cycling4freaks.com

To resume

Points :

Without difficulty (1/2/4/7/8/13/18/21) : 50-30-20-18-16-14-12-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2 points for top 15
Hilly stages (5/6/9/14/15/16) : 30-25-22-19-17-15-13-11-9-7- 6-5-4-3-2 points for top 15
High difficulties (10/11/12/17/19) : 20-17-15-13-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points for top 15
ITT (20) : 20-17-15-13-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points for top 15

IS :

20-17-15-13-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points for top 15

GPM :

GPM HC : 20-15-12-10-8-6-4-2 points for top 8
GPM 1: 10-8-6-4-2-1 points for top 6
GPM 2 : 5-3-2-1 points for top 4
GPM 3 : 2-1 points for top 2
GPM 4 : 1 points for top 1

Time Boni : 10-6-4 for top 3 at each stages (except TTs). No time bonis on IS or GPM

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:45 am**

My min-tact and profile comments for the first 9 stages:

Stage 1.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: 186 is perfectly okay, I personally would have set it 10 km before the finish line for a pure flat stage, at 191.

Stage 2.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: again, 10 km before the finish line should be fine for this. km 173 is what you wanted to write too, I think

.

Stage 3.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: sure thing.

Stage 4.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: same as 1 and 2: 10 km before the finish line for the flat stage without any obstacles. km 185

Stage 5.

On the tour website, it says 204,5 km, so 205 for C4F I guess. So it looks 1 km too long, but maybe for good reasons? Besides that the last km is described as 4,8 % in the website. It leads up from 23 to 71 m. Maybe make it a 5%?

min tact: looks fine for me.

Stage 6.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: looks fine for me.

Stage 7.

Profile looks fine. Last km is a perfect 2% indeed (130 to 150m).

min tact: Although it's a pretty long stage, I also would set the min tact 10 km before the finish line. But as written before, that's a matter of personal preferences in flat stage I guess.

Stage 8.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: see other flat stages

.

Stage 9.

Can't tell much about the difficulty of the pavé parts, but it looks like they are at the right places

.

min tact: the earlier the better. Km 105 looks appropriate.

Good job, thanks!

Posted: **Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:38 pm**

My min-tact and profile comments for stages 10 - 12:

Stage 10.

Profile looks fine, only some little things:
- The second GPM at km 69 (km 68.5, H.C. Montée du plateau des Glières), instead of km 71.
- Cole de Romme: The % each km look fine too, but it's rounded up much more than vice versa (+13 m). Just to make sure you end up at the right height (~1300m -> 1297m according to the website) at km 130.
- Col de la Colmbiére: According to the website, the climb is 6, 8.5, 9, 9, 9, 10.2, 9.7. In your profile it's 6, 9, 9, 9, 9, 12(!), 10. So the 10.2 should rather be a 10 than a 12, I think

.

min tact: Would have set it at km 122 too.

Stage 11.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: Maybe wait with the min-tact until the start of the climb up to the Col du Pre? Km 1 is okay too though, I guess, as it could be a very fast and hard ridden stage.

Stage 12.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: Hmm... km 163 looks like the obvious choice, but what about km 91? Bold, I think, the stage would be 131 min instead of 95 min, but think the second climb could be crucial. I am not sure of this though...

. Guess both is possible and it's a matter if you prefer a stage that is faster or give more time to think...

Posted: **Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:03 am**

team fl wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:45 am
My min-tact and profile comments for the first 9 stages:

Stage 1.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: 186 is perfectly okay, I personally would have set it 10 km before the finish line for a pure flat stage, at 191.

Stage 2.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: again, 10 km before the finish line should be fine for this. km 173 is what you wanted to write too, I think .

Stage 3.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: sure thing.

Stage 4.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: same as 1 and 2: 10 km before the finish line for the flat stage without any obstacles. km 185

Stage 5.

On the tour website, it says 204,5 km, so 205 for C4F I guess. So it looks 1 km too long, but maybe for good reasons? Besides that the last km is described as 4,8 % in the website. It leads up from 23 to 71 m. Maybe make it a 5%?

min tact: looks fine for me.

Stage 6.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: looks fine for me.

Stage 7.

Profile looks fine. Last km is a perfect 2% indeed (130 to 150m).

min tact: Although it's a pretty long stage, I also would set the min tact 10 km before the finish line. But as written before, that's a matter of personal preferences in flat stage I guess.

Stage 8.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: see other flat stages .

Stage 9.

Can't tell much about the difficulty of the pavé parts, but it looks like they are at the right places .

min tact: the earlier the better. Km 105 looks appropriate.

Good job, thanks!

