Energy reform

[Robyklebt]

November 2008, big change at RSF, original length of races, long parts of the races in the 30" tact. So of course the energy usage (power usage??) of the riders had to be changed a bit. Ok, let's do a "fast solution" for the beginning... later on we can get a better solution was Buhmanns decision. We got the "fast solution"... but somehow it became a long term solution fairly soon. As expected... now instead of "why are you afraid of change" those that still want a better solution get to hear "why do you always want to change everything, it works." It works as can be expected by a "fast solution", it's ok, but it has many basic flaws and will never be a great system, even if Buh continues to do what he is doing. Adjust details here, add details there, etc. Like the escape group thing, a good addtion, but it's a detail that can't cover the fact that the basic system is flawed.


Some of the problems:

- Leaders are superhumans! After 250 Km on the bike they have as much energy as in the beginning. Or more.
- Leaders are superhumans! Hard weather doesn't affect them. Really really really hard weather yes. But hard weather? no... their support riders are superhuman too. They bring drinks every kilometer, 2 of them, or maybe just one, while the other holds an umbrella over the leader, if it's warm he carries a ventilator to cool the leader. If it's raining and cold he has a stove on his back it seems. While the other guy get's warm tea every kilometer, and a new rainjacket too, then helps him put it on, then has to go back to get new tea and a new rainjacket again. He is dead in no time, no wonder with all that work, while the leader.... has 1000 energy. Unless it get's REALLY bad, then he suffers to. A little.

Ok, already out of time.... more later... but I think before we add other details, "Windkanten", "Positioning in the peloton" we should try to get some of the flaws of the basic system out.. problems? Ideas?

[team fl]

I like the thought that riders can't keep up the energy level from the start during a whole race. riding for a certain time is exhausting, in one way or another. that's just how energy turnover / metabolism works. So, I think Roby's thoughts are useful (and I hate me writing that...). One problem I see is how to determine how much energy a rider loses over time and on what kind of terrain.


let's do an example, without helpers (with helpers the energyloss will be lower by a certain factor, but not regaining, exept slow downhill passages) and without considering the different tempo levels (that would just increase the energy loss by a certain factor):

we have: 0, 0, 1, 5, 6, -5, -2

rider 1 (r1): 70-80-50
rider 2 (r2): 50-50-80

ET = energy turnover.

For 1 km flat or uphill = terrain + terraininfluence (mountain/flat) x (maximum skill/10 - rider mountain/flat skill/10)
For 1 km downhill = terrain + terraininfluence (flat) x (maximum skill/10 - rider falt skill/10) + terraininfluence x rider downhill skill/10

flat to mountain terraininfluence: 0 = 1/0,1; 1 = 0,9/0.1; 2 = 0,8/0,2; 3 = 0,65/0,35; 4 = 0,5/ 0,5; 5 = 0,3/0,7; 6 = 0,15/0,85; 7 = 0,05/0,95; 8 = 0/1
the same for flat to downhill terraininfluence...

ET r1 = (0+0.1*(10-8))+(0+1*(10-8))+(1+0.9*(10-8)+0.1*(10-7))+(5+0.3*(10-8)+0.7*(10-7))+(6+0.15*(10-8)+0.85*(10-7))+(-5+0.3*(10-8)+0.7*0.5)+(-2+0.8*(10-8)+0.2*0.5) = 17.5

Without helpers, this rider loses 17,5 energy during these 7 km. With one helper let's say half of it (8.75), with two helpers only a third of it (5.83).

ET r2 = (0+0.1*(10-5))+(0+1*(10-5))+(1+0.9*(10-5)+0.1*(10-5))+(5+0.3*(10-5)+0.7*(10-5))+(6+0.15*(10-5)+0.85*(10-5))+(-5+0.3*(10-5)+0.7*0.8)+(-2+0.8*(10-5)+0.2*0.8) = 31.72

Without helpers, this rider loses 31.72 energy during these 7 km. With one helper half of it (15.86), with two helpers only a third of it (10.57).

that's how I would do it, in general. Of course the influences may differ. Mine are just suggestions and far away from perfection

[ariostea]

Roby is right, we should do sth. against the huge energy difference between leaders and helpers. but in my Opinion it should not be too much - there should be a good difference but not that huge. because the huge difference has one good effect: hard and long races are getting more open and more tactical in the end. what is a good thing, because it is realistic and gives good tactical possibilities. so let´s get them a little closer to each other - ok.

