- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Spring Classics 2015
The next major competition I am looking at getting organised for is the Spring Classics 2015. I would also like to get some prizes organised for a mini-league if it is still possible to run a standard mini-league competition.
Is anyone able to tell me how the Spring Classics will run this year?
For example:
- Will they be the same 12 races as last year, which will mean Omloop Het Nieuwsblad will be first on 22nd Feb ... that's less than a month away.
- Will it be possible for players to run a mini-league for this with just standard scoring on its own, i.e. not standard + purist + whatever scores all added together as aggregate league "scores".
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
- jamesha100 23 min 46 sec ago
I have been in Belfast for work this week and have been shocked by the congestion around the city centre. There are lots of frustrated drivers...
- David9694 45 min 56 sec ago
Cyclists should be made to have insurance etc https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/24757516.four-vehicles-seize...
- A V Lowe 1 hour 17 min ago
On a bus the driver has a fully glazed double set of doors that give a direct view of any cyclist or pedestrian travelling right into the left side...
- matthewn5 1 hour 42 min ago
A friend in my cycling club has a new Ribble Allroad, I think the model with 105, and when I asked how he was finding it (before reading this...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 51 min ago
Well yes but that's if you're looking at an equation x = n x 3 where n is any number less than 5. If you're looking for a number that is three...
- check12 3 hours 9 min ago
Get them back? They've never gone away for me, cheap tdf winning bikes on eBay with rim brakes and cheap rim brake aero wheels, just don't tell...
- Simon E 3 hours 52 min ago
It used to be called Buy Nothing Day as a protest against the the Black Friday discounting madness. The constant BF adverts, promos and stuff...
- chrisonabike 6 hours 7 min ago
Apologies - you're quite right! Something about presentation and comprehension...
- wtjs 6 hours 28 min ago
You can find out whether they're lying about 'taking action' by asking them what they actually did. When they refuse to tell you, citing various...
Add new comment
235 comments
Could you offer this for Purists and keep a normal game with 8 or 9 riders and lots (!) of transfers as the Standard game?
yes. except the bit about lots of transfers. sufficient transfers.
Honestly for a purists comp I think that's the best solution but again can you accommodate that and go with your idea about a std comp simultaneously?
If the answer is yes then I'd stick with it
This is an interesting debate and also occurs in other fantasy sports.
Perhaps the best long term solution for the Classics would be able to lock in a squad of 25 riders from the start (within a budget) and then pick 8 of those to start in each race on the day. But we don't have the tech backend for that here. Although other fantasy games have non-playing reserves so it is a feasible concept. [Note this is just an observation, not a criticism of those building this game].
Enrique is correct in many things he says .. including this sentence "The problem is that we naturally think that when knowledge makes the least difference, it means luck is a big factor".
I am not trying to force an unlimited trade game, although it is fairest. My point is there should be better understanding of phrases that advocates for tightly limited trades use (or more correctly misuse) such as
- it's too easy, it's all luck, the teams will all be the same, it's no fun
When what they really want is a tilted playing field that locks in a big advantage to those few willing to spend a lot of time planning the whole 10-12 races weeks in advance and who have played the game for a number of years.
It's like saying I'm not going in the time trial unless organisers will guarantee I'll have a tail wind the whole way and others won't.
And while I'm on a rant ... the use of the word Purist in the sense that limiting trades is more a more worthy, nobler or purer form of fantasy game is ridiculous.
In reality the DS of cycle race team decides riding strategy for each classic race in the days pre-race and takes account of things like weather and what other teams and riders are likely to do. In my view that is what a fantasy cycling game should try to replicate - being a virtual DS and making tactical decisions on raceday, not punting on startlists from 3 weeks out.
it's only ridiculous, then, when we're talking about something like the classics where each stage is an individual race with an individual strategy. in a multi-stage tour you're deciding, as a purist, your tactics for the whole race, just like a DS would.
