Team sizes

[Luna]

And what?
First: Two out of one million races. Great proof.

There is no million races with 6 riders. So the rate is more like every second 6-rider-race end in an uncontrolled manner. Or let it be every third or forth or whatsoever. I guess that was only because all the teams let their sprinter at home (oh unreal! arcade!). Or they don't even have one.

By the way on such a flat course they would even manage to get a mass sprint at RSF. One or two teams sacrifices one rider every 20km or so. Depends on the escape group, of course. As always everything depends on how the users deal with the situation.

Second: In a peloton with only 81 riders, it also happens at RSF yet with 9 riders per team. (And watch, tomorrow there will be only 63 riders at the start.)

13 teams or so. Not that unlikely size of a peloton in RSF. (Make it 25 teams a 6 riders and then you get an even better chance to control it, if you cant'l live without that once in a month or two).

The fact is it happens in smaller races like Vuelta a Bolivia. We also ride smaller races. But here we are forcing an arcvade race (yes, this is arcade), where managers spoiled with 9 riders in order to never ever come to a situation where they have to react fast or one ore two might end up with place 40 as best result. But who cares. Tomorow is another day. Then another stage is on schedule where riders can ride for the win.

And it were a one day races the mess is even smaller. Because there would be no gc. So no reason to keep the peloton controlled after all, when 30 riders are through and teams are attacking in the back field for place 31-40. Don't know what's so bad with that anyway (= also a question to Riders). In a mass sprint those minor places go more or less to random riders anyway. So it makes no big difference if it happens in a aprint or caused by single attackers.

And who knows. Maybe they even got some sprinters in that group in Bolivia. And they could have been gone even if they were one-legged. The difference to RSF is that teams don't want to ride with sprinters or climbers in a group. But that's a matter of the users, not the RSF physics.


EDIT: stage 3. They managed to get a mass sprint. Even with 63 riders. If they make it, even the king of sprints would make it. Der Zsolt has won the stage. What sprinter is that? Sprint skill 80? 75? Is he even a sprint specialist, or would he be maybe more a flat rider with some sprinting skill at RSF?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/vuelta ... -3/results

[Robyklebt]

And who knows. Maybe they even got some sprinters in that group in Bolivia. And they could have been gone even if they were one-legged. The difference to RSF is that teams don't want to ride with sprinters or climbers in a group. But that's a matter of the users, not the RSF physics.

It's a question of the user that races with 9 riders don't end up in Bolivia style non chaos as well in that case. So why change anything? After all it's the users that make the race. Can't argue: TECHNIC for one thing, USERS for the other. Of course it's technic and users in both cases. Technic that makes it easy for the user to control with 9 riders. technic that makes it practically impossible for sprinters to have a chance at winning from a even big group.

[Luna]

And who knows. Maybe they even got some sprinters in that group in Bolivia. And they could have been gone even if they were one-legged. The difference to RSF is that teams don't want to ride with sprinters or climbers in a group. But that's a matter of the users, not the RSF physics.

It's a question of the user that races with 9 riders don't end up in Bolivia style non chaos as well in that case. So why change anything?

No, I see that point as questioning why leaving out races with smaller teams. After all they provide a wider scale of possible race development. One the one hand they support a race with less control by the bunch. On the other hand they still offer opportunities for climbers and sprinters to got´into a group if they only dare to do so. Managers not willing to accept climbers or sprinters in a group wouldn't do so if the one-legged were two-legged. So that can't be a reason against smaller teams, only against race related decisions. Just like "I won't let you go because you are too good in gc" or so.

After all it's the users that make the race. Can't argue: TECHNIC for one thing, USERS for the other. Of course it's technic and users in both cases. Technic that makes it easy for the user to control with 9 riders. technic that makes it practically impossible for sprinters to have a chance at winning from a even big group.

Yes. Technique provides the conditions under which the users make their race. If they want to win the race with a sprinter than they have to act differently at races with less riders per team.

I admit that at RSF it's nearly impossible to have a race where a rider like McEwen wins a TDU stage out of an escape group without a single team mate by his side. But it's also impossible to have a Giro stage with a rider like Bennati winning out of an escape group at RSF. So nobody at RSF sends a one-legged rider into a group thinking he would win the race with him, neither with 6 nor with 9 riders per team. So that's an issue independent from the decision about team sizes.

