Season 2017 Calendar

race and calendar global organistion

Moderators: systemmods, Calendarmods

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by Robyklebt » Fri Dec 16, 2016 5:22 pm

Liquigas-CND wrote:
Robyklebt wrote:
just because some managers are afraid that they wont be able to control races
Do you have a source for that?

And what's the argument for having Paris Tours at category 3? Reality? There's lots of UCI rules we're not following, should we follow all of them?
couple of managers already complained on forum/chat that it is too difficult to control a race /tour with 8 riders --> as per my understanding they are afraid to ride with 8/7 riders instead of 9
So that's the only reason there's opposition to a change?

And when should we follow reality, when not, is still a bit unclear to me...
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

Liquigas-CND
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by Liquigas-CND » Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:05 pm

Regarding the number of riders i think it's a must to follow the reality cause the number of riders it's a basic element in my opinion!
Maybe an energy reform should be necessary but we should follow the reality with regards to number of riders/team.

Thank You,
-GC: Giro'15,'16,18,19;TDF'16,'18,'20;Vuelta'16,'17,'18;Tirreno'16,Catalunya'16,'18,Suisse'16,Romandie'16, Vasco'19,Andes'16
-Stages won in GTs:57
-Classics:17

Rasmussen
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by Rasmussen » Fri Dec 16, 2016 6:19 pm

Liquigas-CND wrote:Regarding the number of riders i think it's a must to follow the reality cause the number of riders it's a basic element in my opinion!
Maybe an energy reform should be necessary but we should follow the reality with regards to number of riders/team.

Thank You,
We did not follow the reality for years with 9 starters in all the classics or races like Tour de Suisse, Paris-Nice or even smaller tours like Trentino or Algarve. And when Tours like Britain or Poland started to allow only 6 riders we also did no follow the reality. So the argument realitiy does not work.

But I think It might be worth a try to start some bigger tours with 8 respectively 7 riders. But we should maybe make a poll or at least some test races (Januar tour? ), so you can see if it pleases the users and makes sense. And if there is a majority after that test, you can also start the Grand Tours with 8 riders.

High Flyer
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by High Flyer » Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:11 pm

Rasmussen wrote:
Liquigas-CND wrote:Regarding the number of riders i think it's a must to follow the reality cause the number of riders it's a basic element in my opinion!
Maybe an energy reform should be necessary but we should follow the reality with regards to number of riders/team.

Thank You,
We did not follow the reality for years with 9 starters in all the classics or races like Tour de Suisse, Paris-Nice or even smaller tours like Trentino or Algarve. And when Tours like Britain or Poland started to allow only 6 riders we also did no follow the reality. So the argument realitiy does not work.

But I think It might be worth a try to start some bigger tours with 8 respectively 7 riders. But we should maybe make a poll or at least some test races (Januar tour? ), so you can see if it pleases the users and makes sense. And if there is a majority after that test, you can also start the Grand Tours with 8 riders.
+1
Image
Image

luques
Posts: 2233
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by luques » Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:33 pm

Best thing is to make a poll and let's see how it goes.

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by Robyklebt » Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:17 am

Liquigas-CND wrote:Regarding the number of riders i think it's a must to follow the reality cause the number of riders it's a basic element in my opinion!
Maybe an energy reform should be necessary but we should follow the reality with regards to number of riders/team.

Thank You,
What makes it basic is the question... Compulsory participation in (the old) World Tour races for WT teams is a basic part of the real cycling calendar too. Do you want that too? Or is that not basic enough?
But Rasmussen already showed how much this reality argument is really worth, so let's forget it (for the moment)

As for your original point (you should have stuck with that really)

I actually doubt GC riding for the favorite becomes more difficult with 8 riders. Especially with a rider like Ortiz, in that case I think it would have just become even easier. You have one rider less to control, everybody else has one rider less to attack. With 9 guys easier to "sacrifice" one in an attempt to get you in trouble than with 8. In other situation, less clear ones, yes possible that GC riding with the favorite becomes harder. If that increases the spectacle is unsure though.