Very articulate, sensei... hai!... Your words, like a delicate haiku, reveal an understanding of the nuances of this beautiful competition and the delicate balance needed to maintain the sense of order in our delicate universe... A fine balance must be maintained in this competition to foster harmony in our fragile, yet sturdy little cosmos.. Master, what better way to maintain this harmony, than by respecting the middle way and permitting half of your team to be transferred out every race? What better way to celebrate the passing of the seasons and the passing from the Cobbled Races to the Hilly Races than to do a complete transition between each? * Much deserved honorable bow* Surely the beauty of half the team being transitioned evokes a sense of 'Purity of Purpose' and also 'Balance'? Surely a full transition in a team respectfully mirrors the change of the season and the change of the landscape, much like the difference between night and day? I can think of no other way to celebrate this harmony than by taking the middle road, hai! *Bow*
I disagree. From watching daily team output such as OGE's backstage pass videos it is pretty obvious they are deciding their riding strategy just prior to each GT raceday - depending on things like weather and who ranks where in jersey comps and what other riders will try to do. Sure they may have targeted stage 10 for a key rider when selecting their team pre-race, but when that stage comes they may adopt a completely different strategy.
This is most relevant when it comes to points for intermediate events such as sprints and KOMs - the makeup of each day's breakaway is much more predictable just prior to the start.
If the DS was a "purist" he wouldn't even go to a grand tour race, or have pre-stage team meetings, or ride around in the convoy in radio contact with his team. He'd be at home picking his team for a race in 2 weeks time.
Trades aren't just to compensate for injuries, they are the way a virtual DS gives pre-stage riding instructions to his or her team.
not mentioning any other games of the 'velo' variety by name... but last years spring classics consisted of a squad of 12 with 24 transfers spread over
Milano - Sanremo
Dwars door Vlaanderen
E3 Harelbeke
Gent - Wevelgem
Ronde van Vlaanderen
Scheldeprijs
Paris - Roubaix
De Brabantse Pijl
Amstel Gold Race
La Fleche Wallonne
Liege - Bastogne - Liege
and its EXCELLENT.
Here's the short version then...
Let's have...
1. A purist competition with 8 or 9 transfers between the Cobbled Classics and the Ardennes and...
2. A standard competition with 4 transfers between races and a full reboot for the Ardennes...
There... No fruits or vegetables to worry about...
transfers are frontloaded. so if you have nine, it's nine to use whenever you want. which isn't purist.
Dave based on the above statement ( ie the new game setup) the only way I can see a true purist comp is by splitting the cobbled and ardenne classics into two distinct comps to allow any form of transfers between the two types , admittedly I know nothing of how you are generating the game on the back end, but to make a true purist spring classic competition playable that's the only option I can see ?
Correct me if I'm wrong but if that is the case and you don't want to / can't split them then a spring classics purist comp can't be done due to the variation in riders between the first and last race ( ok it "can" be done but it's not going to be fun for anyone)
the only way to split the purist, but not split the standard, would be to make separate tours and load in all the races twice.
i'm not totally against splitting spring classics into two, but there's some races (strade bianche for example) that don't fit either, and it means non-premium users would need to use two of their eight competitions to play, which seems a bit harsh considering a three-week grand tour is only one
I agree entirely with your last sentence and ty to both you and Ter for responding
(sorry Ter can only single quote on my mobile but yes I had missed Dave's previous purist comments )
Because now the standard and purist comps are completely different games, could we do -
1) Purist Belgian classics (not including Strade Bianche but including Schildeprijs and MSR)
2) Purist Ardennes classics
3) One standard spring classics competition encompassing all races? (with a fantastic prize)
Reason for Schildeprijs - a sprinter scoring at MSR, G-W and Schildeprijs is a viable option, otherwise all purist teams would be more geared towards who will win RVV - bit of a game changer.
Regarding non-premium users I wouldn't expect many to use any of their 8 games on a purist only competition anyway, plus, where a three week tour is only one comp, the length of time from Omloop to LBL is two months - they are getting their money's worth.
