Team sizes

[Luna]

I consider this as important enough to use a signature for the first time in my 3.5 years presence at RSF forums.


Btw allowing to leave an expensive rider at home would help the newbies in their 2nd season not to are forced to reset their team only because their salary gets too high.

[Zauberlehrling]

If the standard goes down to 8 or 7 riders, and the only races with 9 riders are the GT, then why in hell should a newbie buy 9 riders in the beginning?? He buys 8 or 7 riders with his 15 Mios and will be bancrupt really fast, because he has to pay too much for every race....

No advantage to the actual situation.

[Lizard]

If the standard goes down to 8 or 7 riders, and the only races with 9 riders are the GT, then why in hell should a newbie buy 9 riders in the beginning?? He buys 8 or 7 riders with his 15 Mios and will be bancrupt really fast, because he has to pay too much for every race....

No advantage to the actual situation.

The idea for this was as far as I remember, that even though 7-8 riders are usual, 9 riders are the minimum to start off before you can ride a race.

[Zauberlehrling]

This minimum makes only sense, if at least 50% of the races are for 9 riders. Why should a team without a license (so will never have the chance to ride a race with 9 riders) have to buy 9 riders?? He can ride 10 races per month, he will have no problem with 8 riders to find this 10 races per month. Even with licence he will be able to race every single day a race with his 8 riders.

The reason for the "9-riders-obligatorum" was just, that normal races are ridden by 9 riders. Luna wants this to be changed to 8 (or less) riders, so there is no more reason for this obligatorium.

[Luna]

I wouldn't have a problem with reducing the obligatory starting team size to 8 and consequently reducing the starting money from 15 Mio to 13,33 Mio. It should just be te same starting conditions for all. But it would be just another reconstuction of the matter, while it could well run without it. That would make it a bit more complicated then needed. Why not forcing a team to have 9 riders under contract to take part in the circus? You could swap riders from race to race. I'm sure many beginners would like that. And it's not unusual in any sport to have a minimum number of riders/players/whatever in the team in order to get registered in this or that league/class/whatever.

[Luna]

Furthermore, if we'd constantly need one rider more than in RL in all the races, why did nobody complain about 9 riders at RSF being too little for the Grand Tours all the years? After all we have to compesate for the one-legged team captains plus the hard 3 weeks of racing, don't we? 9 riders for GTs in RL -> so 10 riders for RSF?

[Luna]

Any questions?


We're aproaching the winter period. A good time to make the change for next season.

[NoPikouze]

One point though: If the standard size is 8 riders (and 13.5m for a starter), new teams won't be able to participate in GTs !
Well maybe that's an advantage as well, they need the experience and skill for buying a 9th rider before joining. But nobody said it until now...

[Luna]

Every team would be obliged to have at least 9 riders under contract in order to get entry to any race, even if it's a race for only 2 riders (contre la montre par 2, for example).

[Rockstar Inc]

Any questions?


We're aproaching the winter period. A good time to make the change for next season.

are you kidding me? two teams are talking "pro" and you want Leso/man to implemente this?

[Luna]

I'm just missing the striking counter arguments apart from fear of changing the habits.

[Rockstar Inc]

same for me, all my doubts and "problems" are still there...

[Luna]

There are nearly 400 views for this thread. But noone comes up with major scruple, except then and when something about the one-legged riders. And here in this thread there are more users sharing Aux' and my view. You didn't count them all correctly. Give me the quotes of the specific argument and write down what you think is not correct with it.

[gaurain rx]

Pro real team sizes now. Make the fields 25 teams with 8 riders -> 200 riders. (It's boring to race with only 11 teams...)
Stop this 9 riders per race standard. 9 riders only at the Grand Tours, please. It doesn't kill the sprinters teams. It's still very well possible to control a race with 8 riders per team, although one of them usually only has got one leg (=low flat sill). Anyway I seldom see a Cavendish or Farrar participate in the tempo work during a race.

Give the managers the freedom to chose up to 2 riders less than the allowed maximum riders per race.