Thanks for feedback.
So about generalities :
All sprints stage, I would put a mintact put a 15 km before the end as it is TDF, but 10 is ok too.
For all stages with a lenght of XXX,5 km, I always add the 500 last meters instead to cut it. It is better I think.

Stage 5 : it is a hilly stage, in reality a classicman or strong will surely win, but with a 5% seems too advantageous for climbers. So 4% for me.

Stage 7 : I will correct the last km

Stage 9 : except the two first sectors the rest are PR cobbles so you can find the notation easily. Tried to put all of them in the profile

Posted: **Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:06 am**

team fl wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 1:38 pm
My min-tact and profile comments for stages 10 - 12:

Stage 10.

Profile looks fine, only some little things:
- The second GPM at km 69 (km 68.5, H.C. Montée du plateau des Glières), instead of km 71.
- Cole de Romme: The % each km look fine too, but it's rounded up much more than vice versa (+13 m). Just to make sure you end up at the right height (~1300m -> 1297m according to the website) at km 130.
- Col de la Colmbiére: According to the website, the climb is 6, 8.5, 9, 9, 9, 10.2, 9.7. In your profile it's 6, 9, 9, 9, 9, 12(!), 10. So the 10.2 should rather be a 10 than a 12, I think .

min tact: Would have set it at km 122 too.

Stage 11.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: Maybe wait with the min-tact until the start of the climb up to the Col du Pre? Km 1 is okay too though, I guess, as it could be a very fast and hard ridden stage.

Stage 12.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: Hmm... km 163 looks like the obvious choice, but what about km 91? Bold, I think, the stage would be 131 min instead of 95 min, but think the second climb could be crucial. I am not sure of this though... . Guess both is possible and it's a matter if you prefer a stage that is faster or give more time to think...

Stage 10 : with the pavebug I put GPM 1 km after for Glieres. I wil correct the climbs after.

Stage 11 : I don't know. Waiting for others feedback.

Stage 12 : I think like you but it makes the stage a bit long, so don't know

Posted: **Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:19 am**

I think we should do mintac from km 1 in all stages because is LE TOUR DE FRANCE GRAND BOUCLE, but may be others teams will prefer play a bit less because they have something else to do.
About Mur de Bretagne. I think also pure climber could win that stage in real one. Under livel last km at 4.8% to 4% could be not fair for climber.
I also think the system make too easy win for a climber if last km is 5% or more, but it's another problem of game. (Like pure cronoman that are useless in normal races

)

Posted: **Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:26 am**

Coroncina2 wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:19 am
I think we should do mintac from km 1 in all stages because is LE TOUR DE FRANCE GRAND BOUCLE, but may be others teams will prefer play a bit less because they have something else to do.
About Mur de Bretagne. I think also pure climber could win that stage in real one. Under livel last km at 4.8% to 4% could be not fair for climber.
I also think the system make too easy win for a climber if last km is 5% or more, but it's another problem of game. (Like pure cronoman that are useless in normal races )

People can have something to do after but also before a race. Lose all because they arrive 5/10 min late is hard. And mintact km 1 for a 2 hours race is OK.
The 4% is for Quimper not Mur de Bretagne

Posted: **Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:30 am**

Pokemon Club wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:03 am
All sprints stage, I would put a mintact put a 15 km before the end as it is TDF, but 10 is ok too.
For all stages with a lenght of XXX,5 km, I always add the 500 last meters instead to cut it. It is better I think.

Stage 5 : it is a hilly stage, in reality a classicman or strong will surely win, but with a 5% seems too advantageous for climbers. So 4% for me.

Stage 7 : I will correct the last km

Stage 9 : except the two first sectors the rest are PR cobbles so you can find the notation easily. Tried to put all of them in the profile

10 or 15 km is both fine for min-tact at flat stages I guess

.

Stage 5: Get your point.

Stage 7: Sorry for that misunderstanding, it already is at 2% in yourprofile

. I just checked twice because I first thought it's flat, hence the "indeed" in my comment.

Stage 9: Perfect.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:47 am**

Pokemon Club wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:26 am

Coroncina2 wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:19 am
I think we should do mintac from km 1 in all stages because is LE TOUR DE FRANCE GRAND BOUCLE, but may be others teams will prefer play a bit less because they have something else to do.
About Mur de Bretagne. I think also pure climber could win that stage in real one. Under livel last km at 4.8% to 4% could be not fair for climber.
I also think the system make too easy win for a climber if last km is 5% or more, but it's another problem of game. (Like pure cronoman that are useless in normal races )
People can have something to do after but also before a race. Lose all because they arrive 5/10 min late is hard. And mintact km 1 for a 2 hours race is OK.
The 4% is for Quimper not Mur de Bretagne

2 hours for me are few. At least we should have 3 H for all stages.
ok sorry so a 4.8% can become 4%. maybe also 3% and why not some pavé

here classics can win easyer.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:56 am**