Sending an one-legged rider into a group demands one or two team mates at RSF for controlling things. They doesn't even need to bring him water bottles. A 90 sprinter would still beat the non-sprinters of that group although having lost some energy while following itting in the group. And in stage races they might well get help from other teams because if the group gets through everybody will get nice gc time. If only the managers would leave behind their dogma of "never ride with a sprinter i the group" or so. And for one day races, maybe a sprinter seldom wins with 6 riders per team. Once or twice per month a sprinter doesn't naturally win race. Just like he wouldn't win at a mountainous one day race. That's bad? After all top sprinters usually don't attend those 2.2 or 1.2 race at the other side of the globe.

[Robyklebt]

No, I see that point as questioning why leaving out races with smaller teams. After all they provide a wider scale of possible race development.ne the one hand they support a race with less control by the bunch. On the other hand they still offer opportunities for climbers and sprinters to got´into a group if they only dare to do so.

Here that's one thing I'm not actually sure of. Do they REALLY provide a wider scale? Or is it just strenghtening the extremes? Depending on the group. A more controlled race if one sort of team that wants control is strongly represented, sprint, hill sprint, climbers, classic riders sprint to me seems very likely in quite a few scenarios actually. With one team with a clear favorite with minimal possibilites for others to win in the end, the opposite, a almost uncontrolled race is possible too. But BOTH things are possible now as well. Depending on the group mostly. But one kind of course and group IMO favors tight control even more.

Managers not willing to accept climbers or sprinters in a group wouldn't do so if the one-legged were two-legged. So that can't be a reason against smaller teams, only against race related decisions. Just like "I won't let you go because you are too good in gc" or so.

Well, there have been climbers and sprinters in groups in 9 team races too. The opportunity, especially in tours is there. It's not used often, mostly because the chances of success are minimal. That won't really change with 6/7 riders. And as you say later there isn't really a way to get that part realistic, or at least I don't see it. But what changes is: many here assume it will generally become more open with less riders. (and as I said I'm not sure that's really the case) One of your goals is exactly that, less controlled races, if I understood everything correctly, more wilder attacking races. In the name of realism, but the result wouldn't be closer to realism. Because those races eliminate a certain type of rider at RSF, not in reality. In controlled races while the way a win is gotten often doesn't correspond to something that would happen in reality, the result corresponds to it more.

Enough, have to ride a race soon. Ah, short last thing

And for one day races, maybe a sprinter seldom wins with 6 riders per team. Once or twice per month a sprinter doesn't naturally win race. Just like he wouldn't win at a mountainous one day race. That's bad? After all top sprinters usually don't attend those 2.2 or 1.2 race at the other side of the globe.

Of course they don't attend. Neither do top flat riders. But if the theory, less riders, generally more attacking success comes true, at RSF only sprinters, not even top, even fairly useless ones like Tanner would follow reality and not start. Cancellara (Grillboy) still can start in Bolivia. Maybe THAT'S something to think about too.

[Luna]

I, too, don't know exactly how those races would turn out. Until now we didn't have enough races with 6/7 riders to ultimately find it out. But, as with every race, many things can happen. I don't guess that races with small team sizes would originate any special kind of a race in general, it would only maybe favour some situations and make others less probable. Be it the strengthening of the extremes, than even that would be a characteristic of those races that would not be worth being totally excluded from the variety of the racing calendar.

It's true. I would appreciate those races to be of a wilder attacking style. And I also am not sure about it to regularly beeing the case. At least the flat races and those with a mountain top finish after 90% flat race could still be pretty much an affair of the sprinters and climbers, respectively. The hillier races might in deed get more something for classic riders instead of hill sprinters when ridden with 6 riders, as seen at the Criterium de Lafontaine, where riders like Terranova could have ridden the final 30km without team mates and nevertheless being able to be in the mix. 7 not sure. But anyway. Some users have a massive fear of that situations where they have to realize that they wouldn't get it controlled the way they are used to. That's why I originally planned to talk about that aspect of bike racing in a seperate thread. Because it's an aspect that is part of bike racing in general but is conctantly denied and tried to be avoided by most of the users. But regarding to this discussion it only affects races with 6 or 7 riders. So I didn't found it worth for the moment, as the discussion sticks too much to the 6/7 riders, whereas the bigger topic is the 8 riders as standard. And we forgot a little bit to talk about it. While I don't really think anybody would have to rebuild the whole team because of 1 or 2 fantasy races with 6/7 riders per month. And there are in fact only few real one day races with 6/7 riders. So if there would be such small teams, they would more or less only appear at real stage races, minor ones, where usually not the creme de la creme of world cycling meets to fill their palmares. And even those are so few, compared to the full calendar of a year, that I think they wouldn't make such an impact on team planning and rider values.