Make it more real at that point.


In order to maintain the balance in the starting conditions make it obligatory for a team to consist of at least 9 riders, even if they could start a race with less than 9.

So Luna says there was no good counter argument at the moment... But basically, I don't really see a good argument "pro" this!

1. Minimum of team per field : 11 --> 12... change nothing
Maximum of team per field : 22 --> 25 ... It's minr change too

--> A little more competition for "zwischen wertungs" and for a top 5 or so if more teams fight for the same amount of money... Do we adapt the money system or not?

2. chose up to 2 riders less than the allowed maximum riders per race : what do we do with the "anmeldung" costs if a team choose to bring 2 riders less than the max?

3. a little disadvantage for the newbies I think, the "old" teams will have the possibility to bring better teams in term of "mean level" cause the gap between the cost of team and the "anmeldung prime" will be lower for a 7-8 riders team than for a 9 rider team at constant "mean level".

4. Realism question... There are things much less realistic in rsf than this... Anyway, It's impossible to make rsf realistic.

5. If the only argument is realism, I don't think it's really necessary to change a lot of things/habits,... for quite nothing

6. I'm not opposed to have some races per month with less than 9 riders for sure... and that's already done

[auxilium torino]

So Luna says there was no good counter argument at the moment... But basically, I don't really see a good argument "pro" this!

1. Minimum of team per field : 11 --> 12... change nothing 12???,why not 13???
Maximum of team per field : 22 --> 25 ... It's minr change too

--> A little more competition for "zwischen wertungs" and for a top 5 or so if more teams fight for the same amount of money... Do we adapt the money system or not?

2. chose up to 2 riders less than the allowed maximum riders per race : what do we do with the "anmeldung" costs if a team choose to bring 2 riders less than the max?

3. a little disadvantage for the newbies I think, the "old" teams will have the possibility to bring better teams in term of "mean level" cause the gap between the cost of team and the "anmeldung prime" will be lower for a 7-8 riders team than for a 9 rider team at constant "mean level".

4. Realism question... There are things much less realistic in rsf than this... Anyway, It's impossible to make rsf realistic.

5. If the only argument is realism, I don't think it's really necessary to change a lot of things/habits,... for quite nothing

6. I'm not opposed to have some races per month with less than 9 riders for sure... and that's already done

[Luna]

So Luna says there was no good counter argument at the moment... But basically, I don't really see a good argument "pro" this!

Oh, come on. This thread is full of pro arguments. But not so full of counter arguments.

1. Minimum of team per field : 11 --> 12... change nothing
Maximum of team per field : 22 --> 25 ... It's minr change too

That would be so bad?

Btw at races for less than 8 riders the minumum would be even higher. 14 at races for 7, for example.

--> A little more competition for "zwischen wertungs" and for a top 5 or so if more teams fight for the same amount of money... Do we adapt the money system or not?

You mean that as a result of higher minumum numnber of participants? Don't understand. There are hnudrets of races with more than 11 teams. Do we adapt the money system for them each time? We only adapt the money system for races with less than 100 riders (or so) at the moment.

2. chose up to 2 riders less than the allowed maximum riders per race : what do we do with the "anmeldung" costs if a team choose to bring 2 riders less than the max?

Already answered in this thread. Did you read a little bit here at all? Choosing less riders would lead to getting less salary refunds. It would be the same as for races we already have: 40k less for each slot you leave empty.

3. a little disadvantage for the newbies I think, the "old" teams will have the possibility to bring better teams in term of "mean level" cause the gap between the cost of team and the "anmeldung prime" will be lower for a 7-8 riders team than for a 9 rider team at constant "mean level".

Advantage for the newbies: Usually the team salary of a newbie team explodes after the first or second season change, forcing them to either immediately rebuild the team, or constantly rider with higher salary expenses. They could leave their expensive climber at home in case there is something other than a mountain race on schedule.

4. Realism question... There are things much less realistic in rsf than this... Anyway, It's impossible to make rsf realistic.