@ FL: i don´t like that solution very much. because it makes flat skill much more important for keeping energy, when i understand it right. that´s not what we need - because for me flat skill is the most problematic skill in RSF. if we make it more important , we have to make it more expensive - what is not a good thing, because then we get much riders with 50 flat skill in the pelOton for keeping the salery low, what is 1. absolutely unrealistic, because they are not usefull for anything and 2. we will see a lot of terrible race decissions on the flat - with 30 flat-skill-riders attacking and 15 staying in the pelOton... i am a big fan of a cheap flat skill - so don´t want more advantages for flat. it is now already terrible enough.
anyway - how much energy you loose should be influenced by the speed of the pelOton/group - not only by terrain and skills.in my opinion, if there is no tempo , every rider should more or less have the same energy with the same number of helpers. (that is the way it is now - i think).

[team fl]

as i wrote, ari, of course my calculating is not perfect and needs to be shaped up. i agree with you, that the flatskill must not become too important. the whole example was ment more as a visualisation of the whole energy turnover thing than as a solution how it should be done mathematically.

and of course tempo should have an influence, as i wrote too

and i completely agree with your last sentence

[Robyklebt]

Flatskill?

A nice number from one of the races in the past few days

AFter 3 or so km everybody at 993, was slow in getting the help in and it went up a bit. Then red tempo because somebody didn't like the group in front.

After 23 Km:

Eiterolloid 59 flat 983: 2 helpers
Grillboy 89 flat: 999 1 helper
Berlogea: 987: 0 helpers.

Something isn't right. Very obviously. We usually just don't realize it as much because normally the first 50-100 km are sloooooooow.

What happen's in those cases is:

Paris Roubaix:

After 97 Km, before the first pavé

Leaders: 1000
just riding 960
helpers 894

Or something like today:

Start

Th. Guggisberg 943
S. Uzielli 931
X. Nedelcu 819

After 121 km,

T. Guggisberg: 2 Helpers 997 + 54
S. Uzielli helps: 778 -153
X. Nedelcu: just riding: 750 -69


That's why I think a solution like that by FL wouldn't really help, what we have now is fairly similar I think, just different numbers.

[Cerro Torre RT]

There was allready an idea i thought to work quite well.

It was about that a certain percentage of the energy losses due to the weather can not be regenerated in any way (some around 10 to 20%) So effects of helping are limited a bit and the difference decreases.

[Bear]

In general, this is a really good idea by roby. But I see the problem that attacks will become less. At the moment the most managers don't try something because two helpers with maybe 700 energy can controll a attack by a leader. The leader loses much power but don't gain much time. When it's gettiing faster in the main bunch the attacking leader can't follow the tempo anymore. When the energy level of the leader and the helpers should be more the same, we must set the energy cost for an attack down I think or even more stuff. Otherwise the attacking rider has a bigger disadvantage than before. Just wanted to mention this because I think it is really important if we make a energy reform.

[Robyklebt]

Eh? I haven't even posted any ideas yet..... the posts would be like 700x longer.. so far I have only presented the problems (As I see them)

[Lizard]

Three aspects by the Lizard:

1st: Lizard effect (see Rider Energy vs. Speed)

2nd: Equalisation energy loss rolling and in tempo
Since a change to bring closer the all-in-all energy loss for a stage of all riders (those in tempo and not) tempo will need to be a bit cheaper and rolling all in all a little more expensive.

3rd: Equalisation energy loss riders being helped and helping
Another change will have to be - of course - an approach of captains and helpers, where helpers should lose a little less and captains win or hold a little less energy.

