MSR

[lesossies]

La Primavera.
New édition from auxilium torino:


looks OK.
But 9% on Cipressa ?

[Robyklebt]

MMh, discussion probably better here.

I know where that 9 came from.

http://www.gazzetta.it/grandeciclismo/m ... _ukm.shtml

max 9% there, but they also have 8% there for the Poggio. Koppenberg has max 23%, but we don't make it a 23.
Nevertheless, Cipressa and Poggio are difficult to judge, I've been through it myself last year. Getting it done perfectly right is impossible, it's always a bit subjective. Still, 9% is too much.

Turchino:

-Different from last year. Sure it has that many downhills in the early part of the "climb"? For example the 4 4 0-3 between Rossiglione and Campi Ligure??? How did you get these numbers'
- End of Turchino. 7% seems very steep for the Turchino. Probable mistake: Turchino has a tunnel on top...
- Downhill. Simply wrong. there is no -10 and -9 up there. Mistakes comes from the cronotabella, where they claim that after 3 Km we are at 267. I'm a big fan of using the cronotabella, but I'm a bigger fan of double and triple checking, and here it becomes obvious that they are wrong soon.

iBans version was closer to reality.


Capo Berta:
- Good I think, there probably is a 6 in there somewhere, at least that's what I got too when I designed something... Laigueglia? Not sure.

An improvement I think (but not 100% sure, will check further...)



Between Capo Berta and Cipressa:

-Not sure about those 2 hills, checking I can't find the reason for the plus 3 either. It goes up and down but +3? Up to at least 50 meters (you go down 50 meters after that. ) Where exactly? Not plan to go check further on that one, simply didn't find a place at 50+ meters there.


Cipressa:

- As iBan said, there are different possiblities, you can't do it 100% right. But this +9 there is 100% wrong.

Between Cipressa and Poggio:

- Ok, think iBans version 09 there is closer to reality, but here is ok, since in reality -1 or +1 has a much smaller influence than with us.

Poggio:

- Up ok, the 5 4 2 3 of iBan wasn't wrong either, simulates the effect better, since a 4 at RSF doesn't hurt anybody, the 5 makes it possible for riders to be dropped (doesn't happen anyway, but ok)
- downhill, 10 downhill meters missing. That's the reason for the technically wront -6 iBans, but it makes the overall correct, here we are missing 10 km down.

Want my downhill for the Poggio otherwise both version ok, one 100% follows the reality, 4 4 3 3, one tries to simulate it better.

Comments?

[auxilium torino]

Cipressa 9% in profile from Gazzetta side made up ... to be the man to mt 390th, and if the profile is faithfully copied, must include the 9% since (as in real run) ...
In the Downhill of Turchino I've followed the RCS table, and apparently is an RCS errors ... I kan fix faster!
takes minutes 2!

In the Iban letze pitch with 5-4-2-3 was drawn. although never 4.6 mt for 500th come on ... 4-4-3-3 is correct, and very detailtreu!

I think it's very important to the high ground of mountains or town are real, and that is the case (except Turchin), and also the difficulty of running with us again are found.
If we had a possibility with 500 mt.abstande to draw, instead of 1 km. could be traced all the simple, and avoid many discussions.

to not forget, i´ll find race with really big differences from real to us...and nothing had claimed!

[iBanesto]

9% are really too much. Really. The 500m segments in that area are 5,6% and 3,8%, the max 9% sign is between those segments and I don't see it as a 9% Kilometer on both sides. The other changes are not so important, Turchino a bit different, a 6% in Capo Berta, no 5% in the Poggio, everything ok, but the Cipressa is usually the key part of the race in RSF and it seems unreasonable to me now.

[Robyklebt]

Ah

to not forget, i´ll find race with really big differences from real to us...and nothing had claimed!

That's 100% your fault then. You find races with big differences, then it's up to you to complain. You see a mistake, you say it, if you see one and don't say it the mistake then is yours, not the designers.

[Rockstar Inc]

Hm, is Aux Version the final Version or will iban's 09 version be on the plan? or a mix between both?

[lesossies]

I have adapted Cipressa and Turchino
Should be OK now.

[Robyklebt]

Probably wrong place, but anyway.

MSR will be ridden with 8 riders it seems (yes yes, Roby already signed up... might end up with - in Tirreno)

Ok... don't really care in the end if we make 8 riders or 9 riders the standard.

8 is the real number, up to 25 teams btw, 9 the usual RSF number. If we want to change, ok. But I would like to have a standard, not the RCS races designed by Aux at 8, all the rest at 9. MSR 8, Flanders, Roubaix, LBL 9 would be strange. All monuments at 8, ok, but then riding everything else with 9 is kind of stupid too.

