cycling4freaks.com

Not happy with Emilia, the downhill once again is wrong, there is a small 500 meter flat part at the bottom, ok, 10 up according to the cronotabella even, to reach -5 that km that means the first 500 meters of that km have to be at.....-12. They are not.
12 7 for San Luca? That one is kind of a mess to make, since it seems impossible to find good infos... 12 7... ok if the 7 is because the last few meters are flat.. .but actually the whole climb is not rhytmical, from very steep to much less all the time... doubt the first km is actually 12 percent and the second 7. the second km has as steep parts as the first, and the total climbing is similar too

Why is this

0 -2 1 1 1 -2 4 -3 -1 0 0

?

herald sun tour
4/5 stage






tour is complete, but the 5 stage was not very good to read, maybe give little change!
12-16 october

2011 Tour of Hainan International Cycle

I'm wondering why there are no answers about Emilia and Paris Tours.

If there are no answers, let's try with some more questions:
Is ZL working on the Tour du Jura?
And the answer for the Paris - Tours question seems to be that it's last year's version. We would only need somebody to change it. Is there anybody who can do it?

Ask ZL.... the idiot told me he'd do it in the last september week the last time I talked with him....

Why can evening people not ride Bourges ?

Thanks...

NoPikouze wrote:Why can evening people not ride Bourges ?

we have today 4 x Bourges and 4xSabatini !
If enough teams had asked for a later Bourges it had been possible to program one, but now to late.

Of course it's too late now...
But it's quite annoying to see always these random times when you come home and you can't ride the race you expected. I never find much logic in these times.

And yes, one the other hand I also say that we have too many races per day. Which is a bit in opposition with my complaint here.

So, I guess the best thing would be to make a clear decision (random times and strong groups VS fix times and weak groups), instead of having a half of both without any sense.
But I also guess i'm not thinking of all the elements right now.

Some changes to do for Emilia and Paris-Tours ?

Paris Tours :
Côte de Beau Soleil 10km
Cote de l´Epan 7km from the finish line. ?

Jura is here...

As usual: 4 Stages, one TTT, the rest HC-Mountain.

Stage 1, TTT, 190hm:

Climb: 10-7

Stage 2 (Min-Tact from km 133), 5530hm:


Stage 3 (Min-Tact from km 170), 5550hm:


Stage 4 (Min-Tact from km 180), only 5390hm, shame on me:

Last kms: Just going slightly uphill

This is the second Edition of the Tour du Jura (after the first one) who is not leaving Switzerland... and still the stages became a bit long.

Robyklebt wrote:12 7 for San Luca? That one is kind of a mess to make, since it seems impossible to find good infos... 12 7... ok if the 7 is because the last few meters are flat.. .but actually the whole climb is not rhytmical, from very steep to much less all the time... doubt the first km is actually 12 percent and the second 7. the second km has as steep parts as the first, and the total climbing is similar too

Es heißt ja immer man solle die Entscheidungen des Zeichners respektieren in Sachen Min-takt, aber dann soll man auch bitte die Fahreranzahl respektieren und nicht einfach ändern. Für das heutige Rennen Viamao-Caxias habe ich 9 Fahrer angegeben, was bei der Länge des Rennen mMn ok ist und nun sehe ich, dass es auf 8 Fahrer geändert wurde....

I´ll try to respect it in the future , but I must say that I standardized till now the amount of riders for fantasy races to 8.

Why the mintact at 155 at Piemonte? Makes no sense, 146 before the last climb with 6+ would have made sense.
Oh, I won't get an answer because Aux designed it and it's personal... Or maybe racist because he's Italian.

Robyklebt wrote:Why the mintact at 155 at Piemonte? Makes no sense, 146 before the last climb with 6+ would have made sense.
Oh, I won't get an answer because Aux designed it and it's personal... Or maybe racist because he's Italian.

i don't remeber

Too late to redesign Lombardia?

After Emilia, Lombardia is wrong too.

According to Aux the last climb is:

4-6-7-6-9

Top of the climb, 523 meters above sea level, or 522 maybe forgot. We climb 320 meters, that mean the climb starts at 202. Interesting, 5 km before the summit we are near a lake that is a 224 above sea level. We take a bath in the Lago d'Anonne. And, attention, a few km earlier there is a +2! Holy shit, the lago di Como is +/-200 above sea level, we take a bath there too?

