• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

ASO, RCS Sport and Flanders Classics are reducing team sizes

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
UCI announced changes to the points and scoring system for the 2015 way after teams had built their rosters based on the existing rules. Rightly scrapped.

UCI announced changes to the composition of the World Tour for 2017 and then changed the rules AFTER teams had done their recruiting based on the new system.

Now the most important race organizers announce unilatterally agreed-upon changes after recruitment has been based on the existing framework. Fair enough a reduction leaves the teams less out to dry than a swing the other way around, but still.

Anyone wondering why this sport has a problem of attracting more stable team sponsorship than it currently does, look no further. Just announce these changes a season in advance (and there are really only three groups of stakeholders to consult) and it's no longer a farce.

Oh wait, that's what they did with the changes to the World Tour......................
 
Re:

Netserk said:
I think it would be great if we had a GT where all stages (that aren't ITTs) were won from the break.

Well, I think that's a bit steep regarding sprint stages. Can totally see that happening in non-flat stages though and that being the main result of smaller teams.
 
Re: Re:

Netserk said:
Escarabajo said:
If they don't invite more teams then is basically more riders on the street.

So many riders want to go do the monuments and the Tours. Now there is less opportunity.

But who cares, let's celebrate the spectacle for the forum!! yay!!!
So what? It's a sport, not a job center. This isn't communism.

On the other hand, it will also allow teams to participate in more races, or to not over-race as many riders. It's hardly a one-way street.
That's the part that I am still confused. It is my understanding that the organizers are not opening spaces for more teams, just the same teams for safety measures.
 
Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
Netserk said:
Escarabajo said:
If they don't invite more teams then is basically more riders on the street.

So many riders want to go do the monuments and the Tours. Now there is less opportunity.

But who cares, let's celebrate the spectacle for the forum!! yay!!!
So what? It's a sport, not a job center. This isn't communism.

On the other hand, it will also allow teams to participate in more races, or to not over-race as many riders. It's hardly a one-way street.
That's the part that I am still confused. It is my understanding that the organizers are not opening spaces for more teams, just the same teams for safety measures.
He said that smaller races will benefit from the participation of bigger teams.
 
Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
Netserk said:
Escarabajo said:
If they don't invite more teams then is basically more riders on the street.

So many riders want to go do the monuments and the Tours. Now there is less opportunity.

But who cares, let's celebrate the spectacle for the forum!! yay!!!
So what? It's a sport, not a job center. This isn't communism.

On the other hand, it will also allow teams to participate in more races, or to not over-race as many riders. It's hardly a one-way street.
That's the part that I am still confused. It is my understanding that the organizers are not opening spaces for more teams, just the same teams for safety measures.
If a GT and a one-day/week race are on at present, that's 17 riders (9 in the GT and 8 in the one-day/week race) tied up in those race lineups. For most WT teams, they then don't have another 6, 7, 8 riders to do a third race as there will always be some riders who are sick, are injured or are on scheduled breaks. Even if races don't overlap, it may be logistically difficult to do races which are close on the calendar but far apart geographically, say California and some of the late May week races like the Tour of Belgium or when the Bayern-Rundfahrt was running, where there'd only be two days for riders to rest between finishing in California on Sunday and starting in Europe on Wednesday. Therefore teams who do both the Giro and California (such as every single WT team that turns up in CA) will likely not have leftover riders to compete in another race at the same time, such as the Tour de Picardie, Quatre Jours de Dunkerque, Vuelta a Madrid and so on, unless they go with under-sized teams which puts them at a disadvantage, which would not be the case with fewer riders tied up by the GT/WT races.
 
Re: Re:

Escarabajo said:
Netserk said:
Escarabajo said:
If they don't invite more teams then is basically more riders on the street.

So many riders want to go do the monuments and the Tours. Now there is less opportunity.

But who cares, let's celebrate the spectacle for the forum!! yay!!!
So what? It's a sport, not a job center. This isn't communism.

On the other hand, it will also allow teams to participate in more races, or to not over-race as many riders. It's hardly a one-way street.
That's the part that I am still confused. It is my understanding that the organizers are not opening spaces for more teams, just the same teams for safety measures.
So? I don't really see what that has to do with my point.

If Criterium International wasn't cancelled, perhaps more WT teams would have liked to participate in it because of this. It would simply increase the supply of teams racing. Of course, this would shift the equilibrium in a number of ways, and also structurally lessen the demand for cyclists, although of course not in a 1:1 relationship. The hope would be that it also improves cycling (the product) and as such would be a net positive for all shareholders, although it would probably also increase wage dispersion for the riders, but it could also be argued that some factors would decrease this.
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Pricey_sky said:
Good decision but should have been made sooner or delayed until 2018, teams who have signed up their 30 riders will struggle to give them races. At least the WT calender has been extended.

