How come some of the best time trialist have fairly low "Flat" ratings? For example, how can Armstrong, Leipheimer, Contador (just to name a few) have flat ratings that are in the low 70's, when they are so good at time-trialing which is typically flat terrain? What is it about their riding/performance results in real-life that would indicate they should have "Flat" ratings in the 70's?
Cancellara has a Flat rating in the 80's and he's arguably the best time-trialist (although Armstrong & Leipheimer have beaten Cancellera in several TT's on occasion). Are the guys mentioned above being penalized because they are also great climbers, therefore, they would be unbeatable in PCM?
Just trying to understand the thought logic that went into the "Flat" ratings.
The thing is, imo, that flat rating is mostly used for a breakaway. I mean, a rider in PCM must have a really crappy flat rating to be dropped in a normal flat stage, but only a few of them, with superb flat rating, can last a lot in a flat stage breakaway, names of Cancellara or Voight (actually, I don't recall his flat rating in PCM, but it must be pretty high). So, in general, flat rating is only useful, in PCM, for breakaway riders, classic riders and sprinters. It doesn't matter if Contador and co. have low flat ratings, because that won't decrease their TT abilities and they won't get dropped in a normal flat stage.
Edited by Ildabaoth on 24-04-2009 18:18
Disclaimer: The above post reflects just the personal opinion of the author and not a fact. But if you read it, you must accept it as the ultimate truth.
Can you imagine an Armstrong, Leipheimer or Contador cross across two gaps on the flat in one of the hardest races last year and then still have enough left in the tank to compete for the win? The flat rating is used in the road stages more than time trial stages, so has to reflect that aspect of the game more.
Think of flat rating as power, if you will. A larger rider (ie not a climber) will be able to generate more power, but could have a lower power-weight ratio (climbers tend to have the highest), so a larger rider is more likely to have a higher flat rating.
Basically, for TTing, TT is the most important stat. Also, the game would make riders with high flat ratings more likely to be lead out men etc, the stats are set up the way they are usually by the DB makers to make it as accurate as possible. Think of it as a limiter to prevent Armstrong attacking on the flat, 60km out rather than on the climb, 30 km out.
rjc_43 wrote:
Can you imagine an Armstrong, Leipheimer or Contador cross across two gaps on the flat in one of the hardest races last year and then still have enough left in the tank to compete for the win? The flat rating is used in the road stages more than time trial stages, so has to reflect that aspect of the game more..
Maybe not Contador (he's not an elite TT quite yet), but how can 2 of the best time trialist not be superb on flat terrain as that's proven during a TT, so I would think Armstrong and Leipheimer could cross 2 gaps; however, maybe not win, if there is a sprint involved in the end.
rjc_43 wrote:
Basically, for TTing, TT is the most important stat. Also, the game would make riders with high flat ratings more likely to be lead out men etc, the stats are set up the way they are usually by the DB makers to make it as accurate as possible. Think of it as a limiter to prevent Armstrong attacking on the flat, 60km out rather than on the climb, 30 km out.
I agree more with this last paragraph. I believe its a limiter to the great climbers who also happen to be great in the flats, they would be 'dominating' in PCM. Armstrong and Leipheimer (in real-life) choose to attack in the mountains as opposed to the flats, because that's where they can do most damage. I believe if Armstrong, Leipheimer lost their climbing skills tomorrow (but there flat skills didn't change) they would have a higher "flat" rating in PCM.
Ask yourself this, if Karsten Kroon (FL Rating of 75+) and Armstrong crashed into each other and lost 6 minutes to the peleton on a flat stage. Who do you think would have a better chance of catching the peleton (and they refused to work with each other, because of something blah blah blah ).
It does make more sense to me if the Flat rating really means "Lead Out Ability" and/or "Breakaway Ability".
Edited by StefanG on 24-04-2009 18:52
The Divinity Db was really interesting in what it did to flat stats. Just about everyone had 70+, and in my opinion it worked really well.
Whenever there was wind, there were many, many echolons and I remember one particular stage - maybe the Castilla-Leon race - when Contador was in yellow, but the group split and he was in the second group.
Astana hit the front and drove hard to try and bridge. They couldn't and Contador set off alone to do it. He did it, but was then dropped in the closing kilometers. One of the best stages I played in the game.
Ask yourself this, if Karsten Kroon (FL Rating of 75+) and Armstrong crashed into each other and lost 6 minutes to the peleton on a flat stage. Who do you think would have a better chance of catching the peleton (and they refused to work with each other, because of something blah blah blah ).
Well, irl there's an obvious difference between flat stages and time trials - the equipment. Strong time trialists are experts in riding with time trial equipment and they've optimized their position on the bike. In flat stages, however, they don't ride with this equipment, as it is way too dangerous in a peloton, and they're unable to ride in their preferred position. In such cases raw strength is likely to dominate technical brilliance, so big, strong riders are more succesful.
Being a cyclist myself I can tell that flat and timetrial are to completely different stats. "Flat" is very much about producing a lot of watts, while "TT" is more about disposing your energy correctly. Personally I'm pretty good at flat....but I really suck in an individual time trial
).