It will mostly change sprint races, sprinters, but since we don't have any, we don't care.... :roll:

Sprinters need more non-tempo helpers AND need to catch a group with just their helpers. A climber needs the same amount of non-temp helpers, but can get the last x minutes (depending on the length of the last climb) by himself. And sprinters need to keep another rider fit too most of the time. Be it a train boy or a flat monster. So less helpers hurts sprinters the most, increases the "spectacle" in sprint races mostly. A Milano Sanremo with 7 riders (which btw of course isn't sure yet in reality) will simulate the race perfectly, I'm sure. And that's the goal, right?
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by Robyklebt » Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:22 am

And let's have some fun too:
- Not follow UCI calendar and decide even the category of race without an Impartial system could lead to events calendars tailored for certain teams.
Who would do that and how?
By the way the UCI system is not impartial either... it's the UCI system, partial to the UCI.
I think could be nice fix the calendar sooner than 1 month before to give time to designers and fill the holes with real races that we didn't play, even there was before in real calendar o after and we already know that we won't be able to play because in parallel with more important races (if we have already the track).
Oh, now I see. Coroncina wants to tailor the calendar to his own team. By making it possible to ride as many races that fit his team as possible, even if in reality it wouldn't be possible. Bad Coroncina. Stop trying to tailor the calendar to your team.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

Novo Banco - PT
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 8:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by Novo Banco - PT » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:07 pm

Liquigas-CND wrote:
Robyklebt wrote:
just because some managers are afraid that they wont be able to control races
Do you have a source for that?

And what's the argument for having Paris Tours at category 3? Reality? There's lots of UCI rules we're not following, should we follow all of them?
couple of managers already complained on forum/chat that it is too difficult to control a race /tour with 8 riders --> as per my understanding they are afraid to ride with 8/7 riders instead of 9
to the tour i say that we should keep the 9 riders, independentement of its category, but for classics/one day races the number of riders should depend from the profile and category

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by Robyklebt » Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:23 am

So with regards to the category we seem not to do it the lazy and bad way, just follow the UCI. Good. After all in January Down Under is announced as category 3, not 4 as it would be with the lazy way. And the criterium with the misleading name before Down Under now is a 2. Which IMO is the wrong decision, but if that's the price to pay for not following the UCIdiocy, ok.

Anyway, am I right to assume that since January at the moment is this way, the rest of the year common sense will prevail too?
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

luques
Posts: 2233
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by luques » Sat Dec 31, 2016 5:25 pm

Robyklebt wrote:So with regards to the category we seem not to do it the lazy and bad way, just follow the UCI. Good. After all in January Down Under is announced as category 3, not 4 as it would be with the lazy way. And the criterium with the misleading name before Down Under now is a 2. Which IMO is the wrong decision, but if that's the price to pay for not following the UCIdiocy, ok.

Anyway, am I right to assume that since January at the moment is this way, the rest of the year common sense will prevail too?
Santos Tour Down Under was cat 3 last year (2.UWT in reality), and stayed cat 3 (2.UWT in reality). The number of riders instead has been reduced from 9 to 8, following a bit the UCI's mood. In any case I don't believe that a sudden change is a nice thing, so even following the UCI rules need to be done smoothly in order to understand possible problems.

About the Criterium, honestly I didn't give it much importance, honestly I thought that being a real race would make it a cat 2, as in general cat 1 is reserved to fantasy, not a big problem anyway to switch.

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by Robyklebt » Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:22 am

Ah, real races are not automaticall cat 2!
Stuff like Vlaamse Pijl (which doesn't seem to exist anymore), that is highly unimportant, UCI 1.2. as well, is or should be category 1 as well. We don't ride most of that stuff since most of the time there's more important real races on the calendar. But real race is not automatically cat 2+! Category 1 was never created to be just for fantasy. In ancient times there was a website with a name I forgot, made by a dutch guy. Ah, cycling4all, or c4all. RSF used his classification of races for its classification. And cat 1 was the equivalent of the lowest category on that site. Which was mostly equivalent to 1.2 and 2.2. But maybe not a 100%. At the time it was thought this calendar and this classification reflected the worth of races better than the UCI classification.

The 50 km criterium before Down Under.... in reality it's a criterium, so no UCI points, not 1.1 or 1.2 or whatever, just a criterium. I'd have left it at 1, BUT a case can be made for cat 2: The race obviously has a strong participation, as far as I know everybody that starts Down Under starts here too, the sprinters then fight for the win. So even if it is only 50 km, there is a little prestige, there is quality, so cat 2 seems ok.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

User avatar
Coroncina2
Posts: 358
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by Coroncina2 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:04 pm

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/201 ... tart-list/

So 7 rider for Down Under.