Off course both 8 and 9 have advantages and disadvantages....won't mention them here... in the end I personally don't really care if it's 8 or 9 as a standard.
But don't like a) no standard, just different from race to race. b) not knowing if it will be 8 or 9. Some people prepare races months in advance.. should they prepare for 8 or 9 now? Yes yes, number 9 can often be a 41-70 that doesn't cost anything, but that's not necessarily the one you want to leave at home, since his role is work early, you leave him at home and somebody else has to do his work... which means your better off taking the 41-70 anyway and leave the better rider home... And if you prepare for 9 then it's 8 all of the sudden without real announcement...

[lesossies]

I see that I changed it to 8 and that some teams are allready inscripted

Standard to 9 is maybe better.

[Luna]

Standard to how the races are run in real life would be best! Why making things so complicated when real Ciclismo steadily gives examples to most of the questions.

[Quick]

Why not MSR with 6 riders? Or even better with 2 riders?

Why change it NOW at cat 6(!!!) to real standards? Why not 2 months ago? Now when it starts to get important you let us ride something quite new. I don't like it...
In my eyes 9 riders would be the best as standard because of the RSF-system... but other discussion. Now we can discuss, why not ride MSR with 2 riders. If another 3 or so support me, we probably would have great chances to get our 2-rider MSR. In the older forum the 9 rider-variant had a big majority against 8 riders or less...but well...times change, need 8 - sorry 2 - riders for the monument.

[Luna]

Why not 2 or 6? The answer is quite simple: it's the same reason as for why we ride Cipressa and Poggio in MSR, instead of Muur de Huy and Montelupone. Got it?
But that's all polemics. You just don't want it to differ from what you are used to, especially after forms are already set for this month. That became clear, anyway. But it would be the same for all.

[Robyklebt]

Another thing

Right now 5 times Sanremo

That's too much.

D1-4, so only 180 can participate, not all will. Yes, with 4 times some splits are guaranteed, Group 1 and 2. But with 5 some are likely too.
Saturday, more flexible.
Strong groups. Rather have 4 strong groups than 5 a bit weaker ones.

And of course if it stays with 8 riders (which is ok, just make up your mind what the standard will be) the splitting limit should be put up to 25 teams. For races with 8 riders. Or 200 riders if that's easier, no more than 200 in one group.

[lesossies]

Right now 5 times Sanremo
That's too much.

D1-4, so only 180 can participate, not all will. Yes, with 4 times some splits are guaranteed, Group 1 and 2. But with 5 some are likely too.
Saturday, more flexible.
Strong groups. Rather have 4 strong groups than 5 a bit weaker ones.

And of course if it stays with 8 riders (which is ok, just make up your mind what the standard will be) the splitting limit should be put up to 25 teams. For races with 8 riders. Or 200 riders if that's easier, no more than 200 in one group.

Saturday night 23h is a good time, I dont want to take it away.
Other time other people I think.

I must ask Buhmann if the splitting is by about 220 riders

[Robyklebt]

10-15-19-23 and you have 23.

Saturday/Sunday is flexible for MOST people. It's a one day race. Even I would start at 19 (2 am for me) if I couldn't at 14/15 for some reason on a saturday evening. (ok, sunday rather not, but then if I can't ride in the afternoon for PR or Flanders.. well, tough luck.)) It's not like a stage race where you have to find time to be online x days at the same time. Once. On the weekend.

It's always a balancing act between to contradicting goals.

1) As many people as possible have the possibility to start.
2) Get strong groups.

For stage races, nr 1 is very important. Rather have a weak group than no chance to ride important races. Or drop it if you think that the group will be too weak.

For one day races nr 1 is much less a concern, since it's one day, one time only you have to be on. And the majority here is more flexible on a weekend. So there we should focus on nr 2. Get strong groups, it's the most important races of the year, let us have a real highlight, where as many good teams as possible are in one group.

One problem of course remain the splits, both wiht 4 and 5 times very bad splits can happen.. then change the splitting rules for Cat4-6 one day races. Not a 50/50 split but some system where even with 23 teams group one gets 15..

As for

I must ask Buhmann if the splitting is by about 220 riders

Disagree. 200. If we go to 8 riders standard (and still don't care but would like to know) then it's 25 teams. Like in reality (Which would be the reason for the change anyway) If we stay with 9 riders standard. It's 22 teams, 198 riders, like it is in the GTs. Not sure, but I think there is a 200 rider max. rule somewhere, a few years ago maybe PR started with one team more, cipos team was invited late, don't remember exactly, but if that was the case they got UCI permission (which is like you or Buhmann putting a 26th team in the race manually) 220 would be 24 for 9 riders, never happens, or 27 8, never happens either.