You say wilder attacking races eliminate a certain type of rider. You mean those TDU-McEwens and LaToussuire-Mayos, don't you? Again, I don't see it as a matter of 6 riders or not. Those types of riders are already excluded from RSF. There is no Freire who wins bunch sprints as well as sprints of an escape group on a transitional stage. There is no Boonen who wins Tour sprint stages as well as Paris-Roubaix. At RSF the types of riders stick closer to only few types of races while they are excluded for other types of races. Actually every rider is eliminated for the most races of the season. Everyone has just a handful of races where he's in the mix for the win. And yes, if a pancake flat 6-riders-race is scheduled than a sprinter is potentially not the favourite out of an escape group. If the one or two 6/7 riders-races in amonth aren't even sprinter courses then they wouldn't have a chance even they were for 9 riders. So those kind of favourites would be exluded form maybe 1 race every 2 or 3 months. Therefor the variety of RSF races would increase. I don't hink that would harm anyone.

[the riders]

I don't understand why we worte more and more in this thread.

Some days ago a lot of riders says they it make no sense because of this and that. And what happen? Nothing. Somebody want try it with smaller teams and we ride with smaller teams. A voting you dont want...so why we should wirte more here.

Your only argument is more realistic for rsf, Luna.
Finally, not bad of course but it doesnt work here.
Some days before i worte some proposal for more realistic and bse worte why they are crap...and he was right.
When a leader fall back because of defect, crash e.g. everybody would make tempo against him...doenst matter if 180km before finish or 8km.
In real life you dont have teams who rides like a parasit, in reallife i cant say 'ok, today i ride a lot, destroy my team ,to change the GC without any reason or sense and then i stay off for 3 days because my team is dead'.

Of course we have this problem with 9 riders too, but with 9 riders you have a realistic chance to ride against such things.

Maybe we try this...one week every race you offer with 9 riders and the same races with smaller teams so we can decide, what races we like to ride.
After this week you can see what we do and can decide what you what to do.

I ride 2 or 3 Races with 6 riders and it was horrible. Teams attack with 4 or 5 riders and of course just one or 2 teams ride against this shit.

Maybe you follow pelOton 1 22pm in anden...now we have 58 riders in the pelton and10 days left. we will see what happen now.

[el Galactico]

I'm okay with some unimportant cat. 1 races which we ride with 7 or 8 riders. But for the important ones in next spring we have to do more than to only adapt the time size in my opinion.
And i have to say that my opinion depends very much on the fact that i can easily ride with a cheap team when only 7 or 8 riders per team.

[Luna]

@Riders:

There are also some users in this thread who reported that they had their fun in those racres. Why should they write anything at all if they should remain unheard?
Why are you so intolerant? Why do you want those users to abstain from their fun in those races?

You always come up with that voting thingy. Instead of talking about what your problem is with some single riders escaping out of an uncontrolled bunch for places 20-40. You don't even try to look at the matter in a more neutral way. You just say "shit" and "crap" and "voting!".

Do we ask the whole road usership about bike riders beeing allowed or banned from open roads? No. The road is there for everybody. Although the car drivers are in the majority and would most probably vote for freeing the roads from bike races, bycicles are principally allowed on roads. Share the road, man!

Why cannot you accept just 1 or 2 races per month with a significantly low number of riders per team? Maybe many of them would be ridden while you are part of a stge race. So you wouldn't even notice them. And be it 1 race in 2 months, or such, that you cannot avoid, why cannot you just say "ok, i have my fun for most of the times. Now let that minority come to their right"?