You want my guess ? Organisers tried to talk the UCI into doing it, the UCI did what it does best, stall. Eventually they saw the UCI had no plan to make that happen in 2017 or even give them a clear answer until too late so went for it. Probably the only way to deal with the UCI nowadays, sadly.
 
Apr 15, 2013
954
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Allrounder such as, say, Rojas will be more valuable for GT-squads now, thats for sure.

as it should be, teams are so numerous that gregarii can become specialists too, all rounders should be a lot more important, teams like Sky should have less Nieve/Henao/Landa for example
 
Sep 6, 2016
584
0
0
Visit site
I think it's a good first step, but there will be more of a difference in the classics vs GTs. I don't know how big the drafting effect is when riding up a mountain, maybe 5%? I also think that in a mountain having one dom gets you most of the drafting benefit vs needing multiple riders on the flats. Obviously I realize that more riders will drop out and get tired but 80% of the riders who enter the tour each year make it to Paris, so a strong team could still have 6 riders left. All in all, i'm in favour of this. Might as well try and hopefully it works for the best.
 
Feb 6, 2016
1,213
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
Valv.Piti said:
Jspear said:
Walter Morgan said:
Froome, Henao, Poels, Nieve, Thomas, Kiryenka, Rowe, Stannard?
Quintana, Valverde, Fernandez, Anacona, Amador, Castroviejo, Oliveira, Bennati?

Nice joke!

Why is it a nice joke? Seems fairly realistic..

Finding another place to speculate about team sky's line up is surely a prank.

Wait, Valverde, Quintana, and Fernandez are all Sky riders now? Wow, I missed a lot this off-season
 
Re:

Durden93 said:
I think it's a good first step, but there will be more of a difference in the classics vs GTs. I don't know how big the drafting effect is when riding up a mountain, maybe 5%? I also think that in a mountain having one dom gets you most of the drafting benefit vs needing multiple riders on the flats. Obviously I realize that more riders will drop out and get tired but 80% of the riders who enter the tour each year make it to Paris, so a strong team could still have 6 riders left. All in all, i'm in favour of this. Might as well try and hopefully it works for the best.

Actually think it will be the opposite - Having one less rider over three weeks will eventually wear down teams - I can see more breakaways winning GT's.
 
Sep 6, 2016
584
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

yaco said:
Durden93 said:
I think it's a good first step, but there will be more of a difference in the classics vs GTs. I don't know how big the drafting effect is when riding up a mountain, maybe 5%? I also think that in a mountain having one dom gets you most of the drafting benefit vs needing multiple riders on the flats. Obviously I realize that more riders will drop out and get tired but 80% of the riders who enter the tour each year make it to Paris, so a strong team could still have 6 riders left. All in all, i'm in favour of this. Might as well try and hopefully it works for the best.

Actually think it will be the opposite - Having one less rider over three weeks will eventually wear down teams - I can see more breakaways winning GT's.

How will breakaways win GTs? If you mean that a team like Movistar or Orica with multiple options can send a contender up the road and have their rivals chase multiple times, then maybe. The strategy collapses when:

1. Strong team drops the hammer on a cat 1+ climb: Let's say you have a 15km mountain starting with 50km to go, an equal descent, a 10km climb, and then a descent finish. If you get your superdom to set a tough pace then you'll have 10-20 riders halfway through that first climb. That strong team could probably still have one strong rider in addition to their leader. The leader would probably have to fend for themselves on the last climb but Contador did it in the 2015 Giro, and Froome has attacked from 7km+ on a mountain stage before after his team worked for him. The best GT riders can ride alone.

2. An outsider won't win with this strategy: The difference between the best riders and a top 20 rider on a hard climb can be 3-4 minutes. On tough Giro/Vuelta stages you could easily see a 10 minute gap after two mountain stages. At that point the riders just have to do a little work on the flat knowing they can outride them on a mountain.
 
Re: Re:

Durden93 said:
yaco said:
Durden93 said:
I think it's a good first step, but there will be more of a difference in the classics vs GTs. I don't know how big the drafting effect is when riding up a mountain, maybe 5%? I also think that in a mountain having one dom gets you most of the drafting benefit vs needing multiple riders on the flats. Obviously I realize that more riders will drop out and get tired but 80% of the riders who enter the tour each year make it to Paris, so a strong team could still have 6 riders left. All in all, i'm in favour of this. Might as well try and hopefully it works for the best.

Actually think it will be the opposite - Having one less rider over three weeks will eventually wear down teams - I can see more breakaways winning GT's.

How will breakaways win GTs? If you mean that a team like Movistar or Orica with multiple options can send a contender up the road and have their rivals chase multiple times, then maybe. The strategy collapses when:

1. Strong team drops the hammer on a cat 1+ climb: Let's say you have a 15km mountain starting with 50km to go, an equal descent, a 10km climb, and then a descent finish. If you get your superdom to set a tough pace then you'll have 10-20 riders halfway through that first climb. That strong team could probably still have one strong rider in addition to their leader. The leader would probably have to fend for themselves on the last climb but Contador did it in the 2015 Giro, and Froome has attacked from 7km+ on a mountain stage before after his team worked for him. The best GT riders can ride alone.

