Times:luques wrote:Finally some time to listen all different inputs and make some modifications.
Don't think 12-13 are HATED. But think it's the wrong races to use them. February would have been ok other lesser races. But not TA or PN. If they are used more often from now on, get good numbers, then yes, even for GTs if they are strong enough... but they need to prove it first.
Now: Clearly better, but 16+19 missing. Historically 19 is a pretty strong, but very underrepresented time... 16 generally a bit weaker than 14-15, but did well lately, got offered a lot too. Why not change the whole thing somehow to get those 2 missing times in too? Easiest maybe Catalunya to 10-16-19-21-23... or the double thing, but there needs more thinking, more complicated.
Number of fields: 10 is a lot... but let's see, and hope it works.
Why not UCI categorization? Well, I think the question the other way around makes more sense. Why the UCI categorization? But ok, since you asked the other question, I'll answer that one.
- Because the UCI is a mess.
- Because we can make a better categorization. Easily.
- Because the UCI categorization is not just a categorization for points (as it is for us) but also regulating which teams are forced, allowed or not allowed to participate, something we don't have at RSF. So some races chose between 1.1 and 1.HC based on what kind of teams they hope to attract too
Mess.... see new WT races. they are in, sometimes without actually applying, see Frankfurt, according to the organizer there, they were asked, and just said yes. Of all the "new WT" races, one, Qatar, has already been cancelled (shows again how much work went into setting this "new WT races system" up) and one (Turkey) postponed. WT or PT teams are not required to participate in the "new WT" races. Points? It seems that the points for the new WT races won't be taken into account either when handing out WT/PT licences for teams for 2018. At least that's what was said sometime after the "new WT" races were announced. Maybe that changed again. Good luck finding information about anything on the UCI website btw And we were supposed to have 17 PT teams for 2017, but well, turns out 18 is better, so that was changed again. The UCI right now is just a complete mess, basically making things up as they go... You really think they can do a better job than we can (better than Poke, ok, I give you that, but it's closer than it should be)
Then, the UCI categorization. I can't get rid of the suspicion, that the great thinkers of RSF (everybody that disagrees with me basically), that keep demanding the UCI categorization in their quest for (cherry picked) reality at RSF don't actually know what they are demanding.
Tours: GTs-WT tours-new WT-HC-2.1-2.2
1 day races: Monuments-WT-new WT-HC-1.1-1.2
Easy, right? Wrong. What they are demanding is:
1 TdF
2 Giro+Vuelta
3 WT tours I
4 WT tours II
5 new WT tours
6 HC
7 2.1
8 2.2
Possibly a ninth category too, there's those U23 races as well. That''s for stage races.
For one day races it's simpler
1 WT races I
2 WT races II
3 new WT races
4 HC
5 1.1
6 1.2
And the possible seventh category.
And what is where is at times surprising too. In the UCI categorization at WT level (old WT, so that's where it's actually just a pure point differentation, nothing to do with participation) we have Catalunya, Pais Vasco, Eneco and Poland that give less points than the other week long races. Including Down Under. For us it's been 3 tours that give less points, Down Under, Poland and Eneco. I find our categorization better. But ok, you guys want UCI? Do we really want Down Under giving more points than Pais Vasco??? Or is that another case for the cherry picked reality, when well, it's just all WT, all the same points? In the name of "reality"?
The classification for one day races is even more hilarious. 5 monuments? Forget it, the top 9 races are worth exactly the same. Next to the 5 monuments we find Gent Wevelgem, Amstel Gold Race and 2 more. Mmh, Flèche and San Sebastian? No, sorry, it's Québec and Montréal. Yep, Grand Prix Cycliste de Québec is worth the same as Paris-Roubaix and more than the Flèche Wallone. I've been more of a supporter than a critic of the 2 new Canadian races, I think it's high time they get category 5 at RSF, or that Plouay and Hamburg get downgraded to 4, because those 4 races are pretty damn similar in their worth, but even I wouldn't think it's a good idea to have them at the same level as the monuments. Once again, I think having 5 monuments on top, then cat 5, then cat 4 which includes HC (but no need to include all, case by case) is clearly a superior system.
At least this seems to be the system. Kind of remember reading that from 2017 on all "old" WT races would be worth the same, but that seems not to be the case anymore. Since it's too hard for me finding anything for 2017 on the UCI site, finally I just trusted Wikipedia.
So, that's why following the UCI is not a good idea. But now tell me why it would be a good idea.