UCI proposals for the future of the World Tour

[thom]

Interesting restructuring of the race calendar in the offing. c-news article & guardian article

Major things
1) 16 teams in division 1 will have 120 days of racing as opposed to 154 currently
2) 8 2nd division teams with 50 days racing (plus presumably potential invitation to some div 1 events)
2) Feb start to season - races every Sunday but no world tour races on the same day

I'm not clear on all this but the changes seem intended to reduce the racing for World Tour teams (week long races may only race on 5 days as opposed to 7 or 8 now), to reduce the number of riders required by each team and to make the div 1 events more attractive for sponsorship.

These appear to be proposals rather than decisions right now - it does look like making quite a difference.

 

[Noodley]

<strokes chin> Interesting...

 

[laurence]

verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Looks good plus, by reducing the number of days racing, it has potential to reduce injury and temptation to dope a little.

 

[Crackle]

And bring in more sponsors, wonder if that will improve things for riders or not.

 

[musa]

Read a report whixh mentioned a similar style to formula one

 

[thom]

All manner of info in the UCI Oct 2013 Sports and Technical document.
Info on the restructuring on page 3.

 

[thom]

It should make a big difference for financial viability : costs go down with smaller teams & a refined "product" to focus exposure.
16 top level teams instead of 19 - this can give an opportunity to reduce the number of riders in any given race.
Some races will risk being dropped from the calendar though but what remains will be more competitive.

 

[Bollo]

...
....Some races will risk being dropped from the calendar though but what remains will be more competitive.

It'll be interesting to see the criteria by which they choose to drop races - beyond the big races, will they go by spectator numbers, history, investment by hosts (or 'investment', but you'd hope Phat's passing will help in this respect) or the slightly vague desire to promote cycling in new territories?

<strokes chin> Interesting...

<strokes chin> Interesting...</strokes chin>

FFS!!!! Do they not teach XML in school these days!
(yes, yes - the tag shouldn't have a space in it either)

 

[Crackle]

It'll be interesting to see the criteria by which they choose to drop races - beyond the big races, will they go by spectator numbers, history, investment by hosts (or 'investment', but you'd hope Phat's passing will help in this respect) or the slightly vague desire to promote cycling in new territories?


<strokes chin> Interesting...</strokes chin>

FFS!!!! Do they not teach XML in school these days!
(yes, yes - the tag shouldn't have a space in it either)

Noodley thinks xml is a special poncy size by Rapha.

 

[rich p]

Having two tier 1 category races concurrent is nuts in the present financial climate. If it helps teams operate in a smaller but more financially viable way it must be agood thig.

Noodley thinks xml is a special poncy size by Rapha.

I'd give you a <like> too Crax but I'm with Noodles on this one.
Extra medium large?