Ulrich Ulriksen wrote:
Yup those were the ones. In WT pts increase faster than salary so your best return per $1 of salary is still at the top. This is my argument for why top end riders should be demanding larger wage increases. Although it flattens out above 700 more than I remember.
CT definitely less clear, although the smaller sample sizes at the top end might obscure things.
I don't see that in the data tbh. 1.49 isn't that different from 1.49 to 1.31 and 1.35 in lower categories, especially given that many lower tiered riders (sprint trains, mountain doms, cbs doms) are hired to support the captains.
I agree over 700 it isn't as clear. I couldn't find where Ripley calculated pts per wage by band last year to see if it was clearer there. But my point was as much about high end versus middle to low end.
It would take 3.95 600 wage riders to equal the points of 1 1400 rider so why wouldn't that 1400 rider want 2370 (3.95 x 600) to make it equal?
You will say that the 600 wage riders points are low because of domestique duties and my come back is
(1) the point scales are pretty deep, I am not convinced the average 600 rider loses that many points riding as a domestique. To make them even on a points/wage basis the 600 rider would have to increase from 528 to 894 points. I doubt riding as a domestique cost the average riders that much (since in many cases they probably weren't riding as a domestique).
(2) scarcity ought to factor in - there are a lot more substitutes for a 600 rider than a 1400 rider - shouldn't the latter should command a premium not a discount?