I don't even want to doubt your approach of the constant need of having an aspirant for the win in every race. Although there are many users who just keep rolling along, watching the race, chatting with kind Luna, watching the day to go by and waiting for a race where they chose to do something or where it opens up a gap for attacking or whatsoever; in spite of that widespread approach of users, I acknowledge that you and others do it differently. But you are not alone here. Let RSF be fun for many types of managers, not only for your way to play it.

You said something about introducing crashes, punctures and so on. I didn't answer to it because it was off topic. There are and could be other threads to discuss those things. But I understand that you mentioned that aspects in order to show that not every real occurence of bike sport would be appropriate for a simulation (although even that is not the holy truth and could very well be discussed). But there is a difference between accidental happenings and smaller team sizes: the smaller team sizes would only have their place in few occasions, while the possibility of crashes and mishaps would affect any race and anybody. There cannot be a comprimise. Either there is a constat chance of technical mishaps or not. While for the team sizes there can be both: 2% small team sizes and 98% able to make the most difficult races controllable by one or few teams until the finishing line (assuming that smaller team sizes would rip off the teams of any chance of control). Both can exist side by side.

[the riders]

@Riders:
Why are you so intolerant?

Voting is intolerant?

one week every race you offer with 9 riders and the same races with smaller teams so we can decide, what races we like to ride.
After this week you can see what we do and can decide what you what to do.

This is intolerant?
I think its more intolerant when i (i know you wasn't alone) decide to resizes the teams, when somebody say something about it, i have one argument for those people.

Instead of talking about what your problem is with some single riders escaping out of an uncontrolled bunch for places 20-40.

Main reason is that 75% of those races will decided between km1 - km10. Before you say, that its necessary that i leave my sprinter eg. at home and i should attack. When everybody ride like that i can ride with 2 riders because we have groupe with 20-40 riders in front. And not only the last 40-50 km (which whould be nice) but we have this groups at km10 because of the users.

Why cannot you accept just 1 or 2 races per month

Actually i see 5 races/tours where i can apply...(except clm) and 3 races/tours with 9 and 2 races/tours with less riders.
This month we had more races/ tours than 1 or 2 luna ^^

So make your decisions, you should do it anyway, equal what we write here, but please tell us one month before when i have the chance to ride with 9 riders because this month i give form for the nice less-riders races/tours.

[Luna]

@Riders:
Why are you so intolerant?

Voting is intolerant?

Yes. See the example with the cars and bikes on the road.

one week every race you offer with 9 riders and the same races with smaller teams so we can decide, what races we like to ride.
After this week you can see what we do and can decide what you what to do.

This is intolerant?

Don't know. Would be a pretty huge effort for it. Races with low attendancy could lead to 2 races with 6 teams each. And anyway, it would be like a voting. See answer about the voting above.

Another question: if you would accept every race ridden with 6 riders in case the majority would vote for it, why cannot you accept only 1 or 2 races per month with 6 riders without any voting, just for respecting that different approach in a few races and adding a bit more variety to the calendar?

Instead of talking about what your problem is with some single riders escaping out of an uncontrolled bunch for places 20-40.

Main reason is that 75% of those races will decided between km1 - km10. Before you say, that its necessary that i leave my sprinter eg. at home and i should attack. When everybody ride like that i can ride with 2 riders because we have groupe with 20-40 riders in front. And not only the last 40-50 km (which whould be nice) but we have this groups at km10 because of the users.

Don't know if it really would be that way. But if so, there would still be one or two teams who could use one of there helpers, that they don't need in the finale, to bring back the first one or two groups and control things. If not, you could be inside that group that went away. And no, I don't tell you should leave you're sprinter at home. You could still keep him in the bunch.

You're arguing like any manager who has sent a rider on the escape and complains about others bringing him back, because now he cannot ride the race he had planned. But that's part of the game anyway. That's no property of lower team sizes in general. But still, if you insist in beeing harmed in your tactics by those races you could easily avoid those races in the main.

But what would be so evil for you about going into a race that tells you, you might better attack? What happened to the big baroudeur team of Amun Penu and Khem Mytsereu? What happened to your relationship to the attack button? This point leaves me wondering a bit.