2. An outsider won't win with this strategy: The difference between the best riders and a top 20 rider on a hard climb can be 3-4 minutes. On tough Giro/Vuelta stages you could easily see a 10 minute gap after two mountain stages. At that point the riders just have to do a little work on the flat knowing they can outride them on a mountain.

I am referring to GT stages - GC teams will less likely waste resources chasing breakaways who have no impact on GC - Non-GC riders/stage hunters will deliberately lose time in the first week while the sprinters teams chase down break-aways - Come week 2 and 3 when roads are more mountainous, fatigue sets into the peleton, GC teams will let the break go if there are no dangers to GC.

Having one less rider per team will make a greater difference in a 3 week race, compared to a one day race.
 
Re: ASO, RCS Sport and Flanders Classics are reducing team s

I would like to think that they would make an effort to train the drivers of race vehicles and motos and emphasis that the safety of the riders should be of the utmost priority. The use of extreme caution would've lessened the chance that many of incidences that happened in the recent past from happening. Subtracting 20 riders from the peloton won't have much of an effect if the drivers are still wreckless with little regard for the rider's safety.
 
Shame on the UCI for keep defending the current number of riders per teams in Pro-races, given the current way of racing, the insane amount of crashes the incidents caused by the motos & VIP cars etc. I'd personally be pleased IF the number of riders allowed in a team riding a GT is reduced to SEVEN, so there is more room to maneuver & promote attacks while having less dependency on trains, more control of traffic flow during the race, mayor improvements in racing quality etc. UCI could actually benefit from it by expanding their races/racing schedule because teams then will have more riders available to send to other races they initially were not interested in participating/competing. Sadly Cookson has to consult with SKY's management first if they OK the initiative....
 
Re:

hfer07 said:
Shame on the UCI for keep defending the current number of riders per teams in Pro-races, given the current way of racing, the insane amount of crashes the incidents caused by the motos & VIP cars etc. I'd personally be pleased IF the number of riders allowed in a team riding a GT is reduced to SEVEN, so there is more room to maneuver & promote attacks while having less dependency on trains, more control of traffic flow during the race, mayor improvements in racing quality etc. UCI could actually benefit from it by expanding their races/racing schedule because teams then will have more riders available to send to other races they initially were not interested in participating/competing. Sadly Cookson has to consult with SKY's management first if they OK the initiative....

My main issue is how unilateral and late this decision was taken as for team size it's less about that as some of the best tours ever were contested with nine man teams.

Sky have been one of the first teams in a while to use it's huge budget well when it comes to transfers in pursuit of there objectives. When Tinkoff spent millions on Sagan, Sky signed Konig, Roche, Poels & Viviani for probably less money overall and initially better results.
 
Re:

hfer07 said:
Shame on the UCI for keep defending the current number of riders per teams in Pro-races, given the current way of racing, the insane amount of crashes the incidents caused by the motos & VIP cars etc. I'd personally be pleased IF the number of riders allowed in a team riding a GT is reduced to SEVEN, so there is more room to maneuver & promote attacks while having less dependency on trains, more control of traffic flow during the race, mayor improvements in racing quality etc. UCI could actually benefit from it by expanding their races/racing schedule because teams then will have more riders available to send to other races they initially were not interested in participating/competing. Sadly Cookson has to consult with SKY's management first if they OK the initiative....

1st: How reducing the number of riders is related to the crashes caused by motos and VIP cars? I mean, I know the answer, you reduce the number of potential targets but you are not targeting the source of problem, which is the increased recklessness of the secondary vehicles. I see cycling regularly since 2003 (with full 8 and 9 men teams) and haven't seen so many incidents like in the past few years.

2nd: If you reduce the number of riders I'm pretty sure that in the general case, the perspective of the teams is to reduce their size roster and not to increase their race calendar. After all, the marginal cost of an extra rider in a line-up is way, way, way less than the marginal cost of going to another race. In the latter you have to send more mechanics, masseurs, chefs, sports directors, a couple of cars, maybe a bus. Way more costs for extra logistics that is not going to be needed all the time. And being that extra races less prestigious and possibly without a good amount of media coverage, there is less incentive to support these costs.
 
Re: Re:

MatParker117 said:
hfer07 said:
Shame on the UCI for keep defending the current number of riders per teams in Pro-races, given the current way of racing, the insane amount of crashes the incidents caused by the motos & VIP cars etc. I'd personally be pleased IF the number of riders allowed in a team riding a GT is reduced to SEVEN, so there is more room to maneuver & promote attacks while having less dependency on trains, more control of traffic flow during the race, mayor improvements in racing quality etc. UCI could actually benefit from it by expanding their races/racing schedule because teams then will have more riders available to send to other races they initially were not interested in participating/competing. Sadly Cookson has to consult with SKY's management first if they OK the initiative....