We will continue to play fantasy races even in real season?
Mens sana in corpore sano

luques
Posts: 2233
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by luques » Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:34 am

Coroncina2 wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/201 ... tart-list/

So 7 rider for Down Under.

We will continue to play fantasy races even in real season?
Actually it was already decreased from 9 to 8 to try to go toward the UCI Standard, or in any case be more near.

From what I see the idea of being close to the UCI rules has this big problem: in the real life a Contador or Froome or Quintana doesn't suffer that much of being alone in the peloton in a hilly / mountain stage. To make it short, I think that the impact in RSF of having no helpers on your leader is much bigger than the reality. For this reason I am a bit skeptic. But wait other feedbacks, maybe this can go through a vote.

sgumgub
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by sgumgub » Fri Jan 13, 2017 10:45 am

luques wrote: From what I see the idea of being close to the UCI rules has this big problem: in the real life a Contador or Froome or Quintana doesn't suffer that much of being alone in the peloton in a hilly / mountain stage. To make it short, I think that the impact in RSF of having no helpers on your leader is much bigger than the reality. For this reason I am a bit skeptic. But wait other feedbacks, maybe this can go through a vote.
That is exactly the point. In the end we have to see, that this is a game not reality.

In reality, a guy can do Tempo or ride in front a few kms and can still be as fit in the end as he wouldnt have (sit in peloton for smooth 100kms). Here, he is damaged for the whole race.
In reality, doing tempo in a steep Mountain doesnt care if in front or behin someone. Wind doesnt play a role. Here, he loses more energy.
In reality, a Contador or Froome (best mountain riders) can follow any attack in the flat as well if it would be needed. Here, he cant.
Also the point about helpers you made.

So my opinion? Stop the idiocy to follow exactly reality. Ive rode several 7 Man races and it doesnt feel right. Its possible, sure. and ppl could adapt. But personally dont like it.

About the categories: I dont care at all about this stuff. Seems like many others find that very important, so they should discuss that between them :D

Just my 2 cents

Greetz,
Schmitzkatze

Liquigas-CND
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by Liquigas-CND » Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:45 pm

Hi,
With regards to number of riders vs covered salay by starting premium, We have now the following salary covered per rider which in my opinion should be adjusted.
9 riders.........375 K ( 41.66 K/rider)
8 riders............335 K (41.87 K/Rider
7 riders............295 K (42.14 k/rider)

My proposal is to increase proportionally as follow: the less riders are allowed to start a race -->the higher salary covered per rider by starting premium

ex:
9.riders....375 K
8 riders...345 K
7 riders....310 K

reason:

Maintaing the actual salary covered by starting premium will affect the finances of all managers since there are few races where we can ride with 9 riders..unlike last year when 90% of the races were for 9 riders /team.

.This will also lead to even less interesting races because we may think now not to bring very good teams in less important races .tours...

Thx ,
Liq
-GC: Giro'15,'16,18,19;TDF'16,'18,'20;Vuelta'16,'17,'18;Tirreno'16,Catalunya'16,'18,Suisse'16,Romandie'16, Vasco'19,Andes'16
-Stages won in GTs:57
-Classics:17

High Flyer
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by High Flyer » Sun Feb 12, 2017 1:55 pm

BTW, if you want to get rid of trick sprints in Mass Sprints, bring back 9 man flat races. Simple.
Image
Image

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by Robyklebt » Sun Feb 12, 2017 3:23 pm

As if trick sprints weren't the norm with 9 man flat races as well.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

High Flyer
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by High Flyer » Sun Feb 12, 2017 9:04 pm

If you want to reduce the number of tricks or increase the number of "proper" sprints then. Simply put With 8 men = Less of:
Main Sprinter
Lead Out Sprinter
Weaker Lead out Sprinter
Main Helper
Helper 1 (Protects Main Sprinter)
Helper 2 (Protects Main Sprinter)
Helper 3 (Protects Main Helper)
Helper 4 TEMPO

More of:
Main Sprinter
Lead Out Sprinter
Main Helper
Helper 1 (Protects Main Sprinter)
Helper 2 (Protects Main Sprinter)
Helper 3 (Protects Main Helper)
Helper 4 (Protects Leadout)
Helper 4 TEMPO

So instead of e.g 80-85-90 trains you end up with 87-92's or just teams with 1 sprinters, meaning that the leading train is usually a 70-75-85 with a bunch of mini train behind them, thus encourages trick sprints. But since most teams are mountain-esque and don't get affected anywhere close to sprint teams when the number of riders reduce from 9 to 8, they wont complain.
Image
Image

CircleCycle
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:45 am
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by CircleCycle » Sun Feb 12, 2017 11:22 pm

different kind of story, but don't you think "mountain-esque" teams would like a 9th rider in their line up, just because it gets a lot easier to control the races?

