cycling4freaks.com

9 riders is rare in reality I believe isn't it?

But if we go to 8 riders as a base (9 on long races ? tours ? ), what about new teams ? Still 15 Mio for 8 or 9 riders, at their liberty ? Only 14 Mio for 8 riders ?

Luna wrote:That's no opinion. It's only fear of change. You will overcome that. Don't worry. If there's no factual consideration than I see no real problem.

We could as well stop any further developement of the game...

So not changing the amount of riders is a stop of the game´s development? ; )

And why isn´t it an opinion to say stay 9 riders? We already had races with less riders, and the only good reason I see for this are sprint races, because in a sprint the chances are more equal than in any other situations. So by less riders the need to work will be higher than with 9. Cool, but what if there´s a mountain finish and a 91 climber against 85´s and 86´s? In a sprint the 85 sprinter might win, not on the mountain top. So maybe 200km control with 5 helpers like Southland (as far as I remember 6 riders, which will of course happen more often when 8 is the standard)? Okay, with 1 rider less it´s not so hard, but when races get long the team is always in focus because of reg. Will be more important, at least 35 reg points to even when not 9 but 8 riders. Then there´s 40k less, no prob. But the remaining 8 riders become more expensive in average because they need more reg. I see that as a problem.

Which of course is not an argument either.... "fear of change" = not an argument against change, right, but not an argument FOR change either. Just the very fantastic practice of telling others why they are against something.

As a fence sitter on that one I would at least be interested to hear WHAT exactly the advantages/disadvantages would be according to the supporters and opponents.

1 reason ---->don't like chaos-racec

Me: I think it's ridicoulous to run the most important race in March (MSR) with 9 riders and 90% of the worthless fantasy races with 9 riders... IF you make 8 riders normal, then please for every fantasy-one-day-Race too.

MSR: RSF 8, reality 8
E3: RSF 9, reality 8
Critérium international: RSF 9, reality 8
Catalunya: RSF 9, reality 8

Change it consequent or don't change it, but not a mix like it is this month!!

Bah, have wrote a post in the morning but i can´t find it...okay, short summary: You all are to conservative and unflexible! We want have variety for more fun. That was the reason for include this. But what now? "Please don´t change this, every day the same please.."

So tell us what's wrong with a standard, Mr Revolutionary? (and mmh, often it's you who complains that "you want to change everything!!!" so make up your mind....)

Team Franconia wrote:1 reason ---->don't like chaos-racec

Chaos is when the team with the best sprinter refuses to work and the whole field desintegrates. But not when it's difficult to control a race. A group coming through is not chaos. E3 Prijs Harelbeke is no chaos race, altgough there is no sprinter in the race for whom a team tries to hold the peloton together (like many managers try again and again in RSF). What you define as chaos is just a part of bike racing, that's consequently tried to eliminated here in RSF. That's why me, for example, would like to see more races with realistic numbers of riders per team. Only because I like cycling, instead of RSF race controling for types of riders, that simply don't exist in reality. Ok, reality is not always an argument. But what I see here is that reality is basically the anti-argument, something that has to be avoided strictly. Don't like that.

Realistic is good, but a Tom Boonen is a rider which dont exists here as well, so if we want it to be as realistic as possible we have to change much more than the number of riders. Unrealistic flat skills and "Windkanten" are the most important changes we have to do i think.

But the way Boonen wins the classics is well imitable at RSF.

And appointing the numbers of riders per team is nothing that would keep us away from working on crosswind effects


EDIT: Though adjusting the flatskills would solve many problems, in deed. For example we could set the real number of riders per race, without a problem ^^

One more point (against 8 riders, even if I'm 50-50)... if in reality they ride with 8 riders we could do with 9, the extra rider is just a battery for the leader. Normally a leader doesn't need a helper all the time, he even can lead some km in the beginning without throwing away all his chances. Here a leader (especially if it's a sprinter or climber) needs all the race long one or two batteries, who can't do anything else. So the extra driver has only the function that doesn't exist in reality.

Yes, but even that's no real problem, but a benefit! Then the leaders would go with x energy units less into the finale of a race. Why should they all have nearly 1000, regardless of the length of a race runs, whether it runs 150 or 250 km? Why should they all start with 1000 at the next day basically. Then the reg value would become important, finally, corresponding to its high price. Bike racing hurts. No need to hide that away from the simulation.

But the danger is, that it's becomming RSF-Mikado, the first who moves looses.... because those who don't make any tempo will go with 1000 power in the finish, those who make some tempo perhaps only with 950. So you'd better make no tempo.

But the sprinters teams, for example, do behave already like making tempo costst them the chance to win, shouting at other managers who don't participate in the work. Let's give them a real reason to do so.

i am pro luna

L RSV wrote:i am pro luna

i am too

well, in fact i don't care if there are 8 or 9 riders. but i think the system now with 9 riders is not that bad. of course, the argument about reality is very heavy in this case (number of riders). and at MSR i haven't seen lots of differences compared to 8 rider races.

nevertheless, i like to ride with 9 riders. that's why i wrote my pro for 9 riders, not because of a not existing fear for change.

i like 9 riders better because:

1. just more options: one rider is free (4 captains 4 helpers - one free) - can send him to the group and see what happenes, without loosing too much chances in the pelOton. 8 riders - when attacking i loose a helper, i need - so i will send the captain too - attacking with two riders in result of that. stupid. want to attack with only one rider. no need to encourage teams attacking with more riders than one. i don´t like having the choise between do not attack at all or attack with two...

2. team who wants to control the pelOton vs. team who wants to attack: of course one rider less for both of them. but the less rider you have per team the harder to control the pelOton, especially if your chef has no flat skill. no need to make races harder for the hubers or the mountain riders or hilly sprinters. mostly tours ans stage races have a good quality if there is a team seeing sense in controling a little bit for the pelOton - no need to make them doubt.

nevertheless - the difference probably would not be too big, if we switch to 8 riders as standard but i do not see advantages but some little disadvantages. that is way i am for 9 riders.