Energy reform

[Buhmann]

And the escapers? (again donßt know if this exists in english...)
They can´t make as long tempo as now.

[Robyklebt]

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.

Forget Coulieu... even if miraculously I would manage to convince you to change it, you'd programm it in 5 days, I would still oppose an introduction before the first of octobre... can't change everything before important races (ok, so first of june would be ok... only important race just finished)

Clear answer? Can't be 100% clear, just YES or NO.

1) I'm Roby, ever heard a short clear answer?
2) In long races, YES!
3) In short races, basically no change.
4) middle length races: A bit.

Short races harder then longer ones? Yes, for leaders yes, yes, yes. Very clear and short yes. But well, it's a bit more complicated.. again..
Why? Right now the "distance" (which I suspect is around 0,3 per km, but very easily reloadable) is not a factor for leaders. It's all about 1) TEMPO 2)climbing.
In a short race the tempo is higher, more intense. So it costs the leaders more energy, especially the climbers and sprinters in the flat parts. This is logic. short fast race, intense, costs energy. Good. But then we have the long races, where for 90% of the race the tempo is just SLOW. SLOW for the leaders who are at 1000, fit like if they just started, while those that are in tempo have been helping forever and are half dead. And the high intensity of the race, that should be there, and is there in reality, just doesn't translate because the difference in energy is already too high. Short race reality 100 Km high intensity, fully works at RSF. Long race, reality let's say 60 Km high intensity, doesn't work at RSF. We get 20. Because the leaders are 100% fit from the 180 km low intensity while the others are fairly dead. This is especially true in flat parts. Less in mountains and hills. Long mountain stages harder than short ones? It's all the climbing.. .
stage a)
110 Km always 10 up 10 down
/\/\/\/\/\/
stage b) 230 Km, first 110 flat, then the same.
____________/\/\/\/\/\/

For support rides b is much harder. For leaders? No. The same. Probably a bit easier since the tempo in the first hills will be a bit slower, since to drop the first helpers you won't need a high tempo, you just easily drop the guys that have helped for 120 km... tempo will be slower. Stage easier. Slightly for a climber. Maybe for a 70-80 leader the difference between a and b is bigger, for him b is much easier. Or add some flat parts between every mountain. Then it's clearer for climbers too. In the flat parts the tempo will always be higher when the stage is short, the guys that make tempo are all fresher. Exception the last 1, maybe 2 guys in tempo that are fit regardless of the distance since they are protected. That's the high intensity guys.

or add another 30 km flat after the hills to make it clearer. B for the leader with 70-80 is much easier. The tempo will be much slower. But of course a 250 Km stage with 6000 meters climbing is harder than a 150 km stage with 4000 meters climbing (mmmhhh... depends where the addional climbing is though) but the difference is not the 100 Km but the 2000 meters.

[Cerro Torre RT]

And the escapers? (again donßt know if this exists in english...)
They can´t make as long tempo as now.

As, like i posted, it might be possible to make those not regeratable parts a part of power losses that are there anyway (counted before helping gives them back some power), it is only a part of energy losses escapers have anyway. And as they are normally not helped (after the last change we made), there would be exactly no change for them, they can ride as long as they do normally.

Perhaps, with making not regeneraateable parts beeing only a part of existing power losses, we might get to close with leaders and helpers. So the solution may be the best somewhere in between headfirst. That can and probably must be changed when other power losses are introduced (position system etc.)

Explaining the reason, in general I agree with roby.

[Lizard]

Distance, completely unreloadable: Makes the distance a factor for leaders and protected riders, which so far isn't the case. But should be.

