- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Suggestions/requests for the 2014 season
Autumn is here, the Vuelta has started and we're beginning to think about the World Championships. That means that it's the traditional time for me to open up a 'suggestion' and 'request' thread where you can outline how you'd like the game to change for next season and what you think has worked particularly well this year.
Despite the fact that I'm now involved in a small way with running the game (namely, updating start lists and results) as in previous years this is very much unofficial and just a place for everyone to get together and bounce some ideas around. Nothing may come of them but Dave has always been great at incorporating good ideas from the community where possible.
For reference, you can find the 2012 and 2013 threads here:
"Suggestions for the 2013 season"
So, what do you think has worked well this year and what would you like to see change?
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- ktache 1 hour 13 min ago
Obviously can't be trusted, antisocial, ban motor vehicles...
- ktache 1 hour 18 min ago
But getting paid for it is the very definition of professional....
- ktache 1 hour 26 min ago
Never had a Shimano QR fail on me. They just work. And the top end ones look good too....
- Backladder 2 hours 13 min ago
If you're only looking at the guy in front of you then you're going to crash whatever brakes you have, you need to look beyond them to anticipate...
- jaysa 2 hours 38 min ago
As a woman, this works great for me! My chain broke once, and a kind guy stopped with a chain breaker and sorted it all out for me. We stopped at a...
- andystow 3 hours 30 min ago
Same. I also have gone through a bunch of their tyres, and only the extralight disappointed (torn sidewall) but the standards are fantastic....
- chrisonabike 5 hours 27 min ago
Indeed - but it's no more inconsistent than our current road design - very often UK high streets are "for shopping" and also a busy through route....
- mike the bike 6 hours 57 min ago
If you ask the world's leading economic commentators how many people have been rescued from abject poverty by capitalism the average answer would...
- The Larger Cyclist 7 hours 22 min ago
loads of parking
Add new comment
124 comments
I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say, Gkam. I have no idea what you're talking about. What was it that these "certain" websites did for you, helped you with, with respect to the smaller races? Startlists?
What do you mean that "someone (team's) should pay for it"? Pay for what? Again. start lists? Or what other information is it they want you to pay for?
And, just to make it clear, when you say you think we should stick to the World Tour races, does that mean you're proposing we get rid of anything that's not World Tour, like all the Early Classics races we had, the Giro del Trentino, the Tour de Mediterraneen, the Tour of Oman, Tour of Qatar, the Volta ao Algarve, the Tour of California, the USA Pro Cycling Challenge and the Tour of Britain?
If that's what you mean, I guess I don't get what it is that's difficult about getting info for these races.
I 'd like to see your ideas on setting up a site with historical race data. That sounds pretty cool, actually, although PCS has done such a great job with that that I would hope you can come up with an awesome design or include Roadcc FC scores in some way so it doesn't replicate PCS. If it's as slick in design and function as the Roadcc game is, I know I'd stop visiting PCS immediately! Good luck!
I wonder if a ranking system could be possible in some shape way or form - perhaps for the overall points total? Not 100% on official UCI terminology so bear with me. Could be done by putting different badges that only recognise Grand Tour and Mounment achievements, or if it was done around point scoring it'd be something like:
For all World Tour Races you get 100% of the the points
for all 2.1 you get 75% of the points
for all 2.2 you get 50%
this way it should appease those people who can't keep up with all the races as it won't affect their overall standing too much - the people who do all the races still get badges, stage wins etc. to play for, and it mirrors real cycling a bit more in that yeah it's great if you win a smaller race but it's not as good as winning a stage in a Grand Tour or a monument.
Or perhaps having a seperate ranking system that just tots up points from the monuments and world tours so people can prioritize? Maybe this exists by virtue of premium and non premium rankings actually?
That's a fair idea, weighting the points towards the major races and making the smaller races less relevant to the 'overall' would mean that performance in bigger races is more rewarded than performance in smaller races and allow people to feel like they weren't missing out by skipping a couple of races that would barely affect the competition.
That being said, people will always try and keep up with their rivals and I doubt there's much that would allow stop people from feeling like they need to compete in every race.
Personally I think a UCI points style system could work where points are awarded to the top finishers on a stage (top 20 teams?) then to the top in the overall at the end of the race (top 100?) in such a way that it means that for the overall points table finishin 101st is exactly the same as not competing. Not sure how it'd work in practice though.
picking a team of nine riders for the whole season is pretty pointless, in my opinion.
Good idea, that.
I know I've asked for this before, just about every year, but, here goes, on the mini-league pages, could you add a column that tells you where the league members stand in the overall competition, too? And maybe another one showing how many points each team is behind the overall competition leader? Thanks!
Wow. It looks like lots of female riders are being added to the TDU women's teams. How about that?
Bad idea.
I didn't know there was a woman's TDU
I was just trying to spark some debate, because the forum is quiet, so I stuck some females riders in the roster changes.
