|
Post by anakin on Aug 18, 2008 13:12:44 GMT 1
I don't agree with part A. Time differences are already less in flat races than in mountain races. If every cyclist would end in the same time in flat races, there would be no reason to train flat. I think it's good like it is now. The reason to train flat is for flat stage wins and Sprinter Jersey (or points jersey) The way it is right now you get big differences BEFORE mountain stages which in some cases DO make you a winner if you lose "acceptable" time on the mountains. Flat should NEVER win a big tour.. it can win classics or mainly flat races but NEVER a big tour ... unless we never saw the real tours or we are playing a very loose "arcade" game of "keep max happiness trainer-find a max FA rider-train flat-win all INCLUDING the big tours"; in the end you make a choice : train flat and win classics and flat races but never win a Big Tour or train mountain and see if you can win a Big Tour but ONLY flat should be NEVER winner of Big Tour Addendum: And btw... someone said "Big Tours should be won by a combo of mountain and TT " 1.If we talk of Armstrong... he was doped so we don't know if he was THAT good at TT 2.If we talk of TT as overall... depends of how big the difference out of the mountains is
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Aug 18, 2008 16:24:51 GMT 1
The timetrials in the Tour de France usually set the difference between the riders on top of the standings. But in order to get to the top of the standing in the first place, they had to ride very good on the mountain stages.
|
|
|
Post by geengebruikersnaam on Aug 18, 2008 17:21:15 GMT 1
1.If we talk of Armstrong... he was doped so we don't know if he was THAT good at TT2.If we talk of TT as overall... depends of how big the difference out of the mountains is I'm not an Armstrong-fan, but that was never proved, so it's dangerous to say things like that. I stay with my opinion, cyclists who are really bad in flat, like Soler or Mayo can't win the Tour de France, neither can cyclists who are really bad in mountain. I think cyclists should have at least 3 on flat or 5 on mountain, depending on the division of course. A 10 flat 5 mountain should perform better than a 2 flat 8 mountain if it's up to me. So after all, it seems the best to me to leave it like it is now, because there are some other things that have to change more urgent, like very expensive contract options.
|
|
|
Post by anakin on Aug 18, 2008 18:03:46 GMT 1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpe_d'Huez#Winners_of_the_Alpe_d.27Huez_stage_at_Tour_de_France www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/24/world/main792988.shtmlwww.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-08/24/content_471898.htmASSUMING that doping proven never happened... look at the first link a bit down to see the times on L`Alpe-D`Huez What can we see: 1 is a guy that was doped to the bone.. let alone that he died 2 at ONE measly second we have a "clear" guy with good lawyers 3 here comes the dead "to the bone doped" dead guy again 4 Oh look...ANOTHER second 5 6 and 7 doped again 8 maybe... 9 Riis team... "clean as a whistle" 10 confessed What does your logic tell you? that his time is fair vs a heavy doped with probably EVERYTHING Pantani right? Don`t kid yourself.. Armstrong WAS doped and it was proven..end of story.. if you don`t believe it that doesn`t mean it didn`t happen And you HONESTLY believe that his "explosion on mountain" vs Ullrich and the other doped riders (which were all caught btw .. the "best of the rest") is a honest clear rider? LOL, no comment [EDIT]The only reason he wasn`t stripped of his wins is that he retired and dam politics in TDF.. I don`t want to dig up deeper so if you really want to know you have to dig yourself for the why`s in the aftermath
|
|
|
Post by Il Padrino on Aug 18, 2008 18:19:06 GMT 1
Lets keep this discussion on topic and doping free, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by anakin on Aug 18, 2008 19:08:53 GMT 1
I stay with my opinion, cyclists who are really bad in flat, like Soler or Mayo can't win the Tour de France, neither can cyclists who are really bad in mountain. I think cyclists should have at least 3 on flat or 5 on mountain, depending on the division of course. A 10 flat 5 mountain should perform better than a 2 flat 8 mountain if it's up to me. What Zimba and me are suggesting is not making winners out of bad riders but to try to emulate better the reality. If a rider is bad enough in flat he won`t gain enough time vs the climbers to be safe in the last flat stages with TT for a Tour. A 10 flat 5 mountain should and can win classic races and mainly flat tours/races but it is not realistic to gain enough time in flat (which is a flaw in itself since on flat you won`t lose time .. not that much anyway) to be sure it loses less in mountain. Granted that neither a 2 flat cannot honestly hope to keep in peloton stage after stage but given a full team he should not lose 10 minutes per flat stage either. What my "wishful thinking" wants is make the team more important and make flat differences less as per the reality this game is trying to emulate. That is why I said "designate tour winner" and "relay includes but not limited to flat/mountain and TT team value". You would STILL need a "star" to win a tour but you would need to consider your team as well (how much total flat/mountain do I need to have to not allow breakaways or what`s the spot for TT team wise to be able to ensure a good breakaway for my star relayed by the mountain helpers) but it won`t be the "arcade" style it is right now Hope it makes sense Appologies Il Padrino... delete at will my previous post if you want
|
|
|
Post by Rattlehead on Aug 25, 2008 16:29:35 GMT 1
What also could help, is a non linear approach in time differences.