That's absolutely no counter argument, neither against it, nor for it. That's just philosphy. We could stop the whole RSF project, because it's impossible to exactly picture a real bike race with a computer program.

5. If the only argument is realism, I don't think it's really necessary to change a lot of things/habits,... for quite nothing

It's not only for having the word "realism" standing above of it. It's more for the realistic way of how bike races unfold. Controlled, yes. But not to the extend that we have at RSF. More about it readable in several posts from different users here in this thread. I'm unable want to repeat it all here.

6. I'm not opposed to have some races per month with less than 9 riders for sure... and that's already done

While I would not oppose having some races with 9 riders once in while. Just for the variety, and as a souvenir to the good old times. Not because the races would need it.

[gaurain rx]

So Luna says there was no good counter argument at the moment... But basically, I don't really see a good argument "pro" this!

Oh, come on. This thread is full of pro arguments. But not so full of counter arguments.

1. Minimum of team per field : 11 --> 12... change nothing
Maximum of team per field : 22 --> 25 ... It's minr change too

That would be so bad?

Btw at races for less than 8 riders the minumum would be even higher. 14 at races for 7, for example.

--> A little more competition for "zwischen wertungs" and for a top 5 or so if more teams fight for the same amount of money... Do we adapt the money system or not?

You mean that as a result of higher minumum numnber of participants? Don't understand. There are hnudrets of races with more than 11 teams. Do we adapt the money system for them each time? We only adapt the money system for races with less than 100 riders (or so) at the moment.

2. chose up to 2 riders less than the allowed maximum riders per race : what do we do with the "anmeldung" costs if a team choose to bring 2 riders less than the max?

Already answered in this thread. Did you read a little bit here at all? Choosing less riders would lead to getting less salary refunds. It would be the same as for races we already have: 40k less for each slot you leave empty.

3. a little disadvantage for the newbies I think, the "old" teams will have the possibility to bring better teams in term of "mean level" cause the gap between the cost of team and the "anmeldung prime" will be lower for a 7-8 riders team than for a 9 rider team at constant "mean level".

Advantage for the newbies: Usually the team salary of a newbie team explodes after the first or second season change, forcing them to either immediately rebuild the team, or constantly rider with higher salary expenses. They could leave their expensive climber at home in case there is something other than a mountain race on schedule.

4. Realism question... There are things much less realistic in rsf than this... Anyway, It's impossible to make rsf realistic.

That's absolutely no counter argument, neither against it, nor for it. That's just philosphy. We could stop the whole RSF project, because it's impossible to exactly picture a real bike race with a computer program.

5. If the only argument is realism, I don't think it's really necessary to change a lot of things/habits,... for quite nothing

It's not only for having the word "realism" standing above of it. It's more for the realistic way of how bike races unfold. Controlled, yes. But not to the extend that we have at RSF. More about it readable in several posts from different users here in this thread. I'm unable want to repeat it all here.

6. I'm not opposed to have some races per month with less than 9 riders for sure... and that's already done

While I would not oppose having some races with 9 riders once in while. Just for the variety, and as a souvenir to the good old times. Not because the races would need it.

Well, I didn't really expose some counter arguments (only the newbie thing)... Just want to show that the "pro" arguments were not as powerfull as you say!

[Luna]

But they are there.

And the main concern about having less riders to protect the leader is beautifully weakened by Cerro's statement:

well, but please note that those one-legged riders do not lose a bit more energy than a 70-85 for those km where the tempo is low, so normally for some like 70% of the race. Every Captain needs a helper there, no madder which values he has. So i do not see the big difference.

.


And Franco's lies about only 2 users talking "pro", or me don't wanting anything else but raising my own chances in the races, are more polemics than factual contributions to the discussion. Don't know why he does it. While there are points in the discussion that are worth to be responded to objecticely.

Even you, Gaurain, do not not really respond to the arguments here. Everything you do is stating that the pro's are not soo big. But what do you expect? What is so bad about copying the RL conditions to the RSF races? 100% reality is not achievable, yes. But you're arguing like it were bad _because_ it is real.