All that not that bad, fairly irrelevant and on itself not worth posting, but: the 5 km climb:

4 6 7 6 9

My research says
2 5 6 6 11

Source 1) Gazzetta dettaglio salite, only for the last 3,28Km
Source 2) Google earth with GPS Analyse.net confirms the Gazzettaprofile and on it's own for the km not covered by the gazzetta details. Interesting detail Woddeltowns research said 2 4 6 6 9. So agrees with Aux at the end, but disagrees both with google earth and the gazzetta profile, but agrees with google earth (more or less) at the start.

By changing the 5 to a 6 (and it's not close to a 6, it's 4,7) the whole race changes. Big advantage for climbers who have one km more to gain a time advantage over the classic riders and the 80-70. Same problem as with Emilia, where eliminating the flat part before the San Luca gave an advantage to the climbers as well.

I remember a time when Aux repeatedly accused other designers of designing to favor their own riders.... just generally, without giving specifics, without giving examples or naming designers. But.. I've NEVER seen 2 important races changed so fundamentally by the designer, and in a way that helps the riders this designer has, as in this case. Actually so far I checked Aux races less than other races, simply because Aux normally is a thorough and good designer. That makes mistakes sometimes, like I do, like everybody does... but 2 fairly big mistakes like this? Now the question comes back. Is he doing what he accused others of doing? Actually even I don't think so, but hell, what's good for him is good for me. But they both ARE mistakes. And the why doesn't matter. We need precise profiles, if they are not, the reason is irrelevant. usually Aux does good-excellent profiles, not in this 2 cases .Usually he is completely unable to deal with questions or criticism of course, don't expect that will change, doubt we'll have answers or explanations.


Lesossies: Can you at least change the last climb to my numbers, that for sure are more correct that the fantasy stuff Aux has been designing ? We'll take the bath in the lakes, no problem, but let's try to have the very likely decisive climb correctly. Unless Aux can explain why his numbers are correct of course.

2 5 6 6 11
Leave the downhill as it is.

yes, you are right, i want favorite my strong classic riders(oops, i haven't one)

x

hmm.. hard to tell if the last 3 km are 7,6,11 or a 6,6,11. the km before I can't tell at all.

And Aux, wouldn't it be better just to check the profile instead of being sarcastic?

Maybe you expect to much FL

Try to follow Aux:

you don't have any strong classic riders, EXACTLY. Is that why Lombardia by Aux favors climbers?

The point though is and remains: It's wrong. It's not 4-6-7-6-9

It's 2-5-6-6-11 +/- 1 at times, could be 7-6-11 too. Check it, admit it's wrong, mistakes happen, claim your measurements are the right ones, show why, or shut up. That simple.

i see that last 350 mt. are 5%...before is 12%, i cannot follow you, the last km. is 9%, and not 11%.is not a mistake, simply, you cannot draw 300 mt. in rsf, or 500 mt.
second, if i want help climbers i draw 12%, that will be better then 9%

Use your brain for once?

4 km at 6+ helps a climber more than 3 km at 6+ 320 climbing meters with 4 times over 6 helps more than 300 with only twice over 6.
And as I said, I don't really think you want to give an advantage to your riders. By now I think you're just not very smart.

First of all, if you want to draw it well, you have to draw it from the TOP in this case.

Goal km 241
Top of the climb 232
Obviously draw from the top down, very clear, if the top was at 232,3 or 232,7 or somethign like that, less clear, if it's like that, exactly 9 km from the goal. Draw from top.

And from the top the last km according to my measurements, google earth with GPS Analyse net is 10,9%. That fits with what the gazzetta profile says as well. Go back from the top 1 km, and.... 410 meters. It's probably a bit more than one km actually, but let's keep it easy and say it's one, result, 11,2. Still 11. There clearly is a km at 11% there. It's honestly getting ridiculous with you. Never a normal answer, you claim you're right when you're obviously wrong. All the fucking time. It's not a dishonour to make mistake, we all do when designing. You're just WRONG here. It's 11%. You designed it wrong, you can't admit it, done. Nothing more to say.

That's why I ask Lesossies to change it.

2-5-6-6-11