Why cannot you accept just 1 or 2 races per month

Actually i see 5 races/tours where i can apply...(except clm) and 3 races/tours with 9 and 2 races/tours with less riders.
This month we had more races/ tours than 1 or 2 luna ^^

Don't make fun now. Everybody (involved) knows we are inside a testing phase with an increased number of races with differing team sizes, because there are no big races at the moment that could be affected by it. A testing phase in which or after which we can discuss on the basis of the experiences we had with those races (instead of a basis of affected aversions), 6/7-rider-races as well as 8-rider-races.

So make your decisions, you should do it anyway, equal what we write here, but please tell us one month before when i have the chance to ride with 9 riders because this month i give form for the nice less-riders races/tours.

I don't take decisions. I'm only pleading for something and hope that
a) the powers have mercy with the (maybe) minority, that likes to have their niche at RSF (regarding 6/7-rider-fantasy-races) and
b) we could finally talk about giving up the 9-riders-standard in favour of the well-known 8 rider-standard.

[the riders]

Yes. See the example with the cars and bikes on the road.

Yes, i saw it. I think before a group of people decide what they do with our roads, we give them the chance because of our elections - system.

Another question: if you would accept every race ridden with 6 riders in case the majority would vote for it...

For sure i will do because if this is the opinion of more people i can decide if i want do it too or if i leave rsf.

...why cannot you accept only 1 or 2 races per month with 6 riders without any voting, just for respecting that different approach in a few races and adding a bit more variety to the calendar?

I dont have a problem with 2 or 3 races per month for less than 9 riders. But its important to know which races i should ride wih less than 9 riders one month before because of form.

For me ends this discussion here. We will see if it works with 1-3 races with less riders than 9 in december.

[Luna]

Especially you and me were spoking about races with 6/7 riders in the last few days, not about races with just less then 9 riders. But ok. Your discussion ends here.

[team fl]

Today, El Sur del Mundo, 9h: only 6 riders per team and they got their MS, despite a 10 in the way...

[Robyklebt]

Too late of course....

but:

Brescia would have been a good test for 8 riders again. I think Mosella or Bolkow was with 8 too, no? Maybe not.. Anyway, it's these races that would give a useful test. The kind of important ones. In the end many of the veterans don't really care that much about 95% of the one day races in Nov-Dec. Try to win, of course, but well... 6 riders? Ok, no problem, 8? Ok, 7? Ok. 9? Ok. Doesn't really matter, get a fairly cheap team, then make the most of your chances. If I win excellent if I don't, not the end of the world. And I suspect it's similar for most veterans, hard to get excited about the great Henan Cycling Cup for example. So I ride according to my team. Not make the team according to my plans.

Brescia on the other yes, that's a race I want to win. Like there will be many in Feb-October, a lot of the cat 3+ races. And so it's that that we should be testing. What's the influence on races we actually care about? And there aren't that many actually... so a lost chance for a slightly more meaningful test.

Similar thing actually for Abruzzo, but too late as well since the planning is already done.

Otherwise, nothing much to say on the 8 rider standard. My problem nr 1: 1 rider more that stays at home doing nothing, had 14 riders in november, what for... now 15, fortunately I'll ride a long 9 riders race, so it's only 6 that are wasted, not 7.

Then one big advantage I see for me so far is: I have an excellent team for 6-7-8 riders races. Since right now I have quite a few useless cheap guys. So I can start cheap in 6 riders races, bring one leader another ok, lots of rubbish, cheap, big profits. And don't like it actually, just makes those Fouchés more important. While the Fengs, useful riders ride even less. I'll still try to build them, but unless I get 2 regular Fochés they'll ride less, need cheaper riders with 8 to even out Fengs salary... But that's just theory and not experience, experience right now is: I waste 1 more rider. Nothing else.

[Luna]

One day races

Fantasy

I guess the community could stand 1 or 3 one day races with 6 or 7 riders per month. Not more. That would be ok for me. What do you think?
But the designer of a race should have his word on the matter of team sizes. He/she could write it in the posting of the race if it's allowed to ride it with fewer riders.

