October 2026

[Yamaka Corse]

Again we are making confusion with things.

Mine isn't a war against h21, Is just logic, can you explain why we don't race at h13? Lunchtime! Why we should race at Dinnertime?

I sayd H23 is bad for everyone, can be ok for me just not for "mid aftenoon players" same players that ask for h21 (but can play h19 and h20) seems a bit "unbalanced" as Gip also sayd, you don't think?

Fact that we play don't mean we are active during the stages, have you ever seen an h23 stage? with 3 players active for the first 30-40% of the stage?

About the half times, Usually work end at xx,00 having 30 minutes to come back home mean we would avoid things like Ape writing "I'm in train, bad connection" or players that attacks and make the first 15 km in tempo offline (happend very often) it was just an idea btw, and if don't change anything for you maybe can change for someone, I've mentioned the dinner problem, play from phone is a shit, and being forced to play from phone because we can't wait 15 minutes seems not great or what? Again, have you ever watched an h21 - 22 stage? do you know how many players goes afk for dinner?

Why in the world would make sense to have h 19 and h20 togheder where was propose?

I don't think fight about this is a "thing" for me the most important slots are h19 and h22 and should always be both present just would avoid to mix late evening with night bc I see a lot of evening players play at night when other groups are "hard" while a lot of night player can only play at night so there is already a big disadvantage for the players of this field

I've sayd some post ago that h19 and h22 are both untouchables, I just don't understand why we should sacrifice h22 to h21 when already we have h19 - 20 for that time.
Than I can agree for a better distribution of categoryes, I don't mind, I just want to play if is a cat 2 or cat 3 not much difference


As last, remember me what happend when you don't have your h14 stages

[Robyklebt]

Again we are making confusion with things.

Only you. Also you seem intent of driving me crazy with this nonsense. Just say clearly what you want. Which is: EVERY RACE AT 22h. Races at 21h or 23h cancelled, or double bookings, 21-22, 22-23.

Mine isn't a war against h21, Is just logic, can you explain why we don't race at h13? Lunchtime! Why we should race at Dinnertime?

You say it's not a war against 21h and then in the next sentence you confirm again, that indeed we shouldn't race at 21h. We shouldn't race at dinnertime.

Ok, first of, as your good research shows, we had 32 races at 13h and as was already the case last year, participation was surprisingly good.
As for why we ride at dinner time? Well, if we don't ride at dinner time... take 17" to think about what then happens. Right. No more 18h, no more 19h, no more 20h, no more 21h, no more 22h. People in different countries eat at different times. Should be general knowledge. The further north, the earlier it gets. Ok, don't actually know Scandinavia, they might even eat before 18h, (so cut 17h as well, possibly 16h for long races, I'm starting to enjoy this no-race during dinner policy, finally everybody in the afternoon!) Germany-Austria-Switzerland is probably somewhere between 18:30 and 19;30 as standard (but there's weirdoes who eat earlier, and people who eat later too of course) France as far as I know is a bit later, probably more 19:30-20:30? Then you have Italy. And then you have Spain where it's even later than Italy, unfortunately for you, because without our spanish players 22h would have stayed available, now since we do have some spanish guys, sorry, dinner time, we can't race.
Our new times thanks to your no-dinner policy are... 8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-(16) If we want no lunch, we cut another bunch of races, 8-9-10 should stay, 12-13 surely off, 14 again due to spain ... I hope they finish by 15h, otherwise we have to cut that too?

So, as you see, complete nonsense what you post, can't ride during dinner. Maybe try to look at the game as a whole, not just your own narrow interest which is: You want to ride at 22h, I think everybody got that by now.

I sayd H23 is bad for everyone, can be ok for me just not for "mid aftenoon players" same players that ask for h21 (but can play h19 and h20) seems a bit "unbalanced" as Gip also sayd, you don't think?

No, don't think so.

I've sayd some post ago that h19 and h22 are both untouchables, I just don't understand why we should sacrifice h22 to h21 when already we have h19 - 20 for that time.

Now 19h is untouchable too??? Why, for whatever weird reason is now 19h untouchable.

As last, remember me what happend when you don't have your h14 stages

No, why don't you remind me?


Back to sensible stuff:
22h has more stage races, markedly more than 21, despite having slighly lower participation.
22h has more one day races than 21, and a very slightly higher participation.

On one day races IMO it's logic that 22 has more. Because the last race at 21h really is too early. With nothing parallel, no problem, we can offer 21-23. But if there's a tour parallel, offered at 22h, often the planners will be reluctant to offer 5 editions, risks making all the editions smaller. So if it's a 5 day tour probably on 3 days we risk having 21 as last, maybe one day 22h still gets a race, and maybe once 23? Something like that.
Here is something you could more sensibly bring forward in your quest for more 22h
Shift the stage races a bit more to 21h, then the 1 day races advantage will shift even more to 22h.
Ask for always an edition after 21h, this is something I fully understand, last race 21h is very early. Offer either 22h or 23 in any case.

But stop looking just at your own preferences, you want 22h so hilariously 21h is dinnertime all around the world now and we can't offer races there... even if the numbers weirdly show that the participation is completely umproblematic, 21h is actually the strongest time.

[Hoefs Cycling Team]

I have started working on the design for the "Tour of the Netherlands" (RvN). The race will feature teams of six riders, so I have adjusted the setup accordingly. The prologue is already included, but for the stages, I need to be patient and wait for the GPX files.

