alexkr00 wrote:
Look at my latest tests where we do have results for. Out of the five times Ewan got a lead out (a proper one not by Ricki "64 resistance" Nelson) he finished 3 times on the podium and once he was fourth. His results without a train include a podium but not much beyond that. I think that shows consistency when it comes to trains.
You're timing was pefect
I'm not really annoyed with Ewan in the actual season, Top3 ranking sprinter still.
And we seem to get more consistent leadouts with the redesigned stage!
Figuring out the importance of RES is good to know, something that can be fed into OVL which in turn feeds into Renewals.
I don't know if RES is necessarily a make or break stat, but it's definitely good to have one above 70. 64 is definitely way too low to for Nelson to lead-out properly as he burns way too fast when he is left in the win. I'm suspecting if he were to follow wheels it wouldn't be so noticeable (since Guerao and Avelino still can make the good result from time to time).
For the first man in the train STA I believe to play a bigger role, but I'm only basing this on looking at the riders that seem to be leading their train better than others. STA and Fighter stat are the only stats where Alaphilippe is better than Barbier, yet he is a way better train rider than the Festina rider. Vermeltfoort and Markus (eBuddy and Volvo train leaders) also seem to be good riders to pick for leading their train and they also have a good STA. Don't know much RES counts here since Ala is only 69.
Again this is just speculation and nothing concrete.
Interesting thesis. I already knew Barbier wasn't ready to lead out, so he's basically in the races to fill up the gap - but his SP stat could be perfect.
I wonder if Ackermann is the go-to-guy for me, as he is quite similar to Alaphilippe:
Ackermann also have one more level up to do - so if the proper thing to have is 76-77SPR, training him in hills would make him get that, while developping the physical traits... He doesn't have a higher fighter stat though. Maxime Daniel has 69FIG, 76SPR and 72ACC. Perhaps he would be the man for the task.
Otherwise I guess those kind of riders (mimicking Alaphilippe, Markus and Vermeltfoort really isn't the most expensive types atleast. Getting a beast final leadout rider is obviously the most expensive part. The 3rd tier could even be a development rider with the stats possibly needed.
I mean, some are even available for free - Riders like Antonio Carvalho, Chris Opie, Adrian Richeze...
I wonder if the perfect guy for the task is someone like Raymond Kreder really. Although he isn't having that high FIG stat. I wonder if that really could mean anything. The theory sounds interesting, but usually all the FIG stat did was determine the likelyhood of attacking.
alexkr00 wrote:
Markus has a very low fighter stat tho. So I think the only thing that makes sense is sta.
Yup - and maybe the HI stat does something if the stage has just a minimum slope too? If a rider like Vermeltfoort seems to work it must be hist combination of FL and HI aswell as his END stat. Because he definately isn't a classic leadout rider.
Markus being repeatedly successful does seem to indicate that my concern with Barbier's very low Mountain stat is a red herring - Markus is also similarly challenged.
SotD - did Coquard use Jocelyn Bar as man 1 much last season - he looks kinda similar to the generic type we are identifying. If not, from your memory, what was a successful set-up for Coquard in 2018 season (PCM15) (or was he more generally successful 'surfing' ).
One hypothesis could be that the lead-out selection mechanics have not changed at all, just the MG rosters from season 2018 - 2019? (No denying some things are operating differently around sprinting dynamics though).
alexkr00 wrote:
Markus has a very low fighter stat tho. So I think the only thing that makes sense is sta.
Yup - and maybe the HI stat does something if the stage has just a minimum slope too? If a rider like Vermeltfoort seems to work it must be hist combination of FL and HI aswell as his END stat. Because he definately isn't a classic leadout rider.
The game would definitely pick a sprinter over him. But there's no other sprinter in my line-up hence resorting to Vermeltfoort.
I think the reason Gerts and Van Avermaet did not even attempt to create a train while riding for Festina was due to the fact that the game chose Barbier, the superior sprinter, as the first mannin the train.
Scorchio wrote:
Markus being repeatedly successful does seem to indicate that my concern with Barbier's very low Mountain stat is a red herring - Markus is also similarly challenged.
SotD - did Coquard use Jocelyn Bar as man 1 much last season - he looks kinda similar to the generic type we are identifying. If not, from your memory, what was a successful set-up for Coquard in 2018 season (PCM15) (or was he more generally successful 'surfing' ).
