cycling4freaks.com

http://www.cycling4freaks.com/radsport/march2020.pdf

To be done:

Stage races all done

One day races that need to be done

Loire Atlantique and Pays de Loire not on flamme rouge yet.

Already made the thread before any previews.

Question: what to do with PN-TA?
We had 4 editions each in the last 2 years. Do we still have enough players for that? Or go down to 3 each? Opinions?

PN 11h-17h-21h-24h (Participation 10-10-16-7)
TA 9h-14h-19h-22h (Participation 4-7-8-10)

Total of 72 teams. Seems indeed a bit unrealistic currently. On good days we have maybe 72 teams including tours and one day races....

What is interesting, PN had better participation although times seem more odd. Why was that? Maybe because we have more French players than Italian? Or simply because PN starts before TA and people are impatient? Or the profile of PN was more attractive for most players - typically PN is more balanced and more interesting for classics? So perhaps a compromise could be 4x PN, 3x TA, but then the problem is times... Morning-Afternoon-2x Evening seems fair so whatever is taken away from TA, it will be a bit unfair for that group.

Overall, I prefer 4x PN, 4x TA. How often do we have two World Tour tours in parallel? Once a year only, I think? If participation is horrible, we can learn from that, and have to adjust.

By the way, I start designing PN:

http://www.radsportfreaks.de/radsport/p ... 20_stage_1
Min-Tact: km144


http://www.radsportfreaks.de/radsport/p ... 20_stage_2
Min-Tact: km154


http://www.radsportfreaks.de/radsport/p ... 20_stage_3
Min-Tact: km200


http://www.radsportfreaks.de/radsport/p ... 20_stage_4
Min-Tact: km1


http://www.radsportfreaks.de/radsport/p ... 20_stage_5
Min-Tact: km215


http://www.radsportfreaks.de/radsport/p ... 20_stage_6
Min-Tact: km149


http://www.radsportfreaks.de/radsport/p ... 20_stage_7
Min-Tact: km148


http://www.radsportfreaks.de/radsport/p ... 20_stage_8
Min-Tact: km79

Down under + san juan had 61 participitans in 7 editions i guess 7 editions is fine. But 6 editions okay too. 8 editions to mich IMO

We will have the same problem in June with Dauphiné-TdS, so it's twice a year, not once!

7 times? Don't like that at all, why favor one over the other? Just because it had more last year (and I think every year..) Despite the "strange times" (see, my old theory of not always offering the same but sometimes the less popular times, 11-16-17 worked there)

With 4 times the theory was to offer all for the evening. (ill defined, 20-21 and half of 22 counted as that) Then cut one each for the morning, afternoon, early evening and late evening.. (over the 4 races, PN-TA-Dauphiné-TdS) with 4 editions this time for PN-TA the times with the cut would be the morning and the early evening. In theory. But offering 2 late evenings.. ok if 22 counts as late evening

One thing, IMO 23h should get 2 of the 4 tours (March and June), regardless of 3 editions or 4. Late evening has been getting weaker, but is being weakened by less being offered there too.

Somehow I would prefer 4 editions, but 3 works too...

Times, for 3 times it's actually easier to make.

10-18-21
14-20-23

Something like this in March... Double evening, rest single. Same with (partially) different times in June .Or up to 4 if participation increases. With 4 can't come up with something I like right now...., ok, could just flip 2019 June and March,.... no idea what June was. And I refuse to even think about 7.
3+4...

Catalunya will of course be 4 editions.

Sent Luques the first draft, with 2 possibilites, both 3 editions and 4. And recommended the one with 3.... not convinced, but seems better somehow.

Btw, Gipfels numbers were from 2018

2019 it was
PN 10-15-19-22 (10-8-13-13)
TA 14-18-21-23 (6-5-8-4)

Sorry for the day name in Italian, think it's clear anyway, at the moment opted for the 3+3 version.

According to low participation again at 14h maybe use 15h instead of 14h for PN

Hanse wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:09 am

According to low participation again at 14h maybe use 15h instead of 14h for PN

Sounds like a good idea since Besseges at 15 was way more popular. What about Catalunya? Like to spread the times usually, twice 15h.... good? Bad? Put to 14? 16?

Robyklebt wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 12, 2020 9:04 am

Hanse wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:09 am

According to low participation again at 14h maybe use 15h instead of 14h for PN

Sounds like a good idea since Besseges at 15 was way more popular. What about Catalunya? Like to spread the times usually, twice 15h.... good? Bad? Put to 14? 16?

15h seems good for participation so we could keep catalunya 15h too. But we also can try 16h. But we can wait for other opinions.
In my opinion 15-19 looks fine 16-19 fine too. And also using more popular times twice a month for a tour shouldnt be a problem.