Correct, I think Dave said thats why no purist only competition is going to take place and just a standard one with a set number of transfers once the races have been clarified (easy to miss him having said this amongst all the above debate)
Sorry enrique but i stopped reading as soon as i saw supermarket. This is a game with restrictions, not a free for all where u choose what u want like a supermarket.
I'd also like to add that increasing the number of transfers would make all the teams more similar as you would, as you say, cut down the chance element.
I, for one, would prefer as is suggested that the number of transfers is cut down.
Let's say we are doing the following races
Omloop
KBK
Strade
MSR
E3
G-W
Ronde
Scheldeprijs
Roubaix
Amstel
Fleche
LBL
That's 12 races, some have similar riders, some don't. An allowance of 35 transfers to cover all of these would be really interesting - 3 per race plus 2 spare. Don't forget we only have 8 in a team and the 3.0 fillers don't make a lot of difference typically and don't need to be changed too often. The skill in picking a team for this would be apparent yet there would be enough transfers to cover the odd mistake/bit of bad luck.
The managers would need to plan this carefully, which is half the fun of the game.
.
What about the transition from summer to winter? Don't you see you have to completely change food types? 
We need (!) a complete overhaul for the Ardennes! 
Why is that so difficult to comprehend? 
Now look at what you've done! You've made me come up with a stupid supermarket analogy to try to prove we need more transfers!
Maybe the analogy would work better if we tried clothing instead of food?...
From another perspective, I can't imagine but that everybody will have Boonen and Cancellara in their teams... That already, for me, makes all teams 1/4 the same, assuming 8 man teams, for all the Cobbled races...
I also think you may want to change your 3.0 riders, which may be where if you pick the wrong one - he may produce no points at all all compeititon - and the other 4 or 5 spots we may try to fill with the race pre-favorites, but if we get more chances to transfer people in and out, well you get more and more different teams... This is not (!) a GT, where by the end of it everybody has the same GC contenders because you already know who's climbing well!...
Why would you think they'd be more similar?...
I look at it like Purist vs. Standard... I bet because there are no transfers, at any given moment in time, Purist teams will be more like each other than Standard teams...
If we swap out 4 riders a day, there's still (!) 4 riders that have to stay in... Look at how different Strade and San Remo are... I think, too, that you take the joy out of it if because you're thinking of the long run so you have to put together a boring team, bland team into either one of those races because you have to think of the long term (!)... I want the game to be exciting day by day!...
Anyways, I propose we play Purist as described above: No transfers until the Ardeness, then unlimited transfers for the Ardennes, then no more transfers until the end of the competition for Purists. That should give the obsessive planners some thought provoking choices to make and keep them happy. It wouldn't be boring for them 'cause you'd have a lot of planning to do, but I'd probably avoid it!
But let us Standard players have our boatload of transfers between all these races! What I'm proposing gives the 'Planners' a Purist competition to plan for and a Standard player the thrill of making 4 transfers a day, so we can have our excitement and our fix of adrenaline by lettingus tinker a lot with our teams between races... That should please both camps!
Please! We need a lot of transfers for the different races to be cool and exciting for us! And we need a total reboot for the Ardennes... Please! 
I only looked at 6 'Cobbled' Races and there were 334 different riders, I'm almost willing to bet that if I took a look at the rosters for San Remo, Strade Bianche, the Ardennes, and the Scheldeprijs, a total of 6 more races, which I haven't looked at, these other races just may include even more different teams and riders and rosters and it may be close to 400 different riders in the Spring Classics competition, or more, maybe, 450? 500?...
to choose from between all races... That's close to double the riders available in a GT... And we get about 2 transfers a day for GT's...
Well, there's plenty (!) of rest days in the Spring Classics competition! 
.
And , admittedly it was last year, but, weren't you happy to have 4 transfers in your pocket after a rest day in a GT?
Dave's got a point, too, that Strade Bianche is different from the other Cobbled Races or Spring Classics...
The more I think about it the more I think it merits 4 transfers between races or more...
,
Now why wouldn't people who love to plan take the offer of a Purist game with no transfers between the Cobbled Races and the Ardennes?...