So, here we can make the second Lizard effect, haha! Like my idea for non-linear energy loss in tempo we can do the same thing for long distance races. As Roby analyzed, long race, more intense. Easy as this. Analog to the Lizard effect we can increase the loss for long races, maybe shorten the loss for short races (not necessarily). I have a weird idea here, not sure if it works:

During a race there is of course a change in the energy cost, intensity blabla. So I´d say let´s do like this: Green / Blue / Red tempo costs less in the beginning and more in the end of the race. This is just because holding the tempo niveau in the end should be harder after 200kms, not as hard of course after 100kms. So here some numbers to follow my idea (all same tempo level, example, nevermind if red, blue, green, whatever pink tempo):

Km 1: 5 energy
Km 11: 6 energy
Km 21: 7 energy

Of course linear increase would be hard (Km 251 would be 30 energy, pretty much compared to Km 1). So again we make a non-linear increase like a mathematical function (in German we call this "Beschränktes Wachstum"):

From now on I only hope Buhmann understands this

Variables:
E(x) = Energy loss at Km x
E(0) = 5 as the starting value of Energy loss
M = Maximum energy loss
q = 0,99 (I made some calculations, usually we need this variable as a multiplicator, in this case I took 0,99 for example)

E(x) = M - (M - E(0)) * q^x

E(x) = 15 - (15 - 5) * 0,99^x
E(x) = 15 - 10 * 0,99^x

Here we are (now the others may read again). I make some examples now to show the increase of energy loss at any time in the race:

E(0) = 5
E(100) = 15 - 10 * 0,99^100 = 11,34
E(200) = 15 - 10 * 0,99^200 = 13,66
E(250) = 15 - 10 * 0,99^250 = 14,19

Did anyone understand this? And does anyone support this idea?

Btw.: Cerro, just wanted to add I like the idea to involve the weather, but as Roby said before, like this it´s too expensive.

[olmania]

Oh my head, poor head ... I hate maths

[Elaska]

[Robyklebt]

Didn't get the math, but the principle which I kind of like.

Not everything maybe, but first need to think... numbers, numbers.. later... but how about instead of km 1 km 2 count it from 100 Km from the end? Last 100 Km all like now, before that the different tempo options cost less and less the further we are from the goal?

But ok, as I said... first need to think....

[Lizard]

The principle is like this:

We start in the beginning (doesn´t matter how long the race is(!)) always with the same energy cost (kinda makes sense, ..). Then the costs will grow with the race. So like my numbers say (just look at the result ) we start at Km 1 with e.g. 5 energy cost pro km, then in between Km 1 and Km 100 the cost will increase from 5 per km to ~11 per km, since the race gets tougher after 100 km because you already had plenty of distance on the bike. After 200km then around 13 per km, and of course we need a maximum capacity value, which would be a max cost of energy per km. In this case I took 15 for the example. I´m wondering if logistics growth would be better, because my last post shows a rapid growth of energy cost in the first part of the race and a slight increase in the last sections. For example at Amstel Gold the last 50km would all cost around the maximum. Need to think of it again, but hope this post makes it more clear.

For Roby: Since we have a minimum cost and a maximum cost it can´t reach nearly zero or nearly infinity - but I´ll look at your thought again, might be good.

[Buhmann]

I think this a little bit a fake to reach realistic races. Actually tempo at the beginning don´t cost as much as at the end. Because first all ride green, later blue or red. This is more realistic i think.

Problem with your idea i see: Groups won´t get so much advance like now. Because if you want to regain much time at the end, it would cost much more.

[Radunion]

I add some more "problems"/things that could be improved:

- the day after a maintain finish the leaders start with 1000 energy (even if the tempo is slow before the final mountain this is unrealistic)
- if you want to split the field, there is no difference between a 1 km climb and a long climb
- attacking more then once is very unfavourable (high energy loss)

what do you think about these points?

[Buhmann]

The second thing is offtopic.

The other issues we are thinking about.

[Cerro Torre RT]

to radunion:

first point matches the topic, includable here. Problem i see with this, often riders don't get out of reg because the manager looks exactly after that. For a 40 reg climber, there is no problem to shoot himself out of reg at a 10 km mountain finish. But in a tour, what may he do? Reduce fewer promising attacks, no sprint from 500, no sprint at all perhaps... and that are the things that really cost energy. And that's what i see to be quite ok, as if a rider in reallity does not fight for all at such a stage, he probably is as fit the next day. Some relation to your 3rd point, indeed. But having not regeneratable parts will offer some fixing here too, as many guys start with some around a 100 less in the last hill. Might make managers even more coward, but that's this game, if they like to save energy for the next day, that must be possibility.

second pint purely off topic, no threat to find yet for me, but totally another thing. Please not in here.

3rd point: off topic, too. watch your own threat viewtopic.php?f=3&t=213. As you started it with something else, that was negated soon, other ideas were brought into so i think that's the right place to discuss about that. Go answer my awesome idea, and bring it back to life.

[gaurain rx]

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.

I completly agree (with the last sentence)

[Robyklebt]

Lizard: Good point by Buh (doesn't happen often )

OK, as could be a bit expected my posts seem to have killed most discussion, only Lizard and Cerro really continuing with own ideas, other ideas still welcome. Before I continue with my genocide a summary again...

How is it now? What are the main, basic, fundamental energy costs?

mitfahren (following)

- distance: Is in now too, but every km the same. And easily reloadable, my guess it's around 0,3 per km right now.
- tempo: the higher the tempo the more it costs to just follow depending on the relevant skill.
- terrain: up costs energy, probably slightly depending on the skill (not really sure, maybe that's in tempo) down gives back energy.
- help: helping costs energy, getting help saves or gives energy
- weather: Big difference between good weather and bad weather. But with helping a lot of it can be covered, not all, really tough weather makes everybody suffer.

the tempo stuff will come later..

Ok, weather in a way already a bit specialized, help too, but let's include them anyway...


Distance:

Have to make it relevant!Now distance in my view right now is there but doesn't do anything for leaders. Since it's just covered with helpers. Want to change that, I think we need to change that since distance is a part of cycling. A 300 km stage just is not the same as a 100 km stage. Both can be hard... the long one due to its distance, right not that works only for helpers, the short one due to the tempo, that works.

-My proposal again: A non-reloadable cost that increases as the stage gets longer, not a flat cost. 100% non reloadable but actually 80% non reloadable 20% reloadable would be ok too.
- Cerros proposal: The same, but lower numbers hard.
- ?? Other ideas? Are welcome of course

Weather

Similar problem as with the distance in my view. It's in, but the effect is too one sided. In many cases it only affects helpers or unprotected riders. The weather effect right now is fairly strong, cold weather, hot weather, rain, makes a big difference. But an even bigger difference for support riders because they don't get any relief.

- Roby: Make the weather effect softer, BUT the same or similar for everybody. 80 percent non-reloadable, 20% reloadable. The end effect for leaders can be the same as now, but for support riders it should be less than now.
- Cerro: Hard weather, 20 non reloadable, 80 reloadable.
- Same as above... other ideas?

Ok, next up

Help:

Buhmann insists that helpers are weakened so that in the end the strongest are in front. Agree that helpers in the end should be weaker. But what we get right now is:

Paris Roubaix first 97 km:

Leaders: 1000
just riding 960
helpers 894

Not intelligent helping of course... I had 3 leaders with 1 helper each. and 2 riders just riding. You can do much better by a) on off, take them off, let the leaders go down to 990, then back up to 1000 and you probably have the helpers at 920-930... Or you can rotate the helpers, 2 helpers for 4 riders, often you can keep all 4 at 1000 that way, while those 2 helpers will be down at 894. But is that the sense of RSF? To rotate helpers for 50 minutes? For one hour? It will be the same in LBL and Lombardia as well of course. I think right now the helping has become too important. Other example Flanders... Ph. Guggisberg 64-74,7 mountain pavé (adjusted for form) is there in the end. He is actually not strong enough in the mountain, and in fact was dropped along the way, but came back. And he is not strong enough in pavé either, and was dropped along the way. But came back both times. And in the final as a leader he was so much fucking stronger compared to basically stronger riders, but that had been helping their leaders already. He survived the Mur and Bosberg. Because in the Mur only support helpers rode, yes, tactical mistake by others maybe too... still. It's ok that a weaker leader can beat a basically stronger support rider. But 64-74,7 is just very weak. Too weak, shouldn't be there in the end.

Running out of time, wanted to make longer and more complicated explanations...

Short: Define the job of the support rider better.