We're making big efforts to create the climbs with the correct lenghts and steepnesses. We're racing the whole world calendar during the year. That's also real. Is that also unnecessary then? What ideals does that follow. And why aren't these ideals worth applying at this point? I just don't get it. Reality is THE powerful pro argument. No need to claim there are no real pro's in this case.

And thanks to Leso we already had some test races with 8 riders per team over the last months. I didn't see any so-called favourite struggling to keep his chances alive. There were groups breaking away and there was a peloton more or less easily reeling them back. In the end one of the favourites won the race, like so often. If not, then it was because of the sprinting lottery, not because of 20 energy units less for one of the top sprinters.

[Rockstar Inc]

And Franco's lies about only 2 users talking "pro"

watch out before calling other peoples "liar" or i'll take the discussion on a personal level too...maybe not liar, maybe asshole, wanker or stuff like that...i have to think about it......please tell my allmighty and wise Luna, which teams talk pro beside you and aux? tell me which teams are talking pro beneath you two, who are known as teams which only "goal" is it to succeed in escapes or late attacks? tell me or show me a team like us lecce, bse marzahn, quick step etc. etc. who are known for working in the peloton for their leaders who are "pro" reform?

[Luna]

Since your polemics about my actual goals I already felt it to be on a personal level, Franco. That's where the word "lies" came from.

Interesting. Now you suddenly only accept the statements form specified users. But ok. How about that:

RSF's tactics will change a lot for more realism if we do that

It could be a direction for RSF

I am FOR this change, if the one-legged leaders loose much less energy as a compensation, then it's ok and also realistic.

(in addition to ZLs demand for less energy loss keep in mind Cerro's statement about the fact that they wouldn't really lose that more energy at all)


Are those users accepted by you for being able to form a view about the matter?
I left out the quotes of those users weighing into the discussion with questions and concern that immediately got answered by Aux or me. And also those saying they are not against it.
So how many do you count?

Now show me the prevailing number of users that came up here with a considerable "No!".

[skull]

we have a lot of races with less than 9 riders til now - and it functions
the thing with one-leg-riders is a big problem - but no reason to dramatize
i think we should try it one season with this luna-compromise of original +1 (with a max of 9 )
that wont change anything for races above cat 2, but everybody could get a feeling for it in minor races
and then a qualified - non-polemic - opinion is possible - maybe

[lesossies]

i think we should try it one season with this luna-compromise of original +1 (with a max of 9 )

I agree too !
We can try it until the new season begins. Afterwhat we can fix the new rules.

[gaurain rx]

Even you, Gaurain, do not not really respond to the arguments here. Everything you do is stating that the pro's are not soo big. But what do you expect? What is so bad about copying the RL conditions to the RSF races? 100% reality is not achievable, yes. But you're arguing like it were bad _because_ it is real.

You interpretated my words I think.

Well, I've never ever said I had big counter arguments (only one as I said in my last posts). I just said that I wasn't (totally) convienced by the pro arguments. And I haven't argued that it was bad because it's real. Changing the team size to make it realistic when the race engine involved thins which are not realistic (in terms of energy (loss), helping system, ...) seems to me beginning by the wrong side of the "problem".

I'm not against changing things and I don't think I'll have advantage or disadvantage if we change the riders/team/race (maybe my attacking feeling will comeback so). But I think we must be carefull, theere are things in each reform which are hidden and that we see the problems then.. I think here about team sizes, Financial fee level, etc... Don't know if this reform will change these things or the way it works but maybe yes, so better not to put all the races till now with less than 9 riders...

[Robyklebt]

Just to clarify: My concern for riders nr 7-14 (or actually 7-20, just used 14 because that's a number more people have than 20) hasn't been answered in a way I find satisfying. The same as now for 10-14 (or 20). Well.. nice... super even. It's more dead capital lying around.