[ariostea]

fL:

and of course tempo should have an influence, as i wrote too

sry - just have to read properly...

@ Roby - give us some numbers you have in mind. the leaders loosing more energy. ok. so we make a sort of energy-loss just for distance (like you may be want to have it) , which is not returnable by helping - for nobody. not linear - the more the longer the race is. so let´s say: after 200 km 850? 900? for the leaders ? the helpers the same loss of energy like now? then we should make Regenaration cheaper then it is now - because riders under 40 Regeneration as helpers for the end/leaders and under 55 Regenartion for helpers in the beginning won´t be usefull anymore for the next day. or do you want Regenaration playing a bigger role in general?

[Bear]

Eh? I haven't even posted any ideas yet..... the posts would be like 700x longer.. so far I have only presented the problems (As I see them)

The idea was to change something I meant

[olmania]

fL:

and of course tempo should have an influence, as i wrote too

sry - just have to read properly...

@ Roby - give us some numbers you have in mind. the leaders loosing more energy. ok. so we make a sort of energy-loss just for distance (like you may be want to have it) , which is not returnable by helping - for nobody. not linear - the more the longer the race is. so let´s say: after 200 km 850? 900? for the leaders ? the helpers the same loss of energy like now? then we should make Regenaration cheaper then it is now - because riders under 40 Regeneration as helpers for the end/leaders and under 55 Regenartion for helpers in the beginning won´t be usefull anymore for the next day. or do you want Regenaration playing a bigger role in general?

If today we have after 200kms :
1000 for leaders
700 for helpers

If tomorrow, we change the system, and after 200kms :
900 for leaders
600 for helpers

that change nothing.
And if we do that (with the good calculating, for a better race), sure the reg skill will have to change too ...

[Robyklebt]

Ari and Cerro no fun, trying to tell everybody my diabolical plans to destroy RSF.. .actually liked hearing other ideas first... maybe there is one I like...the Lizard thing now that I got it for example is still under Robyreview....


But ok, complicated Robypost:

length, distance.

A long stage, right now for the flat challenged leaders it's the easiest stage. Why? See the helper effect and all. Tempo is slow in the beginning. Then it picks up, but since when a new rider makes tempo he is far from fresh usually, since it will be one of the helpers anyway, it doesn't really bother the leader at all. Long 250 Km sprint race? AFter 100 Km the leader is at 1000. Guy in tempo even if he starts red has less than 900... after 150 km leader at 1000. After 200 the same, leader at 1000. Then maybe 30 Km from the end some mass, a bit fresher riders, he starts to suffer. But it will be only the last 15 km or so that really hurt. He will end the stage at 970 or so.
Short race, 100 Km? Basically it's 80 Km red tempo in most cases. And the new riders are always fairly fresh, see the example with the fast start a few days ago. After 50 Km the leader won't be at 100.. maybe at 980? And then the last 50 Km will be even faster.. and he is already weakend. arriving at 900 or even less can be expected in a race like that.

That means: good reg is more important in short races than in long ones.. now make the flat stage a stage with an addional 10 Km climb at the end. The 35 reg guy loves the long stage. He'll arrive at the bottom of the climb with almost 1000, the tempo usually there won't be as high as if it ends in a sprint. Climbers can let somebody gain a minute, no problem. 1000 energy, he can lose 370+ energy in a tour. He'll get some back the next day early anyway in most cases (160+ stage) If the climb starts after 100 Km? He risks arriving to the climb with 900 energy as well. only 270+ to use. It should really be the opposite.

So one of the ideas to counter that:

Ok, first generally. I'd like Buhmann to calculate the energy loss more precisely, internally, nothing new for the user, we see the energy, that's it. But internally I'd like to have a much more precise calculation. Some things are treated as they are now, can be reloaded with help or in downhills, other things cannot be reloaded. And other things maybe reload kind of automatically. Sprints, attacks, maybe get a % of automatic reload over a few kilometers.