Coroncina2 wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:47 am

Pokemon Club wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:26 am

Coroncina2 wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:19 am
I think we should do mintac from km 1 in all stages because is LE TOUR DE FRANCE GRAND BOUCLE, but may be others teams will prefer play a bit less because they have something else to do.
About Mur de Bretagne. I think also pure climber could win that stage in real one. Under livel last km at 4.8% to 4% could be not fair for climber.
I also think the system make too easy win for a climber if last km is 5% or more, but it's another problem of game. (Like pure cronoman that are useless in normal races )
People can have something to do after but also before a race. Lose all because they arrive 5/10 min late is hard. And mintact km 1 for a 2 hours race is OK.
The 4% is for Quimper not Mur de Bretagne
2 hours for me are few. At least we should have 3 H for all stages.
ok sorry so a 4.8% can become 4%. maybe also 3% and why not some pavé here classics can win easyer.

well 2h are big for me but it is the principe of the game itself. If you aren't ready to have longstages sometimes because the race need long mintact due to its profil, you are free to propose a better one, ask a sitter or ride another race

And about the 4% stuff I defintively have no problem to put 4%, as 4.8% is less than 5% too.

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:05 pm**

About drawing race, I think we should follow a fix principle for all kms in all races. So if you approximate each km that doesn't pass x.9% to x% you should do it in all kms.
About time of game, I personally have enough time to play but maybe not all playes have 2/3 h in almost a month. We should start to think also to others if we don't want play race with 4 5 teams. Why every time I write something you think I have a second personal goal?

Posted: **Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:31 pm**

Coroncina2 wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:05 pm
About drawing race, I think we should follow a fix principle for all kms in all races. So if you approximate each km that doesn't pass x.9% to x% you should do it in all kms.

Too complicate imo to be rigide for the % to put in RSF. It is more interpretation of the designers. MSR or belgians races I think no one will draw it the same without having someone wrong in his design.

Coroncina2 wrote: ↑
Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:05 pm
About time of game, I personally have enough time to play but maybe not all playes have 2/3 h in almost a month. We should start to think also to others if we don't want play race with 4 5 teams. Why every time I write something you think I have a second personal goal?

There is also the managers that aren't able to comeback home enough early. Not the case anymore, but I had a period were I often couldn't be home before 00h15, impossible to play the morning because going to work, impossible to play in the afternoon because driving so only the late night as time. I was really happy to have some longer mintact sometimes even if I could felt asleep more often, especially when playing a GK or a red jersey.

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:56 pm**

In stage 14 after last kom 1,4/1,5 (if I see well at TV) are clear 2 km. Classic or climber with flat need to win it because of realism..

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2018 9:09 pm**

Coroncina2 wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:56 pm
In stage 14 after last kom 1,4/1,5 (if I see well at TV) are clear 2 km. Classic or climber with flat need to win it because of realism..

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:42 am**

"more realist race possible"

Apart from the horrible English, maybe before you pretentious troll start pontificating you should practice your English, of course this hyperbole just really shows how worthless and cheap your contributions are. Instead of simply claiming it's a realistic design or something along this lines, it has to be the "more realist race possible" Impossible to design more realist, it's perfect. Typical for people of your kind, hyperbole (based on friendship not on facts). Think about crawling back into the hole you came from maybe?

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2018 12:06 pm**

ZZZzzzZZZ

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2018 2:52 pm**

Idéfix wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 22, 2018 10:58 am

Robyklebt wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:42 am
"more realist race possible"

Apart from the horrible English, maybe before you pretentious troll start pontificating you should practice your English, of course this hyperbole just really shows how worthless and cheap your contributions are. Instead of simply claiming it's a realistic design or something along this lines, it has to be the "more realist race possible" Impossible to design more realist, it's perfect. Typical for people of your kind, hyperbole (based on friendship not on facts). Think about crawling back into the hole you came from maybe?
*most, ok.
Sorry Donkey but your contribution is even poorer. You concentrate on bashing me, with zero argument on the real question.
And btw i have arguments and figures, i do not see those facts as "friendship marks".
Maybe you are just jealous because you lack friends in your real frustrating life ? :p

Actually, I mainly agree with the Donkey here... I wouldn't have used his words actually but your post is... mmm, pointless, using 0 facts and looks lie is a "friendship post". I mean, Poke did a choice which is criticizable Imo, considering he also designed the Tour in 2015 and that last 5 kms Mende were :

2015 : 3-8-11-11 - 0
2018 : 8-11-11- -3 -0

In 2015, Poke won the Tour with his leader, a climber, Miguel Hill (Congrats), ... I don't conclude anything from this. it's just facts. Then, that some manager tells their surprise about how it's design (even if they do it on purpose, cause it doesn't fit their riders) looks totally legit.