I really liked that 2 months of one day races with 8 riders per team. I have to think well if I go on the attack and if I send two or only one rider on the road. Every rider in front means a weakening of my tactics for the finale in case the group gets caught. 9 riders would mean I can afford one rider in the group easily, too easily, no tactical considerations. One rider is for free. That would mean I can play both, the escaper and the powerful field splitter in the end. And if one escaper wouldn't get away I have enough other riders to fire off. With 8 riders I wouldn't have that endless options of forcing myself into a group. The same for any other actions I might plan. Making tempo or hanging one rider on anothers wheel for controlling an attacking group or whatsoever, all this has to be considered well with 8 riders, while too easy to afford with 9 riders. I really would prefer 8 riders on a more or less regular basis in order to. But I can imagine there are not many managers that see the differences there as an improvement. So I don't have an easy proposal here like that on the matter of 6/7 riders. Opinions?


Real

Still have the opinion that real races should be ridder with real team sizes. Sanremo went well last year. Ok, Franco didn't win, but it was not because of the missing 9th rider, but because of the sprint lottery. He got 2nd even with a sprint from 50m as far as I remmember.
Also weird and overdone attacking racing styles couldn't happen so easily like we saw it over the years (2 attackers at km 0, another 2 at the first hill, the next 2 somewhere in the final 50km and then the captain with 2 helers at the Redoute or so). Attackers are just attackers, giving their fate into the hand of others. Riding with 9 riders would mean you can more easily construct a wild building of group jumping, more powerful than it could ever be in reality.
So I'd prefer no 9 riders for one day races. But the same as above, don't know if the community is mature enough for it (and if it will ever be ). Opinions?


Stage Races

Real

Before this discussion started we used to give the real stage races the real team sizes plus one, in order to compensate for the bloody one-legged cycling heroes. At least we made it that way for the last one or 2 years. It went well. I suggest we keep it that way. This would mean for exampe for Tour Down Under 8 riders, instead of the real 7. Is that okay for the masses?

EDIT: The higher tactical difficulty with 8 riders would count for stage races as well, of course. Actually I would prefer no stage race with 9 riders. But I don't care. Nobody wants to give up his GT arcade team for the Criterium International. So, Amen.


Fantasy

Just give the designer the choice. Compared to the mass of real stages races over the year the bumber of fantasy stage races is pretty small. So we could have some variation there without automatically making it a regularity.

[NoPikouze]

My proposal would be quite simple

Fantasy
One day races: 8 as a standard. Less if the designer says so. Maximum 9 (wanted to say 8, but 9 sometimes is allright.)
Tours: The same. But max 9 seems more justified.

Real
One day races: Same number as in reality. Perhaps 8 as a minimum for the important classics (Cat. 4-5-6), but since I guess they all have 8 IRL, it's just a precaution.
Tours: Real number +1, maximum 9.

And show the number of riders in the calendar screen.

[the riders]

One day races

Fantasy

I guess the community could stand 1 or 3 one day races with 6 or 7 riders per month. Not more. That would be ok for me. What do you think?

Maybe one race with 6/7 riders and paralell one race with 9 riders. Please show the number of riders in the calendar screen one month before for planing form.

I really liked that 2 months of one day races with 8 riders per team. I have to think well if I go on the attack and if I send two or only one rider on the road. Every rider in front means a weakening of my tactics for the finale in case the group gets caught. 9 riders would mean I can afford one rider in the group easily, too easily, no tactical considerations. One rider is for free. That would mean I can play both, the escaper and the powerful field splitter in the end. And if one escaper wouldn't get away I have enough other riders to fire off. With 8 riders I wouldn't have that endless options of forcing myself into a group. The same for any other actions I might plan. Making tempo or hanging one rider on anothers wheel for controlling an attacking group or whatsoever, all this has to be considered well with 8 riders, while too easy to afford with 9 riders. I really would prefer 8 riders on a more or less regular basis in order to. But I can imagine there are not many managers that see the differences there as an improvement. So I don't have an easy proposal here like that on the matter of 6/7 riders. Opinions?

If i attack with 1,2 or 4 riders is just important for non-favos.
When you should ride in the pelOton, you lose one helper because he make tempo.
One more important fact is, that the 9th rider is a cheap rider. If he is missing you must decide if you ride with an expensive team and you can controll or you ride with one leader, 7 helpers and hope that somebody ride for you.
Of course it is just important for favos. But funny, if you have a big team, maybe some races you are a favo, i can't attack for money, you must decide if you hope for help or ride with an expensive team and i must pay 70% taxes.