But back to the distance:

Yes, non reloadable energy loss for just sitting on the damned bike. For everybody the same, can't be reloaded. and not linear... Numbers you want.. bah, you know I don't really have numbers, just the general concept. Rough numbers as usual.
0-50: 10
51-100: 10 again? 20 total
101-150: 20 ? 40 total
151-200: 40 (80 total)
201-250: 80 (total 160)
251-300: 160 (total 320)

Rough numbers...something like that... from 50-100 on as the clever ones around here might notice I just doubled it.. doesn't have to be like that, it's rough numbers... maybe after 200 km it should be more? Maybe less? Don't really now... around 100 seems ok. (And I have no problem changing other parameters too, this is just one of many. But this in my view is one of the fundamental ones, one of the parameters that should form the basics of the system, together with what FL mentioned too) And of course not every km should count the same in the steps in the example, so not km 151-200 0,4 for every km... then 201 costs 0,8 per km... nice slow increase, so km 200 would maybe be 0,600, km 201 0,605 or something like that.

What would happen is that finally it's the long stages that are hard for leaders. NOt like now where it's: Short stage: EASY for helpers (no tempo) HARD for leaders, long stages (DEATH for helpers (no tempo), EASY for leaders) Here the difference in energy between leaders and helpers is not decreased. But it makes regeneration a more logical factor. Maybe the long stages number are too hard in my example, the goal is not to make it too easy for leaders with monsterreg. Making them the only ones that can even make tempo in the end without being dead. No, but make it at least a bit realistic by having the leaders suffer a bit too on long stages. Not have more energy disposable than they would have in a short stage. Making the reg a bit more important overall probably, yes, but it's important that it doesn't get too important. No "automatic" win for 60+ reg.

This "distance" thing should not be reloadable. Never. Not with helpers, then it just becomes another way to increase the helper leader gap. Not in downhills, it should just slowly increase, with every km it becomes harder just to be on the bike.

Of course I'm far from finished...

And the whole point of the thread btw is: EVERYTHING should be up for discussion. Even the effect of the 3 kinds of tempo, cost, the helping system. What we have now is a short term solution put together when Buhmann had to hurry up to be able to introduce it the 30" tact and original length. Not a well thought out solution. (ok, the real point of the thread is: pressure Buhmann to do something, it's been 18 months and we still have the "Schnelllösung")

[Lizard]

I like the Roby-post. Increasing energy loss of leaders and decreasing the one of helpers can lead to a point where also the flat-skill-discussion (for sprinters and climbers in first case) can be very interesting as an additional point.

[Radunion]

I don't think that there is a real problem on flat stages. In reality the riders can hide well in the pelOton, keeping the energy on 1000 for the whole race may be a bit unrealistic, but doesn't change the characteristic of the race. This discussion could be more interesting when there is some kind of position in the pelOton (whenever it will be implemented).

A bigger impact can be made in the mountains. Fast tempo should have more impact on the riders in the group even before the start "fighting". Especially the difference between being in tempo and just keeping in the group should be less (slipstream has a limited effect in the mountains) and helping should be less effective (same reason).

This will reduce the impact 70-80 helpers can make in mountain stages in flat sections and can make it more interesting to attack or start tempo earlier. Field will be torn apart be continuous tempo and not only by high tempo on 1 km (this could be another discussion).

[Cerro Torre RT]

generally, it's a good directin, but in my eyes, the numbers you call are way to hard. As i would like to sum it up from different effects, so not only distance is in the spot.

Let's add robys idea and numbers with the... i have to admit, earlier roby idea to have an inregeneratable power loss for the weather. let that be the linear part of the count.