Which still doesn't make me an opponent, but neither a pro reformer. Still on the fence, similar reasons to what Gaurain said. Don't see the big need. See the "Reiz", 8 in reality, 8 here. 6 there 6 here. But not the real compelling arguments, but some concerns.

-1 legged riders. ZLs comment. Not really nullified by Cerros comment, since one of the pro arguments by Aux was: Short races will be accepted more. And see 700 posts by me, short races are raced more intensely, favor 2 legged riders, old example to be found somewhere (or not if it was the old forum) that in high tempo a sprinter lost more energy with 2 helpers than a flat rider with no rider while a flat rider with one helper gained energy. Plus of course every race will be fast at the end, so teh one legged ones will still

-Other concern is: In the name of reality we kick out reality. 2 sprinters, is not as unreal as it's made sound here, don't think anybody specifically said 2 sprinters is too much, but basically it's "adapt". There are x examples of teams starting with 2 sprinters in reality. 3 mountain riders for the Giro? That all perform? Simoni-Riccò-Piepoli. Impossible even with 9 riders now, and will still be since that doesn't change. But those 3 could start in Pais Vasco too (add Cobo, or did he join a year later maybe?) No problem for Saunier. I M P O S S I B L E at RSF, and for once I really know what I'm talking about, you can't have 3 performing climbers in a GT or smaller tour even, simply doesn't work. So instead of moving closer to reality we move further away?

- the one sided view of reality. In reality most small races are not raced by big teams, southland might be ridden by 6 riders per team, but it's not even a UCI event anymore. Not sure if Roulston will get his usual special permission to start anyway, if he can get it, but basically it's a race for ... don't even know for whom it is now.. nobody anybody knows though. D6 for us. We can all ride it. Why choose the number per race reality over the "who's allowed" to ride reality?

- Less controlled. We hear about too much control here and there, but is there really too much control? It really depends on the race, the group. We have some tours that are very controlled, disappointgly tightly controlled, then we have the absolute chaos tours. RSF right now allows for both, it's up to the users. In reality no team can control a whole race, is true (well, Armstrongs teams used to do an excellent job in the mountain stages), but, it's even truer at RSF. With 9 riders. NO TEAM can control an average stage alone. some special short stages, ok, but an average normal 150-200 stage. No way. The ultracontrolled races come from a group of teams that have the same interest and collaborate. Not from single teams. So don't really see not enough control right now. Smaller races are often not controlled in reality, a group of 30 riders gets away early, everybody else gives up somewhere. Never happens here, true. But wouldn't happen in a realistic manner after the change either. Again, in reality a sprinter, Petacchi winning a Girostage (and if anybody now calls the Giro a minor race he gets a problem) from a huge escape (Pinotti got rosa that day I think) can't happen here, a one legged Petacchi would be dropped along the way after his team had been forced to control the escape. At least I think Petacchi won, not even sure... But sprinters, climbers, etc. in escapes, even in smaller 1 day races happens, a lot. And they win too sometimes. RSF? Just can't happen. So.... give the sprinters and climbers the second leg? Or trade that part of reality for more protection for one legged ones like now? Or forget that part of reality?

Then

- I don't see the ZL argument as pro now. I see it as endorsing Robys enlightened position on a different topic.
- I think Gaurains last comment is the most intelligent thing he ever wrote. Ok, maybe that wasn't so hard

Well, I've never ever said I had big counter arguments (only one as I said in my last posts). I just said that I wasn't (totally) convienced by the pro arguments. And I haven't argued that it was bad because it's real. Changing the team size to make it realistic when the race engine involved thins which are not realistic (in terms of energy (loss), helping system, ...) seems to me beginning by the wrong side of the "problem".

Yep, predictable as I am we come back to the thing I've been preaching for almost 2 years now... The RSF engine is a temporary solution, it was meant as a temporary solution from the beginning, we all underestimated the impact the 3 colors would have among other things. It's really time to get something better. But why start at the wrong side of the problem?

Lots of concern, that for me haven't been answered, haven't convinced me, despite that I'm not opposed to it. Not in favor of it either really.