Real

Still have the opinion that real races should be ridder with real team sizes. Sanremo went well last year. Ok, Franco didn't win, but it was not because of the missing 9th rider, but because of the sprint lottery. He got 2nd even with a sprint from 50m as far as I remmember.
Also weird and overdone attacking racing styles couldn't happen so easily like we saw it over the years (2 attackers at km 0, another 2 at the first hill, the next 2 somewhere in the final 50km and then the captain with 2 helers at the Redoute or so). Attackers are just attackers, giving their fate into the hand of others. Riding with 9 riders would mean you can more easily construct a wild building of group jumping, more powerful than it could ever be in reality.
So I'd prefer no 9 riders for one day races. But the same as above, don't know if the community is mature enough for it (and if it will ever be ). Opinions?

Where is the difference to fantasyraces?
You want no 9-riders for one day races.
For Fantasy you want 1-3 races with 6/7 riders races It means all the other races with 8 riders, or?

Stage Races

Real

Before this discussion started we used to give the real stage races the real team sizes plus one, in order to compensate for the bloody one-legged cycling heroes. At least we made it that way for the last one or 2 years. It went well. I suggest we keep it that way. This would mean for exampe for Tour Down Under 8 riders, instead of the real 7. Is that okay for the masses?

EDIT: The higher tactical difficulty with 8 riders would count for stage races as well, of course. Actually I would prefer no stage race with 9 riders. But I don't care. Nobody wants to give up his GT arcade team for the Criterium International. So, Amen.


Fantasy

Just give the designer the choice. Compared to the mass of real stages races over the year the bumber of fantasy stage races is pretty small. So we could have some variation there without automatically making it a regularity.

And again...you dont want races with 9 riders. Why you we write the list of different races? Just say '1-3 races per month with 6/7 riders, all the others i'd prefer to ride 8 riders'
I'd prefer all races with 9 riders. 1-5 Day-Races with less than 9 riders -> no problem for me.
Or we change the helping- and powersystem. But this point we wrote some weeks ago but it is more faster to change the riders pro teams

[Luna]

If i attack with 1,2 or 4 riders is just important for non-favos.

No. Groups are basically smaller and easier to control if attakcing teams have reason to rethink what they do.

Furthermore: In the weeks of 8 riders/team I saw the sprinters take their wins, the "hillspinters" take theier wins, the climbers take their wins, and the classic riders take their wins. Obviously the controlling teams still rule their respective areas.

Where is the difference to fantasyraces?

Fantasy races have no original as reference.

You want no 9-riders for one day races.
For Fantasy you want 1-3 races with 6/7 riders races It means all the other races with 8 riders, or?

And again...you dont want races with 9 riders. Why you we write the list of different races? Just say '1-3 races per month with 6/7 riders, all the others i'd prefer to ride 8 riders'

Different types of races, different facts. It's that easy. Furthermore I prefer to use my own words, if you allow. Who likes to read thoroughly might find the different statements and concessions for the different sub-topics. Who doesn't want to read thoroughly misses some points. Maybe you better speak to NoPik or other users that don't share your view on this matter, instead of asking me to justify the structure of my posts. As far as I remember your discussion ended here in mid November. I take you by that word. I made my proposal. Nothing more to say from my side. I leave it to the others now.

[the riders]

No. Groups are basically smaller and easier to control if attakcing teams have reason to rethink what they do.

No because a non-favo team can attack with wo riders and can protect 3 leaders as well because he shouldnt make tempo in the pelOton. And for example today (GP Herne Mémorial Les Dubray) every Favo-team can be happy that we have here 9 riders. its nearly impossible to controll with 7 riders or you must ride with an very expensiv team.

Furthermore: In the weeks of 8 riders/team I saw the sprinters take their wins, the "hillspinters" take theier wins, the climbers take their wins, and the classic riders take their wins. Obviously the controlling teams still rule their respective areas.

For sure we do, but just with an expensive team or with help.

Fantasy races have no original as reference.

Thanks, but you want no 9-riders for one day races. Doenst matter if they call Fantasy or real, or[/quote]

As far as I remember your discussion ended here in mid November. I take you by that word. I made my proposal. Nothing more to say from my side. I leave it to the others now.

