill has a higher value than a higher sprint skill.

In fact youre right ... if increasing the cost i would increase more for less good sprinters and less for better sprinters so that a 96 will maybe cost 5% more a 91 maybe 10% and a 85 like 15% cause the problem aint teams with a 90fl-90fl-90sp-96sp train but those with a 80sp-85sp-88sp-90sp without flatriders ... even more as mentioned please please make the influence of flat at least for the first 100 meters higher ...

You'd have to increase the cost for all sprint skill, cause all help in the finish. Even a 60 is of a much higher value to a 50 sprint - not only in groups, but in mass sprints too - an even if this weak sprinter won't finish in the money.

glasgowracing wrote:

Pokemon Club wrote:Increase the wages of sprint value...I like it, looks normal that sprinters who have a lot of opportunity to win pay there sprint value.
But there is a lot of consequence of that. What to do, if the wages of sprint value increase, with hillsprinter and klassic sprinter ? 110k for their salary. Maybe can be nice to have a better balance between mountain skill and sprint skill npw the new sprint system appear.

Stronger mountain skill = high chance to get away with an attack. In sprint, you need luck or a good train. A 90 mountain means you win most races vs 88. A 96 sprint doesn't mean you win more races vs 92 or so. So to me a higher mountain skill has a higher value than a higher sprint skill.

I don't get the point here.
You are considering a limit case, best sprinter vs best climber. Probably my example about Cavendish and Wiggins wasn't so good.

Using your same words, this means that a 83 mountain doesn't have chances to win a mountain race (where i suppose there will be more climbers, and it is quite easy also for div6 team have a 85 mountain), so why a 83 should have a salary higher than a 95 sprint, who also without a train can have a 10-20% of winning a race (actually i made this example because i see in the market Hayden (sprinter) and Erik Nool(climber))?

Moreover why should a helper of a climber (a 77 mountain without flat skills) have a salary of 60000/65000 like a 90 sprinter when the first one can't win a race and the second one yes? Or at least the placement of the first will be worse than the placement of the second (so the return in money of the second will be higher).

Anyway my suggestion was to increase the wage of the average sprinter as a partial solution to teams having many sprinters, if we want to speak about a salary reform (also for classic etc.) maybe better open a new topic or we go off

glasgowracing wrote:

Pokemon Club wrote:Increase the wages of sprint value...I like it, looks normal that sprinters who have a lot of opportunity to win pay there sprint value.
But there is a lot of consequence of that. What to do, if the wages of sprint value increase, with hillsprinter and klassic sprinter ? 110k for their salary. Maybe can be nice to have a better balance between mountain skill and sprint skill npw the new sprint system appear.

Stronger mountain skill = high chance to get away with an attack. In sprint, you need luck or a good train. A 90 mountain means you win most races vs 88. A 96 sprint doesn't mean you win more races vs 92 or so. So to me a higher mountain skill has a higher value than a higher sprint skill.

I didn't talk about climber but about mix skills rider. Classics guys will be really expensive with that for exemple

luques wrote: 2) Is it the salary of sprinters correct? My riders:
Mario, mountain rider, 87 mountain age 31 salary about 90000
Mauro Ciccio, sprinter, 92 sprint age 27 salary about 58000
Ok Ciccio has 7 point less in recover (but i think that recover is a skill more important for mountain riders than for sprinters)

I found this data (given by Google), hope they are real if someone has more accurate share that:

Cavendish Salary (Best sprinter): 2,400,000 GBP
Wiggins Salary (Winner of TdF 2012): 1,500,000 GBP

In my opinion if in a race of max 8 riders you put 3 top-level sprinters you should be over the cost covered by the system (let's say 3 sprinters (88+ skill) 60000*3= 180000, 5 helpers 30000*5=150000, 150000+180000 = 330000, money covered 335000). I think that a normal sprint team who remains in the budget should have 2 sprinters and the remaining helpers.

Here I disagree. I disagree with the limiting of sprinters too of course, but making sprinters more expensive is certainly not a solution either.
1) The funding in RSF is different from the one in reality. Here what you gain in races, reality sponsors. What they win in races goes to riders.
2) Cavendish won 5 sprints in the Giro, our RSF version of him would have won 4. No chance in hell in Cherasco.
3) Prize money, in reality Omega won PREMI 96.859 € (4a) Ag2r with 2 guys in the top 10 PREMI 75.790 € (6a) At RSF 5 stages is 600'000k. Red jersey 345'000. That's 945k. The rest they might have won... let's ignore that. 5th and 10th place in the GC is: 402'500 and 253'000, white is 345'000, that's already 1'000'500. So 50k more than Omega. And that's not counting the stage places, where Betancur got 3x second... 210k. If we count all the stage placings together, my guess is that at RSF ag2r would have won double the money Omega won. In reality it's Omega that earned more. Which isn't really important since in the end it's the sponsor that pays, not the earnings in the race. Here the Giro earnings by team by Cicloweb: http://www.cicloweb.it/articolo/2013/05 ... fa-il-pien

So making the sprinters more expensive? No. They are all right where they are. Teams with topsprinters that want to continue winning will have to invest in a second sprinter anyway, and probably in a 89-65 or 86-70 or something like that too, if they want to build a strong train. Which in tours will make them more expensive than now.

Honestly, my real solution to the sprint problem was at point 1.

The point 2 was a consideration i made on my team and share here because i see that from the day i bought my sprinter and sell some mountain riders, i earn much more than before (ok probably i was idiot as a climber team ); so i will make some studies about this thing of salary because still doesn't convince me but it is a minor question.

The point 1 if applied alone for me already can solve the problem