I believe now it works more or less like this : Flat 2 in a flat race = X time Flat 3 in the same race = X time - 2 minutes Flat 4 in the same race = X time - 4 minutes Flat 5 in the same race = X time - 6 minutes Flat 6 in the same race = X time - 8 minutes
It would be better, if higher level still makes you faster, but not by the same amount of time, like this : Flat 2 in a flat race = X time Flat 3 in the same race = X time - 2 minutes Flat 4 in the same race = X time - 3:45 Flat 5 in the same race = X time - 5:15 Flat 6 in the same race = X time - 6:30
Certainly on Flat this would make sense.
This way, a level 14 Flat rider would still be more specialized than a level 12 one, but the time difference wouldn't be that big anymore, causing them to probably end in the same peloton.
|
|
|
Post by geengebruikersnaam on Aug 28, 2008 17:18:08 GMT 1
Let's say that Boonen is a 15 Flat - 3 Mountain - 13 Sprint cyclist. Than I think that someone like Contador is a 13 Flat - 15 Moutain - 3 Sprint cyclist and Soler is a 5 Flat - 13 Mountain - 2 Sprint cyclist.
You guys still don't understand that climbers who are favourites to win the TdF are also very good flat-cyclists, with a little less Sprint-potential, which makes the difference between victories on Flat-races. So in the real peloton, there are simply no cyclists like 2-3-15-3-2-2 or something like that. In this game, there are cyclists like that, but that's because the game isn't that old. Within a few seasons there will be cyclists like Contador.
I think we should leave it like it is now, and within a few seasons time differences will be very realistic.
|
|
|
Post by jjvdh on Aug 28, 2008 20:11:10 GMT 1
Why change the time-difference stuff now? Mono-skilled cyclists might have some advantage, but in future a cyclist will develop more skills than just one, so the time difference will get smaller...
|
|
|
Post by anakin on Aug 29, 2008 16:37:52 GMT 1
geengebruikersnaam, Not all climbers are good on flat and on top of my head I could name let`s say the Schleck brothers among quite a few others. Little less sprint potential is an understatement .. some can`t sprint to save their life ... I don`t count sprint the attacking on mountain.. that is attack aka breakaway not sprint True that in the real peloton there are no TOO weak cyclists .. not many and not among favorites and usually in the weaker teams which brings us to a very interesting conclusion: Based on your assesment of Boonen, Contador and Soler in peloton you would have Soler losing at least 10-15 mins vs the first two although Soler and Contador should be favorites for tour win. It is not realistic and Soler would NOT lose 10 mins on flat. I am still using Soler as standard although I highly recommend Andy or Frank Schleck for those numbers. The miracle of cyclism and the need for a team is the team itself and the ability of an otherwise poor flat specialist finish with the peloton or close. In the real cyclism a 15 flat one would be called a "flat" specialist and "relay" man but a 5 flat one would be capable of finishing with the peloton not lose 15-20 mins each stage .. just look at Juan-Lee Augustyn which is a good climber but a crap flat/ITT AND downhill www.letour.fr/2008/TDF/LIVE/fr/2000/classement/index.html109 place at 8 mins (click on Stage Standings) I am fully aware that only an allrounder should win a big tour but there are some things that are annoying and the proposed changes are trying to adress them: 1.Flat trainers yelling everywhere that training flat should be rewarding ... and it is; you win most classics and short tours which have more flat anyway and the length doesn`t allow enough mountain stages to make up lost time on flat ; you should also understand that with that training the big tours are off-limits to you unless you ever seen in real tours a team of flat guys winning anything .. so yes it SHOULD be fair 2.All around cyclists or "Stars" was adressed above.. however being a star can bring you THAT far without a well balanced team 3.Tactics are a joke... effort does not qualify as tactic.. fitness training is not tactic either So no..the current system is far from being even close to the reality which we are trying to change. Which brings me to an idea.. make every team designate a "favorite" aka tour winner ... compare those favorites`s stats and designate a "group" for them.. they will try to stick together since the main idea for them is to counter eachother not to counter every redneck that is one hour behind trying to breakaway and make time differences between those favorites based on their personal stats WITHIN the ecuation that involves teams because at one point you will HAVE TO implement teams and relays and breakaways and more developed tactics .. IF you want it to be close to reality and not be a "move effort slider and that`s it" emulating one of the most complex strategy sports
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Aug 30, 2008 15:11:53 GMT 1
well said, I agree totaly
|
|
vasa
U23 Developm. Team
Posts: 64
|
Post by vasa on Sept 2, 2008 22:19:33 GMT 1
Anakin, you've made so many points it's becoming hard to give a point by point comment on what you're saying.