I agree... It had that nuance to it... It does feel 'funky'...
.
I agree, but with the nature of these races, 4 transfers between races and the full reboot for the Ardennes seems very fair... We all know from playing GT's that your starting team can make or break you, and having to carry over 4 riders to the next race, when the next race may be a couple of days or a full week away, seems reasonable to me...
.
So you can't wait til Amstel Gold, then change a '0' transfers available to a '9' transfers available? Damn, sometimes programming seems like such an easy thing to do when you're as ignorant as I am about these things... I don't understand these things at all!
.
.
Change the amount of races Non Premium users can play to 10!
.
What can I say?... I agree!
Well...
I had to do it... 
I looked at all the following races, except Scheldeprijs, I don't know why, I guess I'm lazy...
And to my surprise there were 691 different riders that rode these 11 races! That's about 3 times what we have to choose from in a GT!
Here's a breakdown of the numbers:
8 riders rode 8 races
26 riders rode 7 races
48 riders rode 6 races
55 riders rode 5 races
101 riders rode 4 races
116 riders rode 3 races
106 riders rode 2 races
231 riders rode 1 race
Who were the riders that rode 8 races?
Greg Van Avermaet BMC Racing Team
Edvald Boasson Hagen Team Sky
Sebastian Langeveld Garmin Sharp
Reinardt Janse Van Rensburg Team Giant-Shimano
Bram Tankink Belkin Pro Cycling Team
Koen De Kort Team Giant-Shimano
Mirko Selvaggi Wanty - Groupe Gobert
Christian Knees Team Sky
And, of these 8, which ones secured Top 20 placings in these 8 races? Half of them - Van Avermaet, Boasson Hagen, Langeveld and Van Rensburg...
How many teams were there? 45 different teams were represented... More than twice the amount of teams we see in a GT...
Which riders rode all 7 races in the first half of the Spring Classics (excluding Strade Bianche)?
.
Salvatore Puccio Team Sky
Bernhard Eisel Team Sky
Luca Paolini Team Katusha
Lloyd Mondory AG2R La Mondiale
Yoann Offredo FDJ.fr
Alexandre Pichot Team Europcar
Lars Ytting Bak Lotto Belisol
Maarten Tjallingii Belkin Pro Cycling Team
David Boucher FDJ.fr
Mickael Delage FDJ.fr
William Bonnet FDJ.fr
Jerome Cousin Team Europcar
Robert Wagner Belkin Pro Cycling Team
David Millar Garmin Sharp
How many riders rode at least one race in the 1st half of the Spring Classics (excluding Strade Bianche) and at least one race in the Ardennes? 114 riders...
How many riders rode all 3 races in the Ardennes? 65 riders...
And., of these 65 riders, which was their favorite race in the 1st half of the Spring Classics campaign? Well, La Classissimma (?), of course, with 25 of these riders showing up at the start line at Milano San Remo... But only 15 finished... 6 of these 65 rode Strade Bianche and 5 showed up at the start line of Flanders...
How many riders scored a Top 20 in both halves of the Spring Classics and who were they? Just one. Philippe Gilbert, who came in 13th in San Remo and then had 3 top 10 finishes in the Ardennes. Only one. It's not as if you can expect to carry practically any riders from the first half and expect them to score any points in the 2nd half... Except for Gilbert, of course...
Dave is right about Strade Bianche. It's roster was more similar to the Ardennes, of course, than the rest of the Spring Classics.
So, hey, why not have a 'real' purist competition? I'll give you all of the juicy data you need!
But let's not skimp on transfers for the Standard competition, please! 
We really need them! 