High Flyer
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by High Flyer » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:27 am

CircleCycle wrote:different kind of story, but don't you think "mountain-esque" teams would like a 9th rider in their line up, just because it gets a lot easier to control the races?
Of course they would, but of course the leaders that get protected in mountain and classics teams usually do tempo at the end of mountain or classic race, a sprinter doesn't.

Sprinter teams leaders are likely to NEVER do tempo, Thats the difference. A sprinting team can't afford to double protect their best 2 sprinters because then they are vulnerable to last 10-1km attacks as their leaders are useless at blocking.

In a classic race, their (I dunno 75-80-70 with 65 sp) who has been double protected and his lead out can contribute to tempo. In a mountain race, you 89 mountain rider who was double protected can tempo to block.

In the end, the difference is sprinters cant block a flat race, others can on their own profiles.

There's also the point of how its easier to control a tired break if there is a hilly or mountain ending than a flat one, but the points above are the main ones.
Image
Image

Robyklebt
Posts: 9986
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by Robyklebt » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:32 am

Correct that the sprinters are the most "penalized" by the 8 riders fanaticism we see here.
But trick sprints have nothing (or very very little) to do with the number of riders. Trick sprints were the standard tactic of the deplorables before, it's still now. Nothing changed.
Kraftsystemrevision! Include the distance!
Basics reform: Give blue a chance!
Don't punish bugusers. We all have to use bugs, since most of them are declared as "features"!

team fl
Posts: 5009
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:43 am
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by team fl » Tue Feb 14, 2017 11:40 am

Don' forget: Contrary to mountain races or hilly races, in most flat races for sprinters, you keep all your helpers all the way...
I didn't mean to say it. But I meant what I said.

High Flyer
Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:33 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by High Flyer » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:14 pm

Robyklebt wrote:Correct that the sprinters are the most "penalized" by the 8 riders fanaticism we see here.
But trick sprints have nothing (or very very little) to do with the number of riders. Trick sprints were the standard tactic of the deplorables before, it's still now. Nothing changed.
I would reply by saying that personally, if people had proper trains, they wouldn't trick sprint. Even I'd consider doing it if it was the only way I could win. I my eyes (which of course can be wrong:
8 Riders --> Less "Proper" Trains --> Harder to control sprint from 300m-150m --> More Trick Sprints
There are other factor, but those can't be changed.
team fl wrote:Don' forget: Contrary to mountain races or hilly races, in most flat races for sprinters, you keep all your helpers all the way...
You caught me there, but I could point out that if that mountain riders wont need asmuch protection anyway because in a flat race, there will always be someome will better flat in tempo, not so the case in a mountain race.

E.g KM 100 0% Tempo by 84 flat, sprinter has 60 flat,
need more help than, and loses more health if single or just not protected than
Km 100 10% Tempo by 77 mountain, leader has 85 mountain
Image
Image

CircleCycle
Posts: 465
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:45 am
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by CircleCycle » Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:58 pm

I agree, but there is one more point to add.
In sprint races, even if you have 75+94+94 train other sprinters still have a chance because it is depending on the sprint with all its nuances and you get cooperation most of the time throughout the stage. In a mountain finish 89 will beat 87 or 86 in 95% of the races. Now guess how much help you'll get during the stage.
And classicsprint races tend to be chaos from the beginning, because no one can control, keep helpers and leaders fit, because he will lose 2-3 riders at the first sieb (e.g. at km 70).

User avatar
Pokemon Club
Posts: 3184
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 1:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Season 2017 Calendar

Post by Pokemon Club » Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:34 pm

Well I see your point. But I think it isn't 8 or 9 riders which make the difference. But the way teams collaborate to get a MS change a lot.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests