Season 2017 Calendar

[Pokemon Club]

New topic about the next season. I think that something between 95% are registered now so looks the good time to do that.
I checked the races on UCI database (http://fr.uci.ch/road/calendar/), there are a lot of new World Tour races, so it can be nice if we know the sooner how we categorize them.
Could be nice too to avoid the usual debates we have to know which tours we ride when there is a lot of races in parallel.

I simulate a calendar so, for the moment looks the most logical for me.

C4F Calendar 2017 Proposition.xlsx

(36.92 KiB) Downloaded 191 times

Real season start with People Choice's Classic and end with the new chinese WT (if it appears from 2017) or Japan Cup/Herbiers
About the number of riders, I think we have too much races with 9 riders. I think we should use 9 only for World Tour races, so all .HC and .1 races with 8 riders maximum.
About the categories of the races I make it like that :
Cat 6: Monuments (Ex: MSR, RVV...)
Cat 5: WT Classics, GTs (Ex: GP E3, Quebec, Giro,...)
Cat 4: New WT Classics + WT Tours (Ex: Cadel Evans, TDU, Paris-Nice,...)
Cat 3: HC Classics + HC Tours + New WT Tours (ex: Laigueglia, Qatar, Turkey,...)
Cat 2: 1.1 and 2.1 races (Ex: Bessèges, Murcia, GP de Wallonie, Ster ZLM,...)
Cat 1: 1.2 and 2.2 races + fantasy races (Ex: People Choice's, Filipinas, GP Izola,...)

I don't put more than 2 tours at the same time. Higher categories have the priorities.
In my opinion, it is better if we put a fantasy race in parallel of a monument instead of a cat 2.

[Robyklebt]

So how is this supposed to work?
People write, and you completely disregard all opinions except yours, and then don't explain anything?
Or would you be kind enough to actually explain your decisions this time?

[Pokemon Club]

So how is this supposed to work?
People write, and you completely disregard all opinions except yours, and then don't explain anything?
Or would you be kind enough to actually explain your decisions this time?

WHich decisions ? Real season only leso/luques take decisions, I just don't want to be in a hurry to drawing as usual, or draw races for nothing.

[Novo Banco - PT]

i say there should be more portuguese races than volta ao algarve and volta a portugal, i could design volta ao alentejo, gp joaquim agostinho and others

[luques]

So how is this supposed to work?
People write, and you completely disregard all opinions except yours, and then don't explain anything?
Or would you be kind enough to actually explain your decisions this time?

Write, i will mind.

[Pokemon Club]

i say there should be more portuguese races than volta ao algarve and volta a portugal, i could design volta ao alentejo, gp joaquim agostinho and others

It is always the same story for portuguese races, especially tours.
Algarve ? No problem, even more that apparently it is up as 2.HC
Alejento ? Complicate. With Oman / Algarve / Ruta del Sol / Abu Dhabi / Langkawi / Haut-Var / Provence in the second half of February, it is impossible to have all the tours.
GP Beiras de Estrela ? Dauphiné + Luxembourg at the start of June
GP Agosthino ? It is a 2.2, overlapping TDF and Austria. Sibiu is better and...well maybe it can take the place of Sibiu
Portugal is too long at a period where there is always a lot of 2.WT and 2.HC already (overlaping Pologne, Utah, Burgos, Eneco, Colorado, Norway)
And for one day race I think that...bah Portuguese Federation doesn't care about one day race so I think nothing except that you can draw fantasy in Portugal.

[Novo Banco - PT]

i say there should be more portuguese races than volta ao algarve and volta a portugal, i could design volta ao alentejo, gp joaquim agostinho and others

It is always the same story for portuguese races, especially tours.
Algarve ? No problem, even more that apparently it is up as 2.HC
Alejento ? Complicate. With Oman / Algarve / Ruta del Sol / Abu Dhabi / Langkawi / Haut-Var / Provence in the second half of February, it is impossible to have all the tours.
GP Beiras de Estrela ? Dauphiné + Luxembourg at the start of June
GP Agosthino ? It is a 2.2, overlapping TDF and Austria. Sibiu is better and...well maybe it can take the place of Sibiu
Portugal is too long at a period where there is always a lot of 2.WT and 2.HC already (overlaping Pologne, Utah, Burgos, Eneco, Colorado, Norway)
And for one day race I think that...bah Portuguese Federation doesn't care about one day race so I think nothing except that you can draw fantasy in Portugal.

alentejo is at march and beiras serra da estrela is at may, agostinho i understand the situation

[Pokemon Club]

UCI says 22-26 February for Alentejo and 1-4 Hune for Beiras Serra da Estrela in 2017

[Novo Banco - PT]

UCI says 22-26 February for Alentejo and 1-4 Hune for Beiras Serra da Estrela in 2017

hm

[Rasmussen]

I don't put more than 2 tours at the same time. Higher categories have the priorities.
In my opinion, it is better if we put a fantasy race in parallel of a monument instead of a cat 2.

Here I disagree. Real races should have priority over Fantasy races during the season. There should be only fantasy races if there is no real one day race at a day.

[Novo Banco - PT]

I don't put more than 2 tours at the same time. Higher categories have the priorities.
In my opinion, it is better if we put a fantasy race in parallel of a monument instead of a cat 2.

Here I disagree. Real races should have priority over Fantasy races during the season. There should be only fantasy races if there is no real one day race at a day.

agreed

[Pokemon Club]

I don't put more than 2 tours at the same time. Higher categories have the priorities.
In my opinion, it is better if we put a fantasy race in parallel of a monument instead of a cat 2.

Here I disagree. Real races should have priority over Fantasy races during the season. There should be only fantasy races if there is no real one day race at a day.

agreed

But should away a real race, a cat 2, while there is really a few people from Div 6-7 for the moment.

And ASO RCS Flanders Classics announced that all their races will have a riders in 2017. So should we decrease all at 8 riders too ?

[Novo Banco - PT]

I don't put more than 2 tours at the same time. Higher categories have the priorities.
In my opinion, it is better if we put a fantasy race in parallel of a monument instead of a cat 2.

Here I disagree. Real races should have priority over Fantasy races during the season. There should be only fantasy races if there is no real one day race at a day.

agreed

But should away a real race, a cat 2, while there is really a few people from Div 6-7 for the moment.

And ASO RCS Flanders Classics announced that all their races will have a riders in 2017. So should we decrease all at 8 riders too ?

for 1 day races i don't see why not

[Liquigas-CND]

with regards to the number of riders we should follow the real races rules i believe.

Riding a GT with 8 guys will only make things more complicated and increase the spectacle.

I have to admit that i would like to face more difficult situations and still to win!
So we should be opened to a challenge and decrease the number of riders/team as in the real races!!!

[Coroncina2]

regards to the number of riders we should follow the real races rules i believe.

Riding a GT with 8 guys will only make things more complicated and increase the spectacle.

I have to admit that i would like to face more difficult situations and still to win!
So we should be opened to a challenge and decrease the number of riders/team as in the real races!!!

Totally agree with that.
About calendar:
Agree with:"I don't put more than 2 tours at the same time. Higher categories have the priorities."
I think could be nice fix the calendar sooner than 1 month before to give time to designers and fill the holes with real races that we didn't play, even there was before in real calendar o after and we already know that we won't be able to play because in parallel with more important races (if we have already the track).

[Moscow Team Pro]

C4F Calendar 2017 Proposition.xlsx

I really like your calendar, I would propose a few changes:

Montreal / Quebec fine by me Category 4;
Fourmies / Brussels okay Category 3 but Tours at least 4;
Lombardia is a monument category 6 (but I'm sure it's a clerical error).

Since January 1st I would put a fixed number of cyclists per race:

-9 For categories 6 and 5, and for Classic category 4;
-8 For categories 2 and 3 and category 4 laps;
-7 For Category 1 (limiting the kilometers of the race, so we have already made many races that may become winter classic).

[High Flyer]

C4F Calendar 2017 Proposition.xlsx

Since January 1st I would put a fixed number of cyclists per race:

-9 For categories 6 and 5, and for Classic category 4;
-8 For categories 2 and 3 and category 4 laps;
-7 For Category 1 (limiting the kilometers of the race, so we have already made many races that may become winter classic).

Please no, this will just hurt sprint teams like me who doesn't go to tours, very hard to control races, unless the races are decreased to 140km less, which would just spoil the race.

[Novo Banco - PT]

C4F Calendar 2017 Proposition.xlsx

I really like your calendar, I would propose a few changes:

Montreal / Quebec fine by me Category 4;
Fourmies / Brussels okay Category 3 but Tours at least 4;
Lombardia is a monument category 6 (but I'm sure it's a clerical error).

Since January 1st I would put a fixed number of cyclists per race:

-9 For categories 6 and 5, and for Classic category 4;
-8 For categories 2 and 3 and category 4 laps;
-7 For Category 1 (limiting the kilometers of the race, so we have already made many races that may become winter classic).

it depends from the race profile, only the grand tours/wt tours should have 9 riders, 8 riders for classics of categories 2,3,4,5,6 and 8 riders for fantasy/cat 1,2,3 tours and for mountain fantasy races,the rest of the races (cat.1) , 7 riders

[Novo Banco - PT]

Volta ao Alentejo is now a 2.1 category and it's from 21 february to 25 february

[Coroncina2]

with regards to the number of riders we should follow the real races rules i believe.

Riding a GT with 8 guys will only make things more complicated and increase the spectacle.

I have to admit that i would like to face more difficult situations and still to win!
So we should be opened to a challenge and decrease the number of riders/team as in the real races!!!

So what about new year?

[Robyklebt]

New topic about the next season. I think that something between 95% are registered now so looks the good time to do that.
I checked the races on UCI database (http://fr.uci.ch/road/calendar/), there are a lot of new World Tour races, so it can be nice if we know the sooner how we categorize them.
Could be nice too to avoid the usual debates we have to know which tours we ride when there is a lot of races in parallel.

I simulate a calendar so, for the moment looks the most logical for me.

C4F Calendar 2017 Proposition.xlsx

Real season start with People Choice's Classic and end with the new chinese WT (if it appears from 2017) or Japan Cup/Herbiers
About the number of riders, I think we have too much races with 9 riders. I think we should use 9 only for World Tour races, so all .HC and .1 races with 8 riders maximum.
About the categories of the races I make it like that :
Cat 6: Monuments (Ex: MSR, RVV...)
Cat 5: WT Classics, GTs (Ex: GP E3, Quebec, Giro,...)
Cat 4: New WT Classics + WT Tours (Ex: Cadel Evans, TDU, Paris-Nice,...)
Cat 3: HC Classics + HC Tours + New WT Tours (ex: Laigueglia, Qatar, Turkey,...)
Cat 2: 1.1 and 2.1 races (Ex: Bessèges, Murcia, GP de Wallonie, Ster ZLM,...)
Cat 1: 1.2 and 2.2 races + fantasy races (Ex: People Choice's, Filipinas, GP Izola,...)

I don't put more than 2 tours at the same time. Higher categories have the priorities.
In my opinion, it is better if we put a fantasy race in parallel of a monument instead of a cat 2.

Ok, let's comment here. Interestingly (or maybe predictably ) I disagree with basically everything proposed in the opening post, starting with "to avoid the usual debates" Usually they are short and not that bothersome.

Didn't download the excel file, most likely just a waste of time. And since he's not taking any decisions.. better left ignored.

About the number of riders, I think we have too much races with 9 riders. I think we should use 9 only for World Tour races, so all .HC and .1 races with 8 riders maximum.

I say continue like now. 9 rider standard.

Categories, we're in big trouble.
A blind copy of what the UCI does simply is not good. Since a lot of the UCI classification is political, money driven etc. And of course a HC in Asia is different from a HC in Europe.

Stage races:
Category 4. Paris-Nice, Tirreno-Adriatico, Catalunya, Pais Vasco, Romandie, Dauphiné and Tour de Suisse right now at RSF are worth more than Down Under, Poland, Eneco. Rightly so, a win in those 7 just is "worth more" than one in the other 3. That can change, in a few years maybe Poland or Eneco (Down Under unlikely, due to it being in January) might be up there too. See Tirreno Adriatico, for a long time it really was mainly just a good preparation for Milano Sanremo. Thanks (in part) to the UCI World Tour now in prestige it's much closer to Paris Nice than it used to be.
So I say leave them at 3 for the moment. A win in Down Under, Poland or Eneco at this point is not really more prestigious than a win in Trentino. It probably would be easier if we had 6 categories like for one day races for Tours too. Like this we get lots of cat 3 with pretty big differences between them too. Or following the UCI, cat 4 with too big differences between them.

New WT stage races: IMO 2 possibilities. a) all at cat 3. Simple. b) Do what leso did for the GP Québéc and Montréal. Bring them up to their level slowly. Which would mean that Abu Dhabi stays at 2 and then 3 2018. Turkey probably 2 as well. a) sounds simpler. Which doesn't mean automatically better. It's really a mystery what kind of field Turkey will attract at this point. It might very well be better a 2. So I'm for b)!

Other races: Right now not perfect either. Austria for example, cat 3. It is a HC race, (or the last time I checked) so ok following the UCI. But the participation is usually pretty weak. Should be cat 2 now I think. And there's others too.
A general review about what is in what category would be very useful. Takes a bit of time. Which right now I'm certainly not investing, looking at the catastrophic way of decision making here lately, I'm already wasting enough time here, but if Luques or/and lesossies decide that we're back into seriously looking at stuff, I'd would invest that time. Wouldn't take that long either after all. And yes, ideally that should be done before the season starts, doing it from month to month most likely would give uneven results.


One day races:
Monuments are clear, cat 6, clear
Old WT races: Cat 5. Here we have the GP Québéc and Montréal special case. Leso started them at 2, then slowly went up. IMO by now they should have reached cat 5 like the others, still 4 for us. But still 2 ways to deal with it. Put those 2 at cat 5 as well. OR leave them at cat 4, but make Plouay and Hamburg cat 4 too. Those 4 races are IMO all roughly worth the same, all less than the other cat 5 ones, so cat 4 would be ok too. Anyway, cat 4 or 5 for those 4, but the same for all 4, no reason to value Plouay and Hamburg higher then the Canadian ones.
Paris-Tours: Category 5. Anything else is a farce. Yes, it's a farce that it's not in the WT too. Not sure why, if it's ASO that refuses to put it back in in their war with the UCI, or if it's the UCI that refuses to let them back in in their war with ASO... probably the former. Doesn't matter, Paris Tours is still one of the most important one day races of the whole year. A CLASSIC, a real one. After the monuments, there's Gent Wevelgem, Flèche Wallonne and Paris Tours (ok, one of my personal hate object, the Amstel Gold Race is now getting up there too...) Political games between the UCI and ASO don't diminish the value of Paris Tours. (not yet, if it continues for 20 years, it most likely will) Seriously, Paris Tours at cat 3? Cadel Evans cat 4? That's worse than the 2016/2017 winter calendar and our sprint system combined.
New WT races: See stage races: Either a simplistic all cat 4. Or the old leso approach, starting at where they are now. Or a mix, +1 from last year (but max 4), which would have most of them at 4, but Cadel Evans at 3. I'd be for the old leso-canada policy. First year at their old level, up from 18 on looking at the participation etc in real life.
Classics: cat 4. The UCI approach would make classics like Milano Torino, Piemonte, Schelde, Emilia, Tre Valli, Bruxelles cat 3. Which they are not, they are classics, so cat 4.

Here too, a general review might help, for lower categories as well. An absolute mystery for example how the Tobago Cycling Classic got to be category 2.

Conclusion: UCI classification doesn't necessarily reflect the "real worth", or prestige of a stage race. We can do a better job classifying them ourselves. Takes a little bit of time. And you need to know the difference between "classic" and high category.

I don't put more than 2 tours at the same time. Higher categories have the priorities.

Ah, I remember. That was the maybe most bothersome and non-ending discussion of 2016. February, the usual problem, too many tours around. Poke pushes for max 2 at the same time. Others not. Leso decides to put online more than 2. Pokemon keeps whining about how horrible it all will be. Finally we get to race it, all absolutely no problem. Leso had the brains not to put 4-5 editions of everything, but 3 each. 9 editions. 4+4 is 8 and we have that quite often, so why shouldn't 3-3-3 not work? Worked well. So now we have to change it because? Pokemon needs to have everything go his way? Unless we do what he wants he'll bother us with the same "max 2 at one time" thing forever?
More then 2 worked well in February last year. No need to change. Stay flexible. Don't offer everything for everybody. The morning and afternoon certainly don't need 3 or 4 tours to chose from. But if there are 4 tours of similar importance overlapping... that can be dealt with too, just program less editions. Not everybody can get everything. In low categories....

Which brings me to high categories. More specifically TA and PN. And Dauphiné and TdS. For 2 years in a row now the afternoon didn't get to choose. Morning, early evening get a choice, afternoon no. Enough of that shit. Offer all Category 4 stage races at all 5 major times. Even if they overlap. We get too small groups? Then delete them once the race starts. As it happened for Pais Vasco 2015 in the morning and Giro 15 in the morning. They both got offered the same race again one year later, and got decent enough fields that time. So why the by now almost sick need to not offer afternoon editions of important races. The numbers (check them, idiots) are clear. The morning, the afternoon, the early evening are very similar in strenght (well, participation, strenght with Liqui in the afternoon of course the afternoon is number 1) So IF the number 2017 (check the numbers regularly, idiots) are clearly down and it makes more sense to offer only 4 each of PN/TA and later Dau/TdS, don't cut in the same place. But if the numbers are like they were the last 2 years (check them, idiots), then offer 5 times each
The same counts for classics cat 4+ 5 times each (wasn't a problem so far if I remember correctly) IMPORTANT RACES should be offered to all.
Unimportant stuff?`cat 1-3? different discussion, you can cut here and there. But again, make the cuts sensible. Look at the number (idiots), don't always cut in the same place. What the number (that need to be looked at, idiots) will most likely say is: Evening strong (gets everything) other times similar strength (same amount of races not offered.)

In my opinion, it is better if we put a fantasy race in parallel of a monument instead of a cat 2.

In my opinion it's better to have a real race, be it cat 2 or 3, if there is one that day (most of the time there is) than a fantasy one.

[Coroncina2]

Too many arbitrary decisions:
- Not follow UCI calendar and decide even the category of race without an Impartial system could lead to events calendars tailored for certain teams.
- stay with 9 rider when in real races will be 8 or 7 just because you don't like this change or you don't want that control races will be more difficult is ridiculous.
I start to play because I like simulate real cycling races.
There are bugs, sprint system and multy that make game not like a real race and nobody care but I can deal with.
An arbitrary category race and teams with more cyclists of reality are too much for me.
Maybe you should ask yourself why many have left. The number of teams who play maybe is usually of the past years, but several are multy created on time or teams of idiots who eventually always play for others.
Play your fantasy game! I'll stop from 1/1/2017!

[Liquigas-CND]

I agree with Coro, staying with 9 riders instead of 8 or 7 just because some managers are afraid that they wont be able to control races or deciding the category of the important races and not following the official calendar is nonsense.

THx

[Robyklebt]

just because some managers are afraid that they wont be able to control races

Do you have a source for that?

And what's the argument for having Paris Tours at category 3? Reality? There's lots of UCI rules we're not following, should we follow all of them?

[Liquigas-CND]

just because some managers are afraid that they wont be able to control races

Do you have a source for that?

And what's the argument for having Paris Tours at category 3? Reality? There's lots of UCI rules we're not following, should we follow all of them?

couple of managers already complained on forum/chat that it is too difficult to control a race /tour with 8 riders --> as per my understanding they are afraid to ride with 8/7 riders instead of 9