Rules governing squad sizes - would you change

[Anonymous]

Been thinking a bit about this.

CUrrent UCI rules on squad sizes.

0 Neo Pros - Maximum Squad size 28
1 Neo Pro - Maximum Squad size 29
2-5 Neo Pros - Maximum Squad size 30

Would you change anything. .Personally I would like to see the squad sizes made a little smaller, say 27 plus any neo-pro's up to a max of 30 riders, but with neo pro's having that status for TWO years rather than ONE.

THoughts?

 

[BroDeal]

I definitely think the large teams are the wrong way to go. The UCI seems intent on pursuing the goal of "super teams," large big budget teams that can race all the key races throughout the season. But teams like that require huge budgets--well, huge in cycling team terms--and it is a constant struggle to maintain sponsorship at the level required to support teams of that size. The problems of Riis Cycling are a case in point.

I also do not think it is healthy to have teams that are stacked with lots of contenders for the same class of races. Liquigas' grand tour stage racing lineup this season was rather ridiculous if you count Pellizotti. The same goes for HTC's sprint lineup. More teams with contenders is better for the sport.

I would like to see team sizes at races dropped to seven riders, allowing more small, regional teams to race some of the big events.

 

[janraaskalt]

with neo pro's having that status for TWO years rather than ONE.

THoughts?

It already is like this.

 

[ingsve]

I think the team sizes are just about right the way they are. With the limited access to the top races with 18 teams forced to race everything it would not be a good idea to limit the team sizes further. That would make it impossible for up and coming riders to get contracted by the top teams since then an even bigger part of their squad would go to having riders to fill all the races they have to ride.

I don't think of any of the current teams as super teams. At least not in comparison to for example Mapei back in the day that had up to 45 riders in the squad at times.

 

[galaxy1]

I definitely think the large teams are the wrong way to go. The UCI seems intent on pursuing the goal of "super teams," large big budget teams that can race all the key races throughout the season. But teams like that require huge budgets--well, huge in cycling team terms--and it is a constant struggle to maintain sponsorship at the level required to support teams of that size. The problems of Riis Cycling are a case in point.

I also do not think it is healthy to have teams that are stacked with lots of contenders for the same class of races. Liquigas' grand tour stage racing lineup this season was rather ridiculous if you count Pellizotti. The same goes for HTC's sprint lineup. More teams with contenders is better for the sport.

I would like to see team sizes at races dropped to seven riders, allowing more small, regional teams to race some of the big events.

I agree with a lot of this. More, smaller teams would improve a lot of races. I don't think it adds much to cycling to have exactly the same teams up front in every race - why not have classics teams that don't feel the need to race badly in GTs (and vice versa)?

 

[galaxy1]

on a related side issue - is it actually necessary for teams to have dedicated "water carriers" in this day and age? why can't the big races have neutral water+feed bikes like they do with neutral service? (i am aware that the term refers to people who do a bit more than just carry water, but...). how many of the current TdF peloton could be dispensed with given such a rule change?
smaller racing teams would be sure to generate more interesting racing, preventing a single team from controlling a race so easily. not to mention ending the crazy politics about who is/is not invited to each race.

 

[adamski101]

on a related side issue - is it actually necessary for teams to have dedicated "water carriers" in this day and age? why can't the big races have neutral water+feed bikes like they do with neutral service? (i am aware that the term refers to people who do a bit more than just carry water, but...). how many of the current TdF peloton could be dispensed with given such a rule change?
smaller racing teams would be sure to generate more interesting racing, preventing a single team from controlling a race so easily. not to mention ending the crazy politics about who is/is not invited to each race.

some of the big races already do have neutral bikes that carry water/coke. I think the teams arguement will be that riders have specific drinks, plus gels and other food requirements and that you would need a large amount of neutral bikes/vehicles.

 

[ingsve]

on a related side issue - is it actually necessary for teams to have dedicated "water carriers" in this day and age? why can't the big races have neutral water+feed bikes like they do with neutral service? (i am aware that the term refers to people who do a bit more than just carry water, but...). how many of the current TdF peloton could be dispensed with given such a rule change?
smaller racing teams would be sure to generate more interesting racing, preventing a single team from controlling a race so easily. not to mention ending the crazy politics about who is/is not invited to each race.

It wouldn't change much at all. Picking things up for other riders is a very minimal thing. You'll never get away from the need to have domestiques in cycling. That comes from the simple fact that you save perhaps 30% energy by staying out of the wind. This means the primary job for non-leaders is to protect the leader and do every job that requires going into the wind. This is everything from chasing breaks, driving up the tempo before the leader takes over, helping the leader get better placed in the peloton without having to use much energy, leading out sprints etc. All of these tasks will still exist even if we remove the minimal water carrying job.