I'm in the process of loading woman riders in and changing all the teams around
Want to elaborate on that at all?
Yes, will it effect the scoring (or anything really) of anyone who does not partake in all of the races?
much less so than currently if you miss a smaller race
Well, if it has any negative effect perhaps you should think twice...
I like the idea and we should give it a go.
zzzz.
Hell, complicate things, why not? Do all of these... It really doesn't matter... The diehards will still compete in all the competitions possible...
Cycling On A Budget........
Is it possible for "road.cc" to do some articles that show cyclists that do not have a big bank balance the best bargains out there in the cycling world. This should includes things like Bikes, Clothing, component upgrades etc. There are lots of good deals out there, it's just finding them.
I hope thats directed at me, its been a while since you posted a derogatory comment and i'm starting to get withdrawal symptoms
LOL and your obsession with me continues in comments section, no wonder you are (or claim to be) a pig, tragic, xxx.
Don't bother replying because it won't be read but you probably will anyway ; )
it is, although this thread is specifically about the fantasy game
Are you two married?
Gkam, does the Rankings page currently include the last points that were earned by the riders in the last competiton of 2013? Just wondering if those got included or if what we see on that page was the last Ranking before the last race...
I like this idea. Only Wig_Billy will kill us
I would like to propose a couple of scoring changes. One would be to lower the points offered at the finish line during the Spring and Autumn Classics the 50 points on offer to 1st place down to 40 points or so. I think they are given too many points as stand alone races. I'd also like to see the points on offer for a breakaway at mid-race to be wloered to 5 points. The other suggestion, which has been discussed previously, is to award the KOM points at the end of a stage when the stage ends on a categorized climb. I just think it's appropriate that if the KOM points are earned by a rider on a breakaway on categorized climbs along the way, the KOM points at the end of a stage should be awarded too.
This is probably a very weird suggestion, but it's been in the back of my head for a while. I was wondering if there was a way to enter a team of less than 9 riders. Once in a while, I've thought it'd be pretty cool to race with 5 riders instead of 9, for example. Budget wise that would mean I could stuff my team with more stars... I know it sounds crazy
Part of me agrees but the classics are major races in the calendar, Paris-Roubaix and Milan-San Remo are arguably bigger and more important than many of the mid-tier stage races in the fantasy calendar. Classics also have no GC, KoM or PC points on offer meaning in some cases finish line points are the only ones awarded.
The thinking behind 50 points for the winner of a classic is that it is the usual 35 points for the stage win plus 10 for the theoretical GC and 5 for the 'points competition'. That puts the points on offer for winning a classics in line with those on offer for winning the first stage of a Tour.
Perhaps one solution may be to 'weight' each race so that Paris-Roubaix is worth more points than, say, Kuurne-Bruxels-Kuurne. I'd argue though that this is something that might be useful across the board because there's no good reason for the Tour of the Med to be scored as highly as the Criterium Dauphine.
I see the logic in this but points scored in a stage race are already heavily skewed towards the days in the mountains and this would push that even further. Also, if you were to award KoM points at the finish line why are we not awarding additional sprint competition points at the finish line of flat stages too? There is an argument that the 35 points on offer last year for winning a stage are representative of both the stage win and any points awarded at the finish line and that it should be kept at 35 pointed on ALL stages for the sake of consistency across races and stages.
wonder how much Wiggle room there'll be in the 2014 edition
I'd be ok with the points dropping down from 50 points to 45 or 40 points, just to not complicate it too much and have to weigh each race differently. I just equate the 50 with wearing or "earning" the jerseys, so it seems like a little too much to have as many points as a guy who goes up to the podium of a stage race three times in one day.
How many Classics are there? 6? 8? 12? And how many first days of stage races do we have? I don't know, I haven't counted, really, I just think these races are given way too many points. Thanks for responding.
You might think I'm nuts but, I think the more points the merrier for the lucky players who actually pick the correct riders on these stages! Just a thought.... Thanks again for your comments. You sound pretty much "in the know" about how the game is run, are you part of the game committee, do you work for Road.cc? Just wondering...
Each of the major classics is up there with the very biggest races a rider can win, think the likes of Paris-Roubaix, Amstel Gold or Liege-Bastogne-Liege, all major races which mean more to a rider and to sponsors than winning the GC in many small tours. The UCI also, for the purposes of the World Tour rankings, rate classics higher than some other wins.
If you want a breakdown of last year's calendar take a look at this
http://road.cc/content/forum/77002-fantasy-cycling-calendar
More points is fine but a balance needs to be found between finish line and breakaway points, between flat and mountain stages and between GC standings points and stage points.
You could argue that a stage win is worth more than a few KoM points but you can also argue that GC is most important so with not give 100 points to the GC standings and fewer for stage wins? There always needs to be a balance between the different sorts of points on offer and I think that largely, last year, this balance was just about right.
Oh, and I don't work for road.cc
I help with some scoring and setting up races but thats about it.
Do you think the scoring will change much this year?
Pages