I am not an afternoon rider. But if 15h is usually the best time for all afternoon teams... it should be no problem to take that time more often than other times

Same goes for the evening I think. I would think 22h is the best time for most of us. So why give 23h so much times? Is it really so frequently used and provides bigger groups compared to 22h? Especially in tours and the long classic races coming up? I see Strade Bianche + San Remo + Harelbeke at 23h in March.
I guess we are all european so time differences are small. Do people really enjoy playing the game until sometimes 1 / 1.30 in the morning?

I'd love to hear opinions on that. For me I am constantly tired at work when start is at 23h and no other option available

I would vote for more "standardized" times - at least for the big races. Wouldn't want to see one of the Grand Tours ridden at 23h.

I'll do Tirreno in the next days.

In the first post now the 1 day races that need to be done are written.

Gent is 3 km short for us, but looks to be the same, IMO no need to touch that shit.

Tirreno done

Catalunya is done btw.

Robyklebt wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:34 am

http://www.cycling4freaks.com/radsport/march2020.pdf

Kuurne-Bruxelles-Kuurne
Le Samyn (low priority, the first part is probably different, finishing circuit the same, but 2 km short at RSF
Strade Bianche: Seems the same, but discussion about * or ** of course welcome. Last year's system was * but the 6th km then becomes a **...
GP de Denain
De Panne
Harelbeke very annoying stuff. Small changes only...longer way to la Houppe after La Houppe,, Kanarieberg in. Actually the biggest change. Then more after Taaienberg, shorter way to the next climb. And shortly after the Boigneberg a different route to Mariaborre/Steenbekkendries, which seems to be the same but a different name. All from flamme rouge, will look at their own site another time.

Industria, Monsere, Drenthe, Bredene Koksijde, Loire Atlantique and Pays de Loire not on flamme rouge yet. MSR neither, but on their site is the same. Discussion about Capo Berta, Cipressa, Poggio of course always ok..)

Strade Bianche und MSR seems to me 100% identical to 2019.

Kuurne-Bruxelles-Kuurne changed quite a lot, so here is the 2020 version. Feel free to check things:

Thanks. But questions: Did you check with how it was done in past years? Oude Kwaremont used to be ***, Kruisberg I think **(on mobile at the race track, not going to check closely from here).

Of course changes are ok, BUT, we then need consistency. That means the same for all races, not **** in one race, ** in another, *** in a third one.

The Belgian thread is here:

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=67

In Kwaremont... to me doesn't compare with PR stuff, the pavé to me seems much easier than those **** in PR. Probably even easy *** somehow. Kruisberg don't really remember.

Anyway, if there's a good reason or consensus to change, ok, but then we need to write it down in that thread.

Robyklebt wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 23, 2020 4:35 am

Thanks. But questions: Did you check with how it was done in past years? Oude Kwaremont used to be ***, Kruisberg I think **(on mobile at the race track, not going to check closely from here).

OK was maybe too simple to take la-flamme-rouge pavè rating. Will check and re-post in the Belgian thread.

Monsere done, 300 pavé according to flamme rouge, 500 according to their own site, 0 or *, made it *, even if on a +2 the effect might be stronger than in reality.

luques wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:01 am

Sorry for the day name in Italian, think it's clear anyway, at the moment opted for the 3+3 version.

Since Roby is calling for you in chat and probably time to decide on times. I have to say, I want to reinforce Idefix arguments. 4x PN / 3x TA looks fair. For sure better than only 3x/3x.

With only 3x PN, I think one group (morning, afternoon, early evening, late evening) would have a big disadvantage and people would simply be stopped from riding it... PN is normally a popular tour.

Drôme Classic seem to have the same profile as past year

Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:48 am

luques wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:01 am

Sorry for the day name in Italian, think it's clear anyway, at the moment opted for the 3+3 version.

Since Roby is calling for you in chat and probably time to decide on times. I have to say, I want to reinforce Idefix arguments. 4x PN / 3x TA looks fair. For sure better than only 3x/3x.

With only 3x PN, I think one group (morning, afternoon, early evening, late evening) would have a big disadvantage and people would simply be stopped from riding it... PN is normally a popular tour.

tours looks good with 6 editions right now. but we still have some low participations fields dont think 7 would make it better.

Agree with Hansa... and as I said before, would never recommend such a thing to Luques, so it's not in any excel file I sent. But since he can edit excel files.... if he shows up and likes that 4-3 thingy, he can change it.

In the meantime, Le Samyn done.


Changes explained in the Belgian thread.