Watercarrier: He goes and get's water and does all the stuff. And he get's the water for EVERYBODY in the team. Only one necessary, but if have 2, they split the job and cost, 3, the same. If you have 0, everybody gets his own stuff, so is like having 9 watercarriers. The cost? Depends on: Size of the group, the bigger the group the more it costs. Tempo: The faster, the more it costs. PR: Slow tempo or no tempo forever, fairly big group if I remember correctly. Ignoring all other proposed robychanges: Watercarrier should not be at 894 but at least at 920...closer to 950 actually.
Protector: protects the leader to stay out of the wind, helps him get his imaginary position in the peloton etc. cost depending on tempo mostly, he protects him from tempo basically. PR with that laughable tempo? Almost no job...960+
Pampersboy: Later... have to go.

But if there is NO tempo or just sloooow green no reason at all to kill the support riders. You want weakened support riders? Make the race hard. Early in the race.. no reason for these huge differences (with the unloadable distance a lot would probably be gone anyway)

[Buhmann]

In real the differencen between helpers and leaders is very big. Here not. But i don´t thinkt that is one thing we need to change, because maybe only the best rider will win...

Here we fake this difference betweeen leader and helper with the helping during the race. Your changes will decrease this difference. But isn´t the difference now to low and not to high? The difference of the strenght, not the energy.

[Robyklebt]

No

[olmania]

No

Are you fine roby ?
An answer with one word ... strange from you

[team fl]

i guess he loves the extremes

[Buhmann]

Or his monkey was on the pc.

[Robyklebt]

But, no. It's just no. Really nobody sees it?

[Chense]

All in all i have no clue what would really help to get the problem solved but I think its not the energy costs what makes the problem so big but the helping system.
Maybe it could change if we would take a system like with general:

Captain: Like the protected riders now,but dont get regenerated every km the same - only when getting water
Free: Just Riding along and loosing the normal amount of power
Watercarrier: Bringing Water to the Leaders and loosing the amount of power they regenerate for the leaders:

I will outwork the idea later on was just more a note for me so I will hopefully not forget it.

And btw. OT for here but also note for me: Theres a big difference between sprints in flat and the sprints in the end of a mountain stage - overthink it too

[Robyklebt]

Continue here:

Help: Ok, nothing will happen with the help it seems.Of course not optimistic that anything will happen at all, but with the help Buh seems very unconvinced... Although... Alkworld had an idea (don't even remember if I liked it or not..) about "help" in the old german forum... maybe he can post it here to convince Buhmann. Buhmann actually in that thread said something like "we need to change something so that helping isn't the main tactic anymore, so that riders are used for more than just helping" mmhh...

Ok, Roby talks about helping again a bit.

Don't kill the support riders in the boring first 100 km of a race.. .
If you don't want specialized helpers, then make helping dependent on the tempo: Slow tempo: Low helping cost, low effect. Right now the cost and effect are the same, regardless of the tempo etc.

But ok, next:

"Mitfahren" and tempo.

Again the example from above:

23 Km

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

The leader (climber, sprinter) loses more with 2 support riders than the guy that just follows without help and without helping. Not good.

Hard tempo should affect all riders similarly. Here it's not the case, in that example it was fairly hard, but not ultrahard. And Grillboy GAINED 6 points while Karl lost 10 and somebody that did nothing with no help only loses 6. Here something has to change, the influence of the tempo has to be different. Karl can lose what he loses, no problem, but Berlogea should lose more. And Grillboy shouldn't win energy, feel better. Solutions? Not sure. But the result shouldn't penalize the "one legged leaders" that much.


"Mitfahren" all done I think.

Main points:

- Introduce distance!
- Introduce different kinds of energy loss, unreloadable, use it for weather and distance.
- Look over the help and tempo situation.

[Buhmann]

The situation is not perfect, yes. I want change something. So you needn´t be afraid that nothing will happen But maybe physik change have to wait a few month.

[Robyklebt]

Who's afraid nothing will happen? Everybody KNOWS nothing will happen

And I certainly don't say change NOW. Middle of the season.. if anything the time frame for changes would be october to january...

[Buhmann]

Yes, great time for this.

And maybe you will be happy about that: I hate this too, that change the helpers every Km is good for the energy of the riders. Such a boring work, i did this at the large classic races.