The exact GPX files for professional cycling tours like the Eneco Tour are usually published online anywhere from a few days to a week before the event begins. Since the tour starts on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, you can expect the final files to be available online around October 6–10. Why aren't they shared sooner? • Roadworks and permits: The organizers coordinate routes with municipalities right up to the last minute. If a road is unexpectedly dug up somewhere, the course may need to be rerouted. • Safety: The organizers want to prevent cyclists from flocking to the routes too early to scout them on roads that have not yet been closed to regular (car) traffic.

[flockmastoR]

I have started working on the design for the "Tour of the Netherlands" (RvN). The race will feature teams of six riders, so I have adjusted the setup accordingly. The prologue is already included, but for the stages, I need to be patient and wait for the GPX files.

The exact GPX files for professional cycling tours like the Eneco Tour are usually published online anywhere from a few days to a week before the event begins. Since the tour starts on Tuesday, October 13, 2026, you can expect the final files to be available online around October 6–10. Why aren't they shared sooner? • Roadworks and permits: The organizers coordinate routes with municipalities right up to the last minute. If a road is unexpectedly dug up somewhere, the course may need to be rerouted. • Safety: The organizers want to prevent cyclists from flocking to the routes too early to scout them on roads that have not yet been closed to regular (car) traffic.

Hey Hoefs,

there are very detailed maps available including information about pave km.

[FSG Sattelpuper]

I have started working on the design for the "Tour of the Netherlands" (RvN). The race will feature teams of six riders, so I have adjusted the setup accordingly. The prologue is already included, but for the stages, I need to be patient and wait for the GPX files.

Don´t change the number of riders after formsettings!

[ECS Cycling]

Guangxi is designed






Unsure about stage classification, if anyone could provide info that would be great

[Gipfelstuermer]

I have started working on the design for the "Tour of the Netherlands" (RvN). The race will feature teams of six riders, so I have adjusted the setup accordingly. The prologue is already included, but for the stages, I need to be patient and wait for the GPX files.

Don´t change the number of riders after formsettings!

Hey hey, we generally play real life + 1 rider, so would be 7 in this case

[Yamaka Corse]

Again we are making confusion with things.

Only you. Also you seem intent of driving me crazy with this nonsense. Just say clearly what you want. Which is: EVERY RACE AT 22h. Races at 21h or 23h cancelled, or double bookings, 21-22, 22-23.

Mine isn't a war against h21, Is just logic, can you explain why we don't race at h13? Lunchtime! Why we should race at Dinnertime?

You say it's not a war against 21h and then in the next sentence you confirm again, that indeed we shouldn't race at 21h. We shouldn't race at dinnertime.

Ok, first of, as your good research shows, we had 32 races at 13h and as was already the case last year, participation was surprisingly good.
As for why we ride at dinner time? Well, if we don't ride at dinner time... take 17" to think about what then happens. Right. No more 18h, no more 19h, no more 20h, no more 21h, no more 22h. People in different countries eat at different times. Should be general knowledge. The further north, the earlier it gets. Ok, don't actually know Scandinavia, they might even eat before 18h, (so cut 17h as well, possibly 16h for long races, I'm starting to enjoy this no-race during dinner policy, finally everybody in the afternoon!) Germany-Austria-Switzerland is probably somewhere between 18:30 and 19;30 as standard (but there's weirdoes who eat earlier, and people who eat later too of course) France as far as I know is a bit later, probably more 19:30-20:30? Then you have Italy. And then you have Spain where it's even later than Italy, unfortunately for you, because without our spanish players 22h would have stayed available, now since we do have some spanish guys, sorry, dinner time, we can't race.
Our new times thanks to your no-dinner policy are... 8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-(16) If we want no lunch, we cut another bunch of races, 8-9-10 should stay, 12-13 surely off, 14 again due to spain ... I hope they finish by 15h, otherwise we have to cut that too?

So, as you see, complete nonsense what you post, can't ride during dinner. Maybe try to look at the game as a whole, not just your own narrow interest which is: You want to ride at 22h, I think everybody got that by now.

I sayd H23 is bad for everyone, can be ok for me just not for "mid aftenoon players" same players that ask for h21 (but can play h19 and h20) seems a bit "unbalanced" as Gip also sayd, you don't think?

No, don't think so.

I've sayd some post ago that h19 and h22 are both untouchables, I just don't understand why we should sacrifice h22 to h21 when already we have h19 - 20 for that time.

Now 19h is untouchable too??? Why, for whatever weird reason is now 19h untouchable.

As last, remember me what happend when you don't have your h14 stages

No, why don't you remind me?


Back to sensible stuff:
22h has more stage races, markedly more than 21, despite having slighly lower participation.
22h has more one day races than 21, and a very slightly higher participation.

On one day races IMO it's logic that 22 has more. Because the last race at 21h really is too early. With nothing parallel, no problem, we can offer 21-23. But if there's a tour parallel, offered at 22h, often the planners will be reluctant to offer 5 editions, risks making all the editions smaller. So if it's a 5 day tour probably on 3 days we risk having 21 as last, maybe one day 22h still gets a race, and maybe once 23? Something like that.
Here is something you could more sensibly bring forward in your quest for more 22h
Shift the stage races a bit more to 21h, then the 1 day races advantage will shift even more to 22h.
Ask for always an edition after 21h, this is something I fully understand, last race 21h is very early. Offer either 22h or 23 in any case.

But stop looking just at your own preferences, you want 22h so hilariously 21h is dinnertime all around the world now and we can't offer races there... even if the numbers weirdly show that the participation is completely umproblematic, 21h is actually the strongest time.

Should I really reply to this confusing monologue??

Somehow you just seems to ignore some basically