Some of the stuff I agree with(larger teams might be fun, that it's not logic that one cyclist wins everything the entire season)
But where I disagree is that Peloton should try to emulate the bad way that cyclists approach riding tours. It has changed somewhat this year it seems, but starting with Indurain, there were cyclists who were talented, but focused their entire season to a tour, thereby neglecting every other race. This is boring and doesn't show real skill (although it does show determination).
In the old days of cycling, cyclists who won the tour actually won a lot of those races(Merckx, Hinault, etc), also in 'flat' stages. Ironicly this trend started with Indurain, although he did proove he's smart by attacking when he saw that rominger and zulle were weak, taking bruyneel with him.
Although you can say it's a personal preference, I prefer to have a cyclist environment like in the days of the Cannibal, not today's boring races where you predit 17 of 21 stages, with only a few mountain stages being a bit exciting although you can allready see who's going to win those as well.
If you want to include justification, say that radio transmitters are forbidden for cyclists, so you can eliminate robot-like team tactics where everybody knows what's going on.
And if you do want to include these kind of super-contenders for large tours, a 'FORM' value must be included to make sure they can't race in almost any other race except for a few before the large tour itself, and their form turns to crap for the rest of the season as well, otherwise it has all the downsides of today cycling in large tours and none of the upsides, those types of cyclists can never claim to be complete riders as they simply almost never compete in any other race that matters.
|
|
|
Post by anakin on Sept 2, 2008 23:32:30 GMT 1
Most of your post is good BUT I have to disagree with some points: 1.In the old days as in every sport the training was not so intense and professional. So that talent can be put to "training harder and making it a profession rather than a casual sport" .. then again this is a grey area so we can agree to disagree 2.The present day cycling no longer gives special prizes for the second finishing at less than 30 minutes behind the leader so it would not be appropiate to try to emulate those days 3.In all honesty fitness (unless you train it) allows one cyclist to participate only in 2 big tours out of 3 and it is not unheard of a cyclist participating in more than one big tour or smaller "training" tours so no problems here.. if you MUST you can try and propose a limit of "only big tours" for a said cyclist I am more fond of today`s cycling where everyone is almost the same than the old days where one guy could finish 30 mins ahead of everyone else Also , for some cyclists is more important to win a big tour than a smaller race so it should be the same in a game too
|
|
|
Post by philipoes on Sept 6, 2008 15:12:31 GMT 1
I lost my interest in between the long posts of who would be most eligible to win the Tour de France, so I didn't read them all. I'll just add my idea to the original subject. For B, I like the 3rd option. Maybe we could expand it even more, so that you can choose the percentages the cyclist trains, instead of doing it just fixed 50/50. Maybe it would be good to make this extra individual training less effective than the team training. If all training would be equal, the people who've played Peloton the longest would automatically win all races because they have a specialized cyclist for each type of race. Making individual training less effective would mean they actually need to choose what they want to focus on. An extra individual training would be very nice for fitness purposes but for primary skills it could be dangerous since this could make transfers less needed.
|
|