cycling4freaks.com

My opinion:

absolutely agreed!

Don't remember exactly where, if here or in the technic section but this discussion was already started.

The pro and cons already found:

Pro:

- More similar to reality
- More difficult to have a super team or in general to control races

Cons:

- The energy system / regeneration in rsf doesn't follow the reality. In reality a rider can easily control a group for 70-80kms for several days, just look at Sky for example, guys as Stannard or Kiryenka. In rsf your rider would be pretty much dead the day after.

- In rsf we have helpers, something that in reality doesn't exist. In a hill Quintana or Nibali need no teammates to save energies, at most they could be helpful if they are struggling to set the tempo, but in no way having one helper really "helps" you in terms of energies. And even in flat stages, teammates are helpful to get out of traffic or bring things, but you save the same amount of energies staying behind other wheels.

- Risk of having a mess because nobody wants really to control, especially in long tours, favoring way too much the escapers.

More or less, I may have forgot something, feel free to add, contest and anything, that's what I remember about that discussion.

luques wrote:Cons:

- The energy system / regeneration in rsf doesn't follow the reality. In reality a rider can easily control a group for 70-80kms for several days, just look at Sky for example, guys as Stannard or Kiryenka. In rsf your rider would be pretty much dead the day after.

- In rsf we have helpers, something that in reality doesn't exist. In a hill Quintana or Nibali need no teammates to save energies, at most they could be helpful if they are struggling to set the tempo, but in no way having one helper really "helps" you in terms of energies. And even in flat stages, teammates are helpful to get out of traffic or bring things, but you save the same amount of energies staying behind other wheels.

- Risk of having a mess because nobody wants really to control, especially in long tours, favoring way too much the escapers.

those "cons" are a good summary of my opinion to this topic...imo i'd stay with real number+1

Unless you are planning a major energy reform or shorter one day races, 7 man races at 180km+ will destroy sprint races. Maybe you can do so for Grand Tours , but it would be painfully difficult to race with these on the sprint stages.

Not pro nor cons. Ok it can be more difficult to control alone, but in another hand teams can just adapt their lineup and control together better. we have some 7 riders/race but never a tour (except Britain some years ago). If we want to know we can just test it during offseason

Pokemon Club wrote:Not pro nor cons. Ok it can be more difficult to control alone, but in another hand teams can just adapt their lineup and control together better. we have some 7 riders/race but never a tour (except Britain some years ago). If we want to know we can just test it during offseason

We had a 6 rider tour in the past (Southland?). It's a fun experiment and definitely worth having from time to time. But generally, I agree with some guys above, +1 rider vs UCI works perfectly fine here because of our energy system and the "one-legged" captains and the helping system in general.

Alkworld wrote:

Pokemon Club wrote:Not pro nor cons. Ok it can be more difficult to control alone, but in another hand teams can just adapt their lineup and control together better. we have some 7 riders/race but never a tour (except Britain some years ago). If we want to know we can just test it during offseason

We had a 6 rider tour in the past (Southland?). It's a fun experiment and definitely worth having from time to time. But generally, I agree with some guys above, +1 rider vs UCI works perfectly fine here because of our energy system and the "one-legged" captains and the helping system in general.

+1 (pun intended!)

luques wrote: - More difficult to have a super team or in general to control races

I'd say easier to have a super team in general, althoug not for a specific race.
But by having less riders in a race, but the same amount in the team, you can have more leaders in a team. If that's a good thing or not depends on your view.

And I don't FL's pun, as usual

Idéfix wrote:

High Flyer wrote:Unless you are planning a major energy reform or shorter one day races, 7 man races at 180km+ will destroy sprint races. Maybe you can do so for Grand Tours , but it would be painfully difficult to race with these on the sprint stages.

But on sprinter races, having 7 riders instead of 8 could lead to a better cooperation between several teams (not only 1 favo assuming the race) => less sucking teams with a 3-sprinters fresh train? (Do i spot someone?^^)

Unlike real life, the race is much harder for sprinter than classics on a completely flat stage because of the flat power of sprinters. Even with a protection, a fast 30km ending forces us to use 2 riders to protect out leaders. But then we also need to protect out blockers aswell, which equals 6 riders used ( 4 helpers + sprint + blocker) leaving last rider to tempo, meaning that either your 2nd sprinter (if you have one) not only has no help, but also has to protect a rider or risk a weak sprinter or a weak blocker.

In essence, its much easier for classics / mountain races, the leader IS ALSO their "blocker", sprinter teams suffer more because they have 2 departments to protect, the others only have 1. As I said, I usless you change the energy for 60 flats or you shorten sprint races, this will just make way much harder for sprints compared to others.

Finally, going back to what you said, all a decrease in riders will do is encourage users to keep their 3 man train but with weak enough leader to avoid "riding". AKA the 88-80-79 will just turn into 88-79-75, but can protect all thier riders with atleast one, meanwhile me with my 92-87 can only protect my leader.

http://www.uci.ch/pressreleases/the-uci ... gulations/

The UCI announces extensive modernisation of regulations
19 September 2017


Following today’s meeting in Bergen, Norway at the 2017 UCI Road World Championships, the UCI Management Committee has agreed major modernisations of its rules governing road racing, mountain bike, BMX racing and indoor cycling.

To improve the safety of the riders, spectators and the race convoy, the UCI Management Committee decided to limit the peloton size to a maximum of 176 riders in all events on the UCI International Road Calendar. Therefore, a maximum of 7 riders will now be allowed per team in all men’s road races (except Grand Tours, 8). In the UCI Women’s WorldTour, there will be a maximum of 6 riders per team in one-day races, 7 in stage-races.

Someone could think game should follow UCi decision without any change because nothing change in this game till years and will continue like this till the end, but play with more riders that real race change too much tactic.
Someone could think game should follow UCI decision but changing something (more energy / cyclist , energy expenditure ...)
Someone could think game shouldn't change and stay with 8/9 and think UCI decisions are all bullshits, so RSF is better without his influence.
I know it could be a big change and all teams are planning 2018 bulding them team for them goals. So would be better decide it befor just when we know it was fixed by UCI.
Maybe we could VOTE for it, maybe we can wait LESOSSISE decision; but I think we need to know finally how 2018 starting list will be.

No risk for riders and spectators. Anyway you talk about a maximum of riders but what about adding a minimum ?

Maybe the wrong section, technic possibly better, but can still move it later..

How will c4f be in 2018?
2017 we had some sort of compromise I think. Reality plus 1 for important races, or something similar. Forgot the details.
How will it be for 2018?
Reality will be max 7 riders normally. 8 for GTs. Here? Would be nice to know as soon as possible, since it sort of has a big influence on team planning too.

Ha!

Well at the end nothing changed in reality with 1 rider less.
Guess much has to do with the cons above, at the end it seems to me that the final result in more or less all fields was really near the reality.