The discuission ends for me because we try to ride with less riders. Now, two month later, you ask for opinions and my opinion doenst change.
But sorry, i read

Opinions?

and not 'Opinions? But please just answer when you have the same opinions like me'

[Robyklebt]

6+7 IMO no need to discuss. Nothing to do with the standard.

Fantasy IMO clear. Designer decides and only he decides. Exception could be Andes and Dectour, due to the length at 9. Dec tour so that the number doesn't become a factor in the vote maybe, but don't really care. But generally IMO fantasy=designer. From 4-10. Leso then still has the control and a 4-5 race or a 10 race will certainly be less often then other races. designer makes it in the online race editor. Basically I oppose any other system mentioned so far. And will oppose any system that doesn't go down to min 4 or up to max 10. Unless somebody shows me a reason that makes sense.

Real races:

Standard 8? 9?

November beginning of december, I was very happy whenever I got a 9 man race. Why? The race doesn't really change a lot(at least in the tests, unimportant race that I mostly don't care) but I have to leave another rider at home. For nothing.

Biggest change IMO might turn out to be that the 42-80 with 27 years gets more important. Or the Fouché, etc. 8 riders salary pressure increases, the supercheapies get more popular.

Right now see no advantage with 8 standard, except that it is like that in reality. Not enough right now for me.

I'm for the 9 rider standard at the moment. Until we find a solution for at least one of the 2 concerns mentioned here. (and maybe some of the ones mentioned before) One would be easy, see the starting values thread.

[Quick]

I feel betrayed! Leso and the other 8-rider-fans owe(schulden?) me money. Why? from 9 to 8 riders i get 40k less. Why? Normally my formation is 4 captains and 5 helpers. With 8 riders it's again normally 4 captains and 4 helpers(because with just 3 captains it's very hard for our one-legged-riders...). But my 5. helper just wants 30k salary... so i lose 10k per start. What i want to say: Why dont make it from 335k to 340k or 345? 10k isn't much in one race... but with 25 8-rider races per month it's a lot.

[Luna]

Hm. Could be an option. At least if we ride the real races with 8. While for the small unimportant fantasy cat 1 races I wouldn't mind to be forced to send only the 2nd best team, if the race doesn't have any other special meaning to me. The stars like to ride the important races. The rest so to say remains for training purposes or for giving riders a chance who find themselves in helper roles in the bigger events. At the same time the smaller teams may decide to send their best line-up in order to have better chances against the experienced managers in the lower cat races. If the elilte teams still want to be the ultimate force in "Rund um den Misthaufen" to reach the Allagensque winning rate then they might well spend some dollars for it.

[Rockstar Inc]

At the same time the smaller teams may decide to send their best line-up in order to have better chances against the experienced managers in the lower cat races. If the elilte teams still want to be the ultimate force in "Rund um den Misthaufen" to reach the Allagensque winning rate then they might well spend some dollars for it

As long as we have the same prize money for Misthaufen as we have it for example for down under or scheldeprijs the rsf community doesn't care which cat they want to win

a decision how we want to race in 2011 is needed, fast needed...for small teams with only 10-12 riders it's not so important, but especially teams with 15+ riders should know how to build their teams and know what they have to expect...with only 35-50% "geldsperre" you have no problems to rebuild your team very fast, but teams with 60/70% have to sell 2,3 riders to buy one new rider who fit's in the new system...

@Luna: you and some others feel cycling, feel real races over fantasy...me too, but 80% of the community doesn't care...

the number of riders is very important for fomsetting, so show us this number in the calender...

[Luna]

@Luna: you and some others feel cycling, feel real races over fantasy...me too, but 80% of the community doesn't care...

Thanks for recognising that feeling behind it.

80% don't care, yes maybe. But they would care if they found themselves in a system that would support such an approach. We can't force anybody to value the ciclismo. But we can set a frame that promotes a behaviour typical for the cycling world. Those who only care for the naked winning rate or their account balance would still find their most opportune way offered by the RSF system.

But however, I agree, it's time for a decision. Waiting for Leso to announce something.

[Rockstar Inc]

But however, I agree, it's time for a decision. Waiting for Leso to announce something.

push