So 2 expamples: both calculated with mhmm let's say 20% inregenaratable power loss due to weather

Easy weather 0,5 points to weather per km (thinking there is no speed influence in this) that makes 0,1 inregeneratable per km

0-50: 0 from cycling, 5 from weather, 5 total
51-100: 5 from cycling, 5 from weather, 15 total
101-150: 10 from cycling, 5 from weather, 30 total
151-200: 20 from cycling, 5 from weather, 55 total
201-250: 40 from cycling, 5 from weather, 100 total
251-300: 80 from cycling, 5 from weather, 185 total

very hard weather: 2,5 points of power loss (too low? too high? i don't know exactly) due to weather, 0,5 inregeneratable

0-50: 0 from cycling, 25 from weather, 25 total
51-100: 5 from cycling, 25 from weather, 55 total
101-150: 10 from cycling, 25 from weather, 90 total
151-200: 20 from cycling, 25 from weather, 135 total
201-250: 40 from cycling, 25 from weather, 200 total
251-300: 80 from cycling, 25 from weather, 305 total

that would more be the range siutable for me. Because what i think is: even 250 km, nice weather, weak tempo: This is not what bothers any racer over reg. Brutally warm weather, or cold and rainy: Oh yes, that does much more impact, in short and in long term. Then something like 300 for 300 km, with full help and relativly weak tempo and doing nothing sounds more siutable to me. And plus, it would decrease the difference to the helpers, who would have suffered that 150 extra from weather anyway.

Well, but lets make a count in total. my example means a rider on 300 km will suffer brutally in brutal weather. Not less than 750 of energy only 2 weather loss. well, that seems to be way to high, i don't think that's realistic in any way. additionaly, in brutal weather not everything gets regenerated. so that count might be more realistic:

very hard weather: 1,5 points of power loss due to weather, 0,3 inregeneratable

0-50: 0 from cycling, 15 from weather, 15 total
51-100: 5 from cycling, 15 from weather, 35 total
101-150: 10 from cycling, 15 from weather, 60 total
151-200: 20 from cycling, 15 from weather, 95 total
201-250: 40 from cycling, 15 from weather, 150 total
251-300: 80 from cycling, 25 from weather, 245 total

Thinking of that this inregeneratable weather part might exactly be what is too much to help from the helpers in the actual system, thinks might stay more or less the same in hard weather right now, only added by the distance loss.

Maybe the truth is something in between, but how do you like those numbers?

[Robyklebt]

I don't get your totals somehow..

Edith: got it maybe... the (xxx total) are from me, the total in the back is your total if you add your biking and weather?

[Lizard]

I don´t think making the weather that influencial is a good thing.

[Cerro Torre RT]

@ Roby: Oh sorry roby, a mistake in deleting some of the copied chart. i'll correct it there.

@ Wizard: There may be a difference in our opinions, but i really think the weather has a very high influence on the remaining force of riders after a race. At the Moment, there is no influence for leaders until certain conditions, because all can be regenerated. Only the helpers are weakend. Only with brutally hard conditions, it gets some effect to leaders, and in my eyes too low at the moment, and... to suddenly, don't know how to ride it, i hope how you mean it... aprupt, nothing until 28 degrees, above a bit (degree number "grabbed out of the air"). In the proposed way, there will be a different influence for all weather conditions.

And what you should be aware of, i tried to point out the differences between the RSF nicest weather and the RSF worst weather. Problem is, i don't know the exact numbers for those 2. if Buhmann could help us out, we could calculate it more easy. But it is not the point, the difference can be set by chosing which part of the "weather energy" is not regeneratable.

[Buhmann]

Not read all yet...and i must admit that having such a complicated discussion in english is very hard for me.

f today we have after 200kms :
1000 for leaders
700 for helpers

If tomorrow, we change the system, and after 200kms :
900 for leaders
600 for helpers

that change nothing.
And if we do that (with the good calculating, for a better race), sure the reg skill will have to change too ...

Thats my opinion, too. And if the new result shall be: 900 leaders and 750 helpers, it wouldn´t be really better. I think it is good for the final if the helper aren´t so strong. But i see the problem of unrealistic races. I think we need addational innovations then.

[Buhmann]

Some things are treated as they are now, can be reloaded with help or in downhills, other things cannot be reloaded. And other things maybe reload kind of automatically. Sprints, attacks, maybe get a % of automatic reload over a few kilometers.