Hello to all. As someone who plays exclusively purist all year I can see the classics present a bit of a purist problem. What would be better for the purist competition: to have them all as individual events as last year with unlimited transfers (which in itself doesn't seem particularly purist) or to bunch them up into groups and have separate purist competitions for each bunch of races? Certainly a no transfer policy across the whole set of classics would reduce the purist game to one of almost pure luck. A set of limited transfers would also surely take the game outside the purist bracket? I confess to not knowing the solution
Just my 2p worth
I've played the last two years , and as such experienced both scenarios ....I wasn't a fan of last year's unlimited version hence I also participated in the forums , purist style comp which only allowed transfers between the two classics styles ( total roster change for the 2nd part)
I know a few others participated and it was fun , you had to research startlists as well as determine who was going for what plus you hoped your riders kept themselves off the deck
I think Dr ran it (I may be wrong) but I'd base a purist just for fun comp at least on that if not the std classics comp as well only differing by allowing 2 trades per race , it would keep the std interesting and still involve some research and knowledge of the sport
Ok, I'm going to up the ante on getting the transfers between races up to 4 or more...
in a particularly sneaky way... 
This may backfire of course ( 
)... but here goes... How are you going to load the teams? Are you going to load every rider on every team? 
All of them before the competition starts? A lot of the 3.0 riders will be coming from the smaller teams... Out of curiousity, have all the invites been made and accepted to the 'Cobbled races'? If anyone knows what teams are going to which races, I'd love to know! 
Anyways, here's another statistic to shore up support for more transfers:
Of the 334 riders that participated in the 'Cobbled races' - OML, KBK, E3, GW, FLA, and PRB -
95 riders rode only 1 race
49 riders rode 2 races
52 rode 3 races
73 rode 4 races
49 rode 5 races
43 rode all 6 races
The numbers would probably be even more (!) astounding if I included the teams and riders that went to San Remo and the Ardennes (
)! I wish I had the time to do those (!) too! But, the numbers are really (!) quite impressive, aren't they? 
I think we deserve at least 4 transfers between races and a complete reboot before the Ardennes! 
Have I said that before? We must (!) offer 4 or more transfers! 
Otherwise we also risk teams becoming too much like each other, too, with people playing it safe trying to have riders that will stay and produce throught the whole competition! 
I have nothing else to do, I know... 
I think I'll take a break now... 
Thanks for the mention, Nix...
Thanks to Enrique for taking up the fight for me. My feeling about the total number of starters in all classics and the number who ride in most events was about as borne out by his spreadsheet. I would also like to add that many of the names on the list of repeat classic riders aren't household names to people who only take an interest in the 3 grand tours.
However, I also want to thank Dave Atkinson for his comments acknowledging he understands the issues.
Without a purist form of the classics I can see it is going to be difficult to pick a trade number that keeps both the players who prefer to play purist and the players who prefer to play standard happy.
Looking forward to seeing the launch email to see what races there are and how it all hangs together.
That's the whole basis of a fantasy league isn't it? Skill and knowledge rather than just luck, although I appreciate there will always be an element of the latter.
As someone who has studied stats I can tell you the more choices you make in a game the less luck is a factor. For example you make 1 big bet at roulette you might get lucky and win, but if you make 1,000s of small bets you will certainly loose. So luck is a much bigger factor in the purist game than a game with unlimited trades. That's why I never play purist. You need more skill and knowledge to finish top 10 in unlimited trades than to finish top 10 in purist.
Like your numbers Enrique.
Just out of curiosity, does this work with heads or tails? Intuitively, I'd say it doesn't. If you make 1 throw, you get 50% chances of winning and 50% chances of loosing. If you make 1000 throws you are almost certainly going to finish the run even (so you do not lose). Am I right?
Yes you 'lose' at casino games from playing long term because of the house cut. If the all the bets are returned as winnings you break even long term as you suggest, rather than lose.
But taking your heads and tails with no house cut - it works like this. You and I each have $1000.
Scenario 1: We agree to toss once, with a $2000 pot. Expected outcome is someone gets $2000, other person gets $0. There is no 50% outcome on 1 toss. So chance is a big factor here and is able to redistribute money. If I am 'lucky' I may get an extra $1000.