A change to the number of riders instead of teams would be good though. Or a combination, max 200 riders and max 25 teams. Don't think races with 6 riders per team start with more than 25 teams either. And a 6 riders race with 33 teams is not really something I think would improve RSF anyway.

[Robyklebt]

But ok... back to the topic.

MSR will definetly be 8? Standard to be decided announced later?

[lesossies]

MSR definetly with 5 times.
It is too late to change.

8 or 9 riders ? Is it so important ?
Reality says 8.
RSF says 9.

Should I dice dor decision.

[Rockstar Inc]

due to the unrealistic coefficients of Captains, the number of workers is important ..
look into the old forum, there was already an discussion...

[topsport]

I doubt that a realistic number of riders necessarily results in realistic races. MSR is sprinters against puncheurs. As far as I remember it was quite difficult to realize a sprint royal the last year. I'm afraid that the sprinter and hill-sprinter teams suffer disproportionaly more because they are the ones who are expected to work at the beginning and always have to protect a rider who can't come into action. It's all hypothetical, hopefully im wrong and a race with less riders per team and more teams is just as good.
I'm personally looking forward to the big races in April. And for me it would definitely be a big difference to ride these races with 8 riders. Not only in terms of race-tactics but also in terms of setting form and buying or selling riders this month.
I would be happy if we ride the most important one-day-races of the year in march and april with 9 rider as usual, just like everybody is used to. If you decide to ride MSR with 8 riders a general decision for 8 riders has to be made the next days. If we leave it to the disposal of the drawer and ride monuments and other big races with 8 and others with 9 riders it would be a farce and we would fail to achieve a more realistic game.

topsport

[Cerro Torre RT]

I am clearly with Luna. As this game is meant to be a simulation, we shall try to keep as close as possible to reality. And as all necessary changes have been made to ride with less than 9 riders, it should be the same as the real race, so 8. Additional, everybody knows that those races are ridden with 8, and as we changed it months ago to have races with the correct quantity of riders, it was mare foreseeable to plan with 8 than with 9.

If this is declined, which would mean this possibility of races with fewer riders is only a gimmick for fantasy races, i claim to withdraw that completly, because this was not the sence i remember this to be made for.

[Robyklebt]

Mmh, I said I don't really care.

What I care for though is logical arguments and honest argumentation. Some fail already.

[Robyklebt]

Opened a new thread here to help Leso (and Buhmann (but since he decided to only do useless things like jerseys maybe we better ignore him...) decide.

Since it's not really MSR specific.

Link, link, post the link roby!! ok ok...

viewtopic.php?f=3&p=1459#p1459

[Lizard]

I don´t quite get it - why do we need to change the hills in the finale now? Especially people like Cerro are annoyed by people who don´t have the quite necessary teams, see Superwinner and Sampras, etc etc. Now we have one race, THE race, where sprinters only win, when they have excellent teams and classic riders might only win if they can carry the leaders into good positions aswell. This is clearly caused by the old climbs and maybe also 9 riders per team. Since we don´t discuss the second one here, at least keep it possible at MSR that you need a well-based quality in your rows to incluence the race. Like this an Erich Geuer will win MSR and everyone is pissed off.
Don´t change the profile, we never had a problem with it, iBanesto is a good drawer. AND if you want a sprinter to win MSR, why not start to do more different types of sprinters. Then a 55-65 with 88 Sprint wins MSR, or a 60-60 with 90 Sprint. That´s a typical Freire or Hushovd type of rider. Well those, who a potential winners for MSR, or are they not? When there´s a problem with the team managers who are to "blauäugig" to do more than copy a team system, in this case 49-59-xx-xx-95ers with many flat helpers, then don´t change the correct tracks to incluence the race, PLEASE!

EDIT: This shall not be an offense against Aux or anyone in personal, it´s just that the system we have and the tracks we had in past for this very very important race did work, only the naive managers did not quite. Just asking what´s more important: Support teams with 3 captains for any possible ending or those who build their team for races they want to win? And as we saw last year Skullz didn´t win the Ronde van Vlaanderen, so the races are STILL totally open in their endings.

[Cerro Torre RT]

now I am suprised... why am i annoyed by people not having the right team ? I'm more annoyed by those with the wrong leaders (including the other types of sprinters).

[Lizard]

now I am suprised... why am i annoyed by people not having the right team ? I'm more annoyed by those with the wrong leaders (including the other types of sprinters).

You know what I meant, that counts. Don´t get lost in details.