That is in my opinion much more important. Realoding of a part of the energy. We discussed that in the old forum, but have see a few problems. Maybe the french users are more intelligent

If a part of the lost energy with tempo can be reloaded, the peloton can change his riders every 30 (or whatever) Km, so that they have another advantage. How could you solve this? With field positioning we would have an additional part to steal energy from the peloton (ride to the front before making tempo). But without such a new feature i don´t know how to realize it.

But okay, i don´t want to stop your distance discussion.

[Cerro Torre RT]

The realisation i think roby has in mind for his distance loss is quite easy... i predict it to be aditional. But if you are not happy with that... you mentioning that right now, I am not either.
But even if it is not additional, let's take a closer look what will happen. I think to discuss that, the best is a perfect plain track. Considering i don't help my riders, and there is no tempo, nevertheless they lose some energy. Not much, aproximatly something around 0,4 per km. taking my and roby propose, at the first 100 km 0,0 to 0,2 per km could not be regenerated, which means help can only bring back 0,4 to 0,2 per km. so for the first 100 flat km, i predict there is easily enoug energy loss to cope with that. Later, tempo normally increases, so power losses of the riders do as well, and higher not regeneratable parts are possible. If they are lower at some km, ok, then everything can not be regenerated, what i would see to be a good touch to it, making it impossible to exactly know the number of not regenerateable power loss before the race. So what i want to say is i think we can handle that even with the actual power losses in a standing field.

The part of not regeneratable weather-losses are easy, as they are a part of an existing power loss, just could not be compensated by helping.

Adding other possibilitys to lose energy in the field may benefit to those efects, but i don't think they are necessary to establish them.

[Robyklebt]

Not read all yet...and i must admit that having such a complicated discussion in english is very hard for me.

f today we have after 200kms :
1000 for leaders
700 for helpers

If tomorrow, we change the system, and after 200kms :
900 for leaders
600 for helpers

that change nothing.
And if we do that (with the good calculating, for a better race), sure the reg skill will have to change too ...

Thats my opinion, too. And if the new result shall be: 900 leaders and 750 helpers, it wouldn´t be really better. I think it is good for the final if the helper aren´t so strong. But i see the problem of unrealistic races. I think we need addational innovations then.

No, it changes a few things.

1. The most important change. For leaders long races are as hard as short ones. Right now for a leader a short race is harder. The longer the easier. In all the months I've been telling you to change that you haven't really managed to tell me why it's good that for a leader a short race is harder. So why is it good?
2. Make the Reg more of an issue actually comes closer to what you originally wanted when you introduced the long races. 35 reg climbers shouldn't have a chance in the GC you said. Actually they didn't really have one before either, but in the end nothing changed. IN the first days you changed the cost of climbing back and forth, was too much at first, then it was too little, then a little bit more again, to where we are now. Actually the original too tough setting probably was better. The only problem: helpers were completely dead. Because as long as it stays reloadable it will always hurt the leaders less, since they are protected.. they will just be protected better, so instead of 1000-700 and a third one at 850 who does nothing you will have 950 leader and 2 riders at 600. Non reloadable and you get a closer energy level to what you originally wanted for leaders. In short races the high tempo does the job (too well) in long races there is nothing that does the job.
3.Talking about leaders and helpers maybe not the perfect thing. Loaders and protected riders. So it's an interesting change for 70-80s that are support riders as well. Right now with 35-40 reg you manage just fine. For leaders it's more critical with 35-40, 70-80 for late support? Very small problem. Make the mountain teams that want a well protected leader invest in 40-45 reg guys for their 70-80 too
4. Attack costs less Attack with 900, costs less than with 1000! Ok... slightly less..


Change the reg? Ok, I said I think that everything should be under discussion... mmh, correct myself, the reg is one of the few things I'd like to keep as it is.. (well, kind of, I'd like to here if iBan came up with a "bag of Körner" idea that works now..., I haven't)

The reg right now is hopelessly overpriced anyway, so if we make it a bit more important, it only comes closer to what we pay for it.