One hypothesis could be that the lead-out selection mechanics have not changed at all, just the MG rosters from season 2018 - 2019? (No denying some things are operating differently around sprinting dynamics though).
Coquard basically worked well no matter the setup. I think he was more succesful when Jocelyn Bar was part of it - atleast Emerson Santos didn't work as well as I hoped for.
He had Tzortzakis as final rider a couple of times which was a bit 50/50. Jocelyn Bar was pretty good as leadout and could well be the key for sprints like this.
Thanks a lot !!!!
Impressive work with all the testing
My conclusion (remember my only focus is stage design, and have been from the beginning) is that it probably does NOT make sense to use a lot of hours killing late curves. We have seen no evidence that my straight route makes better results than a stage with a few curves. Other resent reports have also shown fine sprints and trains, even on very technical finishes.
It becomes more and more clear that it’s all about the start-list in our test scenario not the profile.
I can’t be completely sure but I tend to believe a 3.0 or maybe even a 4.0 road may still be preferable, where as a completely straight finish do not differ much from a “normal” route. Might also be worth to test 2.0 against 4.0 because also this is an assumption where we have not tested if it actually matters.
From a stage design point of view, I think it makes sense to focus most of the workload on:
Making a lot of stages as clearly as possible favoring HI over MO
Making shorter ITT’s (gabs generally increased), with a shifting focus between pure ITT, hilly ITT, Mo ITT.
Making less hard cobbles stages, still with the cob as dominant skill, but returning to a situation where HI matters more if hilly, and where half the pack to not end out of time limit.
Tamijo wrote:
From a stage design point of view, I think it makes sense to focus most of the workload on:
Making a lot of stages as clearly as possible favoring HI over MO
Making shorter ITT’s (gabs generally increased), with a shifting focus between pure ITT, hilly ITT, Mo ITT.
Making less hard cobbles stages, still with the cob as dominant skill, but returning to a situation where HI matters more if hilly, and where half the pack to not end out of time limit.
Any other scenarios I have forgot?
No no no.
Shorter ITTs will have more Prologue influence which we don't want. Also hilly ITTs don't really diverge from MO ITTs anymore, so best to have them as low as possible.
If you want the hill stat to be major don't change the stage design but instead we have to create more hilly classics, but keep the hilly stage races for hi/mo hybrids and mo riders with high hill.
Keep the cobbled stages as they are. In my opinion cobbled stages are ridden now as we'd like them too, as they finally actually favor the cobbled stats the most which is nice.
The most important thing is to take out twisty finals as much as possible, on every type of race. Everything else imo is more about calendar design than on stage design. As I've screamed towards a restructuring of the calendar before the season, I'm happy to put some work into that with some sort of a task force to create a calendar proposal if wanted by the mg UCI.
To specify: Twisty roads work better for "traditional PCM15 leadouts" with pure sprinters, while clean run-ins work better for real life sprint trains like in PCM18. If we would know in advance (in calendar) we could keep both in, but not knowing whether the roads will be twisty or straight can completely mess up the planning for a race, cause you have other need for these types of sprints.
Just to elaborate on the corners thing: What they do is effectively shorten the final kilometer to 500 to 700 meters, depending on how many and how tight they are. alex mentioned this a few pages ago already I think. This does boost leadout trains because the "going too early and completely fading" problematic is basically erased. But it also eliminates everyone who isn't in the Top 5-8 positions under the flamme rouge.
Good examples are stages two and four in the Post Danmarck Tour. In the former, for instance, there was only one leadout man left at the front of the peloton with 1,5 kilometers to go, and four sprinters were directly behind him in positions 2-5. Those four sprinters finished first, second, third and fifth. At Riga - Jurmala GP, six riders started their sprint at ~1,2 kilometers to go, and because there was one large 90 degree corner, no one else even came close to them. This often works out well for the favorites but you also have top riders in bad position who can never recover.
I do have the impression that wider roads lead to fewer messups where sprint trains collide etc. With regards to corners, it's mostly an issue of which scenario you favor: Really strengthening sprint trains, but with the randomness of positioning behind them, strong sprinters who aren't in great position almost never have a chance to make up ground. You'll also have leadout riders in the Top 5 to 10 at times, as well as non-sprinters who just ride close to the front ahead of some sprinters.