My main issue is how unilateral and late this decision was taken as for team size it's less about that as some of the best tours ever were contested with nine man teams.

Sky have been one of the first teams in a while to use it's huge budget well when it comes to transfers in pursuit of there objectives. When Tinkoff spent millions on Sagan, Sky signed Konig, Roche, Poels & Viviani for probably less money overall and initially better results.

CQ points 2016

Sagan 3307

Poels 832
Viviani 275
Koenig 262
Roche 561

3307 >1930 :lol:

And I am not even talking the plamares.
 
Re: Re:

Ricco' said:
hfer07 said:
Shame on the UCI for keep defending the current number of riders per teams in Pro-races, given the current way of racing, the insane amount of crashes the incidents caused by the motos & VIP cars etc. I'd personally be pleased IF the number of riders allowed in a team riding a GT is reduced to SEVEN, so there is more room to maneuver & promote attacks while having less dependency on trains, more control of traffic flow during the race, mayor improvements in racing quality etc. UCI could actually benefit from it by expanding their races/racing schedule because teams then will have more riders available to send to other races they initially were not interested in participating/competing. Sadly Cookson has to consult with SKY's management first if they OK the initiative....

1st: How reducing the number of riders is related to the crashes caused by motos and VIP cars? I mean, I know the answer, you reduce the number of potential targets but you are not targeting the source of problem, which is the increased recklessness of the secondary vehicles. I see cycling regularly since 2003 (with full 8 and 9 men teams) and haven't seen so many incidents like in the past few years.

2nd: If you reduce the number of riders I'm pretty sure that in the general case, the perspective of the teams is to reduce their size roster and not to increase their race calendar. After all, the marginal cost of an extra rider in a line-up is way, way, way less than the marginal cost of going to another race. In the latter you have to send more mechanics, masseurs, chefs, sports directors, a couple of cars, maybe a bus. Way more costs for extra logistics that is not going to be needed all the time. And being that extra races less prestigious and possibly without a good amount of media coverage, there is less incentive to support these costs.

1st: reckless driving happens when the "impatient driver" wants to fit in "where there is no room to drive through" i.e. 2011 Tour when the VIP car hit flecha & hoogerland in a 4 men breakaway-Now put in perspective with a whole peloton covering the entire street width in which the very riders are squeezed in by force, because there is now room to operate. bottom line is - a Tour ridden with 17 teams at 7 riders each equalling 119 riders is much, much better to control than the past 18 teams at 9 riders each totaling 162 because 43 rides take a good size of the road!

2nd: Let's take a busy period like between April & May when the calendar has week long races, single races & a GT- and let's say your team roster is 28 men. Under the current format a team sends 9 to the GT, 7 to a week race & 5 for a single race with the remaining 7 in training- and yes- I know as soon as the short races end, those riders are sent elsewhere to either help or compete. So you would have 21 "active" riders & 7 on the bench. now IF you reduced the number of riders by two (2) for each race, you have Six (6) riders "available" out of the 15 "active" and 7 in the bench- so 14 riders in total can be useful in the UCI's scheme to add/clog new races in the calendar - so there is mutual benefit-and not reason for the teams to cut personnel at all- remember: the sponsors want the most exposure for their brand in as many locations as possible.
 
Re: Re:

SKSemtex said:
MatParker117 said:
hfer07 said:
Shame on the UCI for keep defending the current number of riders per teams in Pro-races, given the current way of racing, the insane amount of crashes the incidents caused by the motos & VIP cars etc. I'd personally be pleased IF the number of riders allowed in a team riding a GT is reduced to SEVEN, so there is more room to maneuver & promote attacks while having less dependency on trains, more control of traffic flow during the race, mayor improvements in racing quality etc. UCI could actually benefit from it by expanding their races/racing schedule because teams then will have more riders available to send to other races they initially were not interested in participating/competing. Sadly Cookson has to consult with SKY's management first if they OK the initiative....

My main issue is how unilateral and late this decision was taken as for team size it's less about that as some of the best tours ever were contested with nine man teams.

Sky have been one of the first teams in a while to use it's huge budget well when it comes to transfers in pursuit of there objectives. When Tinkoff spent millions on Sagan, Sky signed Konig, Roche, Poels & Viviani for probably less money overall and initially better results.

CQ points 2016

Sagan 3307

Poels 832
Viviani 275
Koenig 262
Roche 561

3307 >1930 :lol:

And I am not even talking the plamares.

Initially better results. Prior to the 2015 Worlds Sky definitely got more wins for there buck.