[Buhmann]

Hmm. Short question, i think you have already answered it but want to hear it clearly:
Do you want, that it is harder for rider with small reg? I would prefer to keep the actual balance...(think of Coulieu )

That shorter races are harder than long races is really stupid. If it is really so (is that english?). Okay, Paris, the last race of the TdF is short and hard in real, too
And i think long mountain races are harder than short at the moment.

[Robyklebt]

Cerro

Distance, 300 Km no problem for a pro. Right... but even for a pro a 300 km ride is something else than a 150 km ride. And for our leaders right now it's the roughly the same... 150 probably a bit harder (it gets really hard only in the even shorter ones). But agree that a 250 Km race with weak tempo shouldn't put anybody over reg yet. Ok, a tough 7000 meters climb 250 km race in weak tempo... then maybe yes if he has 35 reg. But again, agree that the weather should be a factor too.

My numbers, as I said I did the lazy thing, just doubled it.. 320 for 300 km sounds like too much, agreed. But your distance number sound too low to me. 80 for 300 Km is not enough. New try:
50: 0
100: 20
150: 30 50
200: 40 90
250: 50 140
300: 60 200

Here maybe the progression is not fast enoug tough... it should really kick in after the UCI standard 200 km..
Or without precise numbers: 100 not much, 200 km should be somewhere between 80-100, 300 should be over 200. That's 300 km, something that doesn't happen in GTs and other UCI Races (LImit at 260 Km, the Giro likes paying fines or getting a permit from the UCI for it's 26x stages) shouldn't happen in our fantasy tours either (hint hint) happens only in a few one day races. Milano Sanremo basically. Plus that strange flat Australian thing. The real maximum in stage races is around 260. So that would probably be somewhere around 150. It's a long stage, it hurts more than a 150 km race. Here the progression maybe is even too weak... new try
50 0
100 10
150 40
200 80
250 140
300 220

The realisation i think roby has in mind for his distance loss is quite easy... i predict it to be aditional.

Didn't really get that.

Addional to the weather? Ok, yes, of course.

Weather:
Your numbers way too hard here. And too much reloadable. Not having fit helpers in the end is good and nice, but how are helpers supposed to protect leaders from 80% of the weather? Plus in your example, 1,5 per Km... imagine a helper? He will feel 100% of the weather and lose 300 energy in a 200 km stage just to the weather. The leader will lose 60. The leaders number actually seems ok. Could even be a little bit more, not really sure. Don't really want to know the exact number in the end anyway, like to be surprised, and not always know exactly why my rider now has 903 energy, ah, 57 distance, 23 weather, 12 from the hills, so it must be 5 from the tempo.... brrr. But, hardest weather for leaders should be more or less like now. Let's say it's 0,5 the max.. (easy to calculate, could be less too) so 0,4 unprotected.

200 Km: distance 80 weather 80 = 160. Not a too high number in my opinion. That's with HORRIBLE weather. For a helper it would be 80+100=180.
300 Km 220+120=340. for a leader, 220+150=370 So the 35 reg helper is under reg, the leader almost from doing nothing. Too hard? For a 300 Km stage with absolutely horrible weather? No. That's the absolute extreme.
More likely a long GT stage, 250 Km with fairly hard weather. (0,4)
250 km: 140+100 for helpers, 240. Right now they would lose more from that. 140 plus 80 for leaders, 220. Right now they would lose close to zero from the weather.
Same stage with soft weather (0,1)
250 km 140+25 for helpers, 165. 140+20=160 for protected riders.

Numbers too hard? I don't know, don't think so, but maybe they are.. then cut them a bit. But the system? Me loves it, brillant

So:

Distance, completely unreloadable: Makes the distance a factor for leaders and protected riders, which so far isn't the case. But should be.
Weather: 80 unreloadable, 20 reloadable: Effects both leaders and helpers in similar ways, which so far isn't the case. By doing that it decreases the difference between leaders and helpers a bit.

So (very simplified)

when now it's
200 km
1000 leader
700 helper

It will be

200 Km
900 leader
700 helper.

That will change further

Next up:

Helping