 

[Anonymous]

It already is like this.

Are they, i thought neo-pro's only counted for one year.

 

[turtlesoup]

I
I would like to see team sizes at races dropped to seven riders, allowing more small, regional teams to race some of the big events.

I agree with this, and id like to add that i think larger teams marginalize smaller required races. Alot of 2nd tier riders for some of the larger teams win races because there is little to no competition since no one else is targeting that race. With smaller squads and more locals brought in who are competing as if they are riding a GT the races would be alot more exciting.

 

[dancing on pedals]

I agree with this, and id like to add that i think larger teams marginalize smaller required races. Alot of 2nd tier riders for some of the larger teams win races because there is little to no competition since no one else is targeting that race. With smaller squads and more locals brought in who are competing as if they are riding a GT the races would be alot more exciting.

I agree, with some reservations .
Smalller squads, with a nod to local teams, does lead to more exiting racing but there is a problem in this equation. More teams leads to more team cars. more radios, more everything, which causes logistical problems.
The answer is quite simple, ban team cars and back up support- let them race on their own
thanks

 

[janraaskalt]

Are they, i thought neo-pro's only counted for one year.

You were wrong. UCI new professionals, for roster size purposes, have that status for 2 years.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

...More teams leads to more team cars. more radios, more everything, which causes logistical problems. The answer is quite simple, ban team cars and back up support- let them race on their own.

I tend to agree with this to an extent, at least when it comes to the PT and Continental circuit. We don't need to go back to the days of Thys and Pélissier where riders had to carry their own gear, but we've seen in races like Roubaix how neutral support on motorcycles can be effective enough when it comes to support. I could envision a race or stage where the first 1/2 does have full team support via automobile or one motorcycle support per team; then after that it's neutral support only; and the last 10km, no support beyond medical. If you flat at that time, you're usually done anyway. As we saw in the Worlds this year, racing can be safe, and very exciting without radios, so I'd like to see a full ban of them at least attempted as well.

Also agree with BroDeal and Galaxy that we don't need to go the direction of 30+ man super squads with huge sponsors. That's like the NBA where the Lakers, Celtics, Heat, Spurs have all the money and star players (and refs in their favor, sort of like the UCI) and end up in the finals nearly every year. Zzzz.

Food for thought.

 

[Anonymous]

You were wrong. UCI new professionals, for roster size purposes, have that status for 2 years.

Ive been digging through the rulebook on this and Im stumped. I will bow to greater knowledge.

edit: found this on another forum

The term "neo pro", is a short way of writing "new professional". If you read through the UCI rules, they have defined the term to this:

The first time a rider signs with a Professional Continental Team (PCT) or a ProTour team, he will ride with "neo pro" status, but only if he is below 23 years at the day where his contract will start. The age of the rider is determined by the difference between the year of his hiring, and the year of his birth. The status as neo pro will always end 2 seasons after he signed (for riders signing in Jan-June it will be Dec. the subsequent year, and for riders signing in Juli-Nov. it will be in Dec. two years later). The minimum wage for a neopro in his first 2 years is €23000/yr for PCTs and €26700/yr for ProTour teams. http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg

So the UCI definition demand that in order to get the status as neo pro, you have to be below 23years when you sign your first PCT/ProTour team. Most websites however dont look upon the age of the rider, and consequently label all riders as neopro the first time they sign a PCT/ProTour team. In order to differentiate, I have therefor started myself to use the two terms: U23-neopro and neopro. Strictly speaking only the U23-neopro's have status as neopro in the office of UCI. To me it however make sence also to use the term for riders who become new professionals at the age of 23.5 years (or later). So thats the explanation, why I have started to use both the term "U23-neopro" and "neopro", when defining the riders status.

source: http://forum.team-saxobank.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8340&whichpage=8

 

[janraaskalt]

The problem is that teams, riders and fans use the term neo-pro for all riders who ride for a PT/PCT team for the first year. This definition will stay (forever). The UCI uses the term "new professional" in their rules, which is commonly misinterpreted as neo-pro. Quite confusing.

 

[auscyclefan94]

No matter what the rule is, the rules in general for the uci are darn confusing!

 

[galaxy1]

The answer is quite simple, ban team cars and back up support- let them race on their own
thanks

this seems radical, but actually most of those following cars in big races are a waste of space (not to mention fuel). there should be no reason why a team could not be directed remotely via an (improved) TV link.

the bikes are all so standard nowadays that neutral support is not unreasonable (actually one of the biggest challenges is the profusion of pedal systems in use). removing team vehicles would free up a lot of space for neutral vehicles.