Scenario 2: We agree to toss 1,000 times for $2 pots. Expected outcome after 1,000 tosses is we each have our $1,000. Chance is stopped from being a significant factor by the number of tosses. To win $1,000 here you would have to get the toss 100% correct 1,000 times - how likely is that?! Nothing like the 50% chance of scenario 1.
And this holds for any toss count comparison with the same total $ - you are more likely to win big$ on a reduced number of tosses if 'lucky', than you are to win the same big$ amount on a greater number of tosses.
Removing chance opens up opportunities for better skill and knowledge to change the odds from 50:50 - e.g. can my tossing technique influence outcome? or do I know one side of coin is heavier?
The other issue is duration of advantage / disadvantage. If you have more game experience and cycling knowledge you get more advantage from that in a low trade game than a high trade game - the effects of each good choice and each bad choice run for longer (i.e. last for more races) in purist, than in an unlimited trade game.
Knowledge is a factor, but it is more widely distributed the closer you get to race start each day. So again the way to negate the advantage of more specialist sources of inside knowledge is to allow more trades as late as possible before each race start.
So an unlimited trade game is inherently "fairer" to all types of players - the effect of both luck and prior experience and knowledge is reduced. It comes down to who can call each team's strategy and the development and outcome of each race, on the day, for the most days - with largely the same level of information. Not sure why anyone would have difficulty with that.
I totally agree and I admire your concision (it would have taken me 2 pages to say that). So, to draw a picture, we have three possibilities:
I. Purist - luck plays an important role, but knowledge also makes a huge difference.
II. Limited transfers - less luck, less (but still significant) knowledge.
III. Unlimited transfers - least luck needed, least difference made by knowledge.
You prefer version III, while I prefer version II. As I said, I think it is a matter of preference, not coercive reasons. I like one version because I think it is more fun, you like yours because you find it is fairer to all types of players. Arguments are not going to settle this, because my position is a hedonist one, and yours is a moral one. So, if I pursue this analysis, it is not to prove that I am right, but it is because I am curious about how this works, and because very soon I will have to delve into probabilities and coin tosses and the like for my work. So here goes.
The problem is that we naturally think that when knowledge makes the least difference, it means luck is a big factor. So version III looks awkward. But I think this is because there are two types of luck notions we work with here. One notion of luck concerns the tosses, trials etc (one toss - lots of luck, 1000 tosses - luck can hardly be a factor). But the other notion of luck concerns the players. So, the purist version above means: there is only a small pool of potential winners (the ones who have serious knowledge), but precisely which one of them will win is largely a matter of luck (due to unforeseeable events etc.). The limited transfers makes the pool of potential winners somewhat larger, but luck plays less of a factor in deciding which one of these will win (trades can limit the effects of unforeseeable events, errors etc.). The third version though (unlimited transfers) makes the pool of potential winners a whole lot larger (the effects of any error made only last for one race, knowledge gets spread prior to each race etc.). And this makes it hard for us to say whether the winner has won by luck or because he knows his stuff (obviously, pool III is the largest, so not all those in pool III could fit into pool I or pool II).
Now, I imagine the whole thing can be modeled (by someone who knows how to do it, not by me, obviously), but I don't see how it could be verified in a real-life case such as our game. I don't see how one could possibly establish, for example, how large pool II with respect to pool III etc. And this is what it would take for the whole classics issue to be a matter that could be settled by an argument, I guess...
there's a number of issues at play here. having the spring classics as one competition makes it more accessible to everyone, especially if splitting it up means non-premium members have to use two (or even three) competitions to play it all. that makes it difficult to play as a purist, because there's so much changing of the rosters start to finish. for that reason i wasn't planning to have a purist competition for the spring classics this year. it doesn't really work, and never has, to be honest. it's pointless picking a squad for the whole lot and doesn't feel very purist making unlimited changes after every race.
my current plan is to run the spring classics as one comp with more transfers than you'd get in a grand tour but less than you'd need to swap your whole team around each time. so maybe base it on three transfers per race for the grouped races and six in the transitions. with an explanatory email going out to everyone (but aimed at new users) giving an overview of how the races fall into groups.
Pages