But ok, to come to lesos proposal:

nr 1. Milano Sanremo 2011 will be ridden with 9 riders, don't give a flying fuck what happens otherwise. Last year the sprinter teams got told a few days before the race, that the the one classic where they have good chances will be ridden with 8 riders. For all the rest we went back to 9. cobble stoners, hillybillies or etc etc all got their 9 riders for their classics. So Milano-Sanremo with 9 in any case in 2011. Make up for 2010. Otherwise I go apeshit crazy and start throwing bomb bananas at everybody and become best friend with NoPik or something. Then of course I'll expect all sprinter teams to support my make up demands for the Vuelta in 2011, except the afternoon all times will be decided by a 23 sided "würfel" 3 days before the start. Ok, slightly off topic. And I'm getting really pissed off again.....smoking.

2 Understand that leso want a fix rule, not a discussion for every race.

But:

Real
GT 9 riders
UCI 1.1 6 to 8 riders
UCI 1.2 4 to 6 riders
Nat. min.1-max. 6

It could be a direction for RSF:
Proposal:
Cat 6 Races and GTs : 9 riders
Cat 5 Races and Cat 4 Tours: 8-9 riders, can be definitively defined/discussed for every race/tour.
Cat 3-4 races and Cat 2-3 Tours : 6-8 riders
Cat 1-2 races and Cat1 Tours : max 7-8 riders

I´ll prefer a concrete rule for all races than a solution/discussion for every race .

Ok, where did Aux get his numbers? I got mine here:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... 8&LangId=1

I'll probably get a prize for the UCI for person in the world who clicks on that link the most often soon btw. And the one it takes its computer the longest to load that damned pdf...2 cigarettes later it finally loaded!

2.2.003 The number of titular riders per team shall be set at 4 minimum and 10 maximum. The organiser
shall indicate in the programme or technical guide and on the entry form the maximum number for
his race. That number shall be the same for all teams. No account shall be taken of any riders
entered in excess of that number.
If the maximum number of riders per team is 4, 5 or 6, no team may take the start with less than
4 riders. If the maximum number of riders per team is 7 or 8, no team may take the start with less
than 5 riders. If the maximum number of riders per team is 9 or 10, no team may take the start
with less than 6 riders.
In the UCI ProTour events, the number of riders per team is 8. However, subject to prior permission
by the UCI ProTour council, the organiser may fix the number of riders per team at 7. The organiser
shall request the permission of the UCI ProTour council on or before 1st January of the year of the
event.
For the WE 1 races, the number of riders per team is set at 6. However, subject to prior approval by
the Road Commission, the organiser can set the number of riders per team at 8 for WE 2.1 races.

Bolding by the ape. The last paragraph is for Women's races..

Source for Aux numbers?

Back to leso

Cat 6 Races and GTs : 9 riders
Cat 5 Races and Cat 4 Tours: 8-9 riders, can be definitively defined/discussed for every race/tour.
Cat 3-4 races and Cat 2-3 Tours : 6-8 riders
Cat 1-2 races and Cat1 Tours : max 7-8 riders

Don't get cat 1-2 and 3-4. Why 6-8 3/4 why 7-8 for cat 1-2??

But.. wouldn't it be simpler to do it like this:

In the race editor the race creator fills in the nr of max riders allowed in this race/tour. A new box. The designer will be hanging out on the race website anyway, easy to check their rules.

Then for Cat 5-4 where you want to discuss, ok, we still can discuss, same for monuments actually, they could go down to 8 riders too. (but not Milano Sanremo 2011, nonononononono!!!! ) But here actually I'd prefer not to discuss for every single race but maybe keep the flexibility to say, ok, we keep cat 4 tours at 9 riders, all of them, or we put them all down to 8, while we keep 9 for one day races cat 6! Otherwise we'll have a situation where a tour or a race is voted down to 8, let's say Pais Vasco, while PN and Tirreno stayed at 9, the guy that planned his great Pais Vasco team then is fucked since the majority thought it was controllable with 8, unlike PN who needed 9. So I'd prefer a stricter rule for the high categories.