Or opening up the sprint on straight roads, with more riders having a chance, more possibilities to overtake and for riders to bust (which I find more entertaining, but that's personal preference and I don't have a stake in any riders), but leadouts not as dominant as they could be.
Obviously, this is not entirely this black and white, not every stage with corners will play out this way and we've seen sprint trains working well on straight finishes. It's just a consideration.
Tamijo wrote:
From a stage design point of view, I think it makes sense to focus most of the workload on:
Making a lot of stages as clearly as possible favoring HI over MO
Making shorter ITT’s (gabs generally increased), with a shifting focus between pure ITT, hilly ITT, Mo ITT.
Making less hard cobbles stages, still with the cob as dominant skill, but returning to a situation where HI matters more if hilly, and where half the pack to not end out of time limit.
Any other scenarios I have forgot?
No no no.
Shorter ITTs will have more Prologue influence which we don't want. Also hilly ITTs don't really diverge from MO ITTs anymore, so best to have them as low as possible.
If you want the hill stat to be major don't change the stage design but instead we have to create more hilly classics, but keep the hilly stage races for hi/mo hybrids and mo riders with high hill.
Keep the cobbled stages as they are. In my opinion cobbled stages are ridden now as we'd like them too, as they finally actually favor the cobbled stats the most which is nice.
The most important thing is to take out twisty finals as much as possible, on every type of race. Everything else imo is more about calendar design than on stage design. As I've screamed towards a restructuring of the calendar before the season, I'm happy to put some work into that with some sort of a task force to create a calendar proposal if wanted by the mg UCI.
I have to respectfully disagree with most of that you are saying.
Shorter ITTs will make better stage races, especially if there is not a massive mountain stage to deliver huge gaps, in general we do not only want the better ITT'er to win every stage race, we want it to be a mix of situations only rarely having the ITT/TTT as the important decider.
I agree that we would in most cases prefer a flat ITT, but optional MO/HI ITT should not me eliminated completely, as they favor different rider types.
Regarding the COB's, did a lot of testing on that, and even quite low level COB's give very fine results favoring the specialist, at the same time add good stuff to the race, strong teams with a diverse setup of tier 2 - 3 cobblers can better support a leader as they are not dropped crazy early, Cobblers with high flat perform slightly better as the can regain some time on the asphalt, Cobblers with high HI work better on hilly cobbles stages, so that Roubaix and Flanders becomes two different race types.
Regarding creating hill stages I simply don't understand the argument, how can we change the calendar if we haven't got the right stages, as it is now we have lots on Mountain stages, lots on semi mountain stages, and every few stages that favor a pure puncher, simply can't see why we should not create more, as more stages with different profiles is what opens the possibility to make an interesting and diverse calendar.
The only point I might agree to is wider and more straight flat stages, if there is a feeling that the result will be better and if we have to open every flat stage to make it 4.0, may as well change the finish even if the result will be close to the same.
My two cents on time - trials: We need time - trials long enough for them to take into account the time - trial stat and not the prologue stat, but not too big either as to not make it the only deciding factor of the GC. That's of course talking about races where we want a time - trial and not a prologue/epilogue type of stage.
alexkr00 wrote:
My two cents on time - trials: We need time - trials long enough for them to take into account the time - trial stat and not the prologue stat, but not too big either as to not make it the only deciding factor of the GC. That's of course talking about races where we want a time - trial and not a prologue/epilogue type of stage.
Yes off course I am not talking about cutting it to 15 km, just that ITT are producing huge time gaps and as soon as you are above 25 km, prologue have little impact.
alexkr00 wrote:
My two cents on time - trials: We need time - trials long enough for them to take into account the time - trial stat and not the prologue stat, but not too big either as to not make it the only deciding factor of the GC. That's of course talking about races where we want a time - trial and not a prologue/epilogue type of stage.
Yes off course I am not talking about cutting it to 15 km, just that ITT are producing huge time gaps and as soon as you are above 25 km, prologue have little impact.
Pretty sure PRL is only effective below 10KM, and even as you approach 10k it is significantly TT
alexkr00 wrote:
My two cents on time - trials: We need time - trials long enough for them to take into account the time - trial stat and not the prologue stat, but not too big either as to not make it the only deciding factor of the GC. That's of course talking about races where we want a time - trial and not a prologue/epilogue type of stage.