I mean, I can imagine the climb was the same at that time, the finish also (that's what you heard from the press actually) and actually the infos we got from the official website from ASO were as accurate as this year.

In any case, Coro complaining now is too late! There was enough time before the start to do that!

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:17 pm**

Pokemon Club wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 27, 2018 9:03 am

team fl wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:45 am
My min-tact and profile comments for the first 9 stages:

Stage 1.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: 186 is perfectly okay, I personally would have set it 10 km before the finish line for a pure flat stage, at 191.

Stage 2.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: again, 10 km before the finish line should be fine for this. km 173 is what you wanted to write too, I think .

Stage 3.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: sure thing.

Stage 4.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: same as 1 and 2: 10 km before the finish line for the flat stage without any obstacles. km 185

Stage 5.

On the tour website, it says 204,5 km, so 205 for C4F I guess. So it looks 1 km too long, but maybe for good reasons? Besides that the last km is described as 4,8 % in the website. It leads up from 23 to 71 m. Maybe make it a 5%?

min tact: looks fine for me.

Stage 6.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: looks fine for me.

Stage 7.

Profile looks fine. Last km is a perfect 2% indeed (130 to 150m).

min tact: Although it's a pretty long stage, I also would set the min tact 10 km before the finish line. But as written before, that's a matter of personal preferences in flat stage I guess.

Stage 8.

Profile looks fine.

min tact: see other flat stages .

Stage 9.

Can't tell much about the difficulty of the pavé parts, but it looks like they are at the right places .

min tact: the earlier the better. Km 105 looks appropriate.

Good job, thanks!
Thanks for feedback.
So about generalities :
All sprints stage, I would put a mintact put a 15 km before the end as it is TDF, but 10 is ok too.
For all stages with a lenght of XXX,5 km, I always add the 500 last meters instead to cut it. It is better I think.

Stage 5 : it is a hilly stage, in reality a classicman or strong will surely win, but with a 5% seems too advantageous for climbers. So 4% for me.

Stage 7 : I will correct the last km

Stage 9 : except the two first sectors the rest are PR cobbles so you can find the notation easily. Tried to put all of them in the profile

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:21 pm**

It's not because you announced it that it's not criticizable.

On the other hand, you can add these 500 meters wherever you want, not necessarily at the end of the stage. Even if, too late to complain as already said.

Again, it's just facts. I don't mind Tour de France design right now. I am only here to discuss the (un)legitimity of the criticism.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:40 pm**

Idéfix wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:29 pm

gaurain rx wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:21 pm
It's not because you announced it that it's not criticizable + You can add that km wherever you want, not necessarily at the end of the stage. Eve if, too late to complain as already said.

Again, it's just facts. I don't mind Tour de France design right now. I am only here to discuss the (un)legitimity of the criticism.
"the last 500 meters" are "necessarily at the end", gaurain. Or please explain where you can put the "last" if it's not in "last" position
anyway as usual, people criticize now, after they lose time, instead of when the things were announced, if they disagreed. It's probably because they agreed, until the moment they lose...
And well, for those who did not see the stage where Poké is in, he lost many time there...

You can cut the kms differently. I mean if you have a cooble sector beginning at km 122,5 and lasting 2 kms, you have different choices to design it : or you make the km begin later and your cobble sector is also 2km (124-125) on rsf, or you put 3kms with less hard cobbles (123-124-125). That's not necessarily adding 500 "flat" meters at the end of a stage. That's only making a stage lasting for example 125,5km 126! But poke could have decided that the top of Mende (which was actually 1,4 before the finish) being 400m closer to the finish, so a finish kind of (it's an example) :

: 0 - 8-11-11- - 3

so adding 1 rsf km before the climb!

These are choices. Legit choices which are criticizable!

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:59 pm**

Well, you said it was the "more realist possible". Probably meaning "most realistic possible". Which analyzed means best.

And that's what makes your post worthless, instead of just saying that to you it seems a good solution, certainly a defendable solution, you have to employ hyperbole, claiming it is the "most realistic possible". And of course I don't remember you ever showing up when it wasn't Pokemon designing to "defend" a design. If I'm mistaken and you did, no problem, unlike some other people here (do you have a mirror?) I'll have no problem admitting that I remember something wrong. Anyway, we have 2 things:

So:
1) A post to defend a friend, while you never have defended others in similar situations.
2) Hyperbole making it the "best" solution.

Defend Pokemon, even as a friend if you think the charge that he designed to fit his riders is wrong. But do it without unnecessary hyperbole....

cycling4freaks.com

Tour 2018

Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018

Re: Tour 2018