Or for tours, we could tell the designers, make it minimum 7, even it it's 6 in reality, something like that. But for the rest let the designers do the work and put in that number. According to the real races, and to their wishes in fantasy races. Ah, and of course if it's 10, then it's 10 too... think this year I ran accross one race where actually 10 per team started, but not sure anymore and don't remember which one.

The UCI flexibility.. not sure if that should go in as well.


But anyway... not opposed, not for it either really, start at the wrong side of the problem for sure.

[olmania]

mhh, great post roby !

I just want to say my opinion about one small point. I don't want to create a polemic, just to say a simple thing that should not be forgotten.
It clearly concerns my team, but not only my team, there are dozens of teams in the same situation I guess.
That's about the teams with a big group of riders (>13-14riders).
It took us a long time to build our teams, maybe from the beggining, more than one, two, three years for some. We've built these strong teams for differents aims, differents options, but we did it to become the more competitive as we wanted. Having 13,16,19 riders in a team is not only for pleasure, it cost money, risks, time, presence and a big turn-over. We did it because in our opinions it was the best way to reach successes in RSF. For us, this system with big teams and a lot of riders work really well with 9riders/race.

If tomorrow, a big part of the races start with less than 9riders, that means :
- We did all this long job during months and years for what ? We've built a competitive team in a long term view, and now the changes of the game force us to see that we loss our advantages ... our long term view is broken, we've to re-think to development of our team.
- Last 6-12months investisments are broken
- Plans for the next 6-12months are broken
- We surely will have to sell some riders
- (Here, I speak in my case, I don't want to include others, because I don't know what they will have to do) I will have to specialize (a bit or a lot) my team, because having leaders for each field of RSF won't be lucrative and plenty of success anymore.


And now, I want to give my personnal opinion about some points of the "less than 9riders / race" :
- I'm affraid of the loss of tactic power
- I'm affraid of the seperation bewteen the "good group" and the "fucked" during the races.With 6riders (max2leaders) If you miss the good move that will be harder to come back. And it's harder to take the good move because of the low number of leader (1 or 2)
- I'm affraid about the ambiance in the chatbox. Because the leaders will always search more help from the outsiders for the work.
- I'm affraid about the parasit teams who had nothing to do because they're not favo, but when the favorite team is tired because of his poor team (after some days in yellow for example) it will be easier for the parasit team to realize a hold-up (not telling about tactic, just energy and N° superiority). It could be really disgusting for the leader and the good teams which did a lot of work. It sometimes happens with 9riders teams, but I think it could happen really easily with 6riders/team.
- I'm affraid of boring races for the beginners. Harder to go in front if they have to protect their leaders, leaders not enough strong to try things ... beginners bored.
- I'm affraid of the higher importance of the luck during the trainings. With less riders, less leaders in the teams. Less possibility of luck during the trainings.
- I'm affraid of the loss of possibilities for the show (not only for GK) but for the red jersey for example. It will be hard to get involved in a rude fight for a red jersey if you want to keep aims for gk (not necessarly the 1st place, but a top10) or stage good place.
- What about the team classification ? the TTT ?
- I think that Buhmann has built a fantastic game which is able today to have a tactic science, rules during the race and human rules between the managers. It took time for the beginners to learn it, to aplly it, but when they get there ... it works. It could be passionating to build a new page of the RSF rules and tactics, but for me the dangers of the creation of a total new system are more important that the hypothesis of a new way to race in RSF.
The teams have to adapt to the game, and not vice versa.


To conclude, I'm not against some races with less than 9riders/race, but

Cat 6 Races and GTs : 9 riders
Cat 5 Races and Cat 4 Tours: 8-9 riders, can be definitively defined/discussed for every race/tour.
Cat 3-4 races and Cat 2-3 Tours : 6-8 riders
Cat 1-2 races and Cat1 Tours : max 7-8 riders

its too radical !

And now ... let's ride Southland !