Yes off course I am not talking about cutting it to 15 km, just that ITT are producing huge time gaps and as soon as you are above 25 km, prologue have little impact.
Pretty sure PRL is only effective below 10KM, and even as you approach 10k it is significantly TT
Its only used on TTs 7km or less, then between 7km and 30km (or somewhere roughly around there) it is a ratio of TT and PR that is used depending on the distance so 13km would be mostly PR, 27km would be mostly TT and then over 30km is only TT.
alexkr00 wrote:
My two cents on time - trials: We need time - trials long enough for them to take into account the time - trial stat and not the prologue stat, but not too big either as to not make it the only deciding factor of the GC. That's of course talking about races where we want a time - trial and not a prologue/epilogue type of stage.
Yes off course I am not talking about cutting it to 15 km, just that ITT are producing huge time gaps and as soon as you are above 25 km, prologue have little impact.
Pretty sure PRL is only effective below 10KM, and even as you approach 10k it is significantly TT
Its only used on TTs 7km or less, then between 7km and 30km (or somewhere roughly around there) it is a ratio of TT and PR that is used depending on the distance so 13km would be mostly PR, 27km would be mostly TT and then over 30km is only TT.
Perhaps, but I know in Vineyards stage 1 a 9.5km stage, the prologue specialists were easily outclassed, that my 80 PRL Keough (who has awful TT) was only capable of a mid 30s finish. The other PRL specialists suffered likewise as TT was a heavy factor.
The ITT obviously need to be a mix of all things. Despite what is currently happening in Switzerland have we seen any GC races at PT level, where the TT'ers got way more than they should have? Remember that Switzerland IS a TT heavy race - It's heavily indicated by which GC riders are present too with Phinney, Kritskiy, Cattaneo and Keizer the massive pre-race favorites.
The real issue so far is the lack of interest in attacking in the stages suited for it. And that some GC riders heavily underperformed. It looked as though the TT benefitted the early starters which is why I guess my two greek riders performed so well...
I quite like the fact that these short GC races with a fairly long ITT will actually go to those riders - while the best GC riders will likely do some damage aswell.
A rider like Rohan Dennis managed to finish 2nd last year IRL, which indicates what a strong TT rider can do.
Let's see after the final mountainstage what will happen. I expect a huge reshuffle (hurting my own team badly obviously).
alexkr00 wrote:
My two cents on time - trials: We need time - trials long enough for them to take into account the time - trial stat and not the prologue stat, but not too big either as to not make it the only deciding factor of the GC. That's of course talking about races where we want a time - trial and not a prologue/epilogue type of stage.
Yes off course I am not talking about cutting it to 15 km, just that ITT are producing huge time gaps and as soon as you are above 25 km, prologue have little impact.
Pretty sure PRL is only effective below 10KM, and even as you approach 10k it is significantly TT
Its only used on TTs 7km or less, then between 7km and 30km (or somewhere roughly around there) it is a ratio of TT and PR that is used depending on the distance so 13km would be mostly PR, 27km would be mostly TT and then over 30km is only TT.
Perhaps, but I know in Vineyards stage 1 a 9.5km stage, the prologue specialists were easily outclassed, that my 80 PRL Keough (who has awful TT) was only capable of a mid 30s finish. The other PRL specialists suffered likewise as TT was a heavy factor.
Theres a hill on that stage which would probably be somewhat of a factor for a 9.5km prolougue. Would that explain it? Also, if it was a TT/PR ratio based on being longer than 7km, a rider with 77 TT+PR would be better than a rider with 80PR and 58 TT. (80x.8=64, 58x.2=11.6, 64+11.6=75.6)
The ratio is just a guess, but its probably something like that.
Theres a hill on that stage which would probably be somewhat of a factor for a 9.5km prolougue. Would that explain it? Also, if it was a TT/PR ratio based on being longer than 7km, a rider with 77 TT+PR would be better than a rider with 80PR and 58 TT. (80x.8=64, 58x.2=11.6, 64+11.6=75.6)
The ratio is just a guess, but its probably something like that.
I'm not saying that Keough was perfect for that stage, but that PRL really stops having any sort of significant impact at around 10km... so if you want a PRL type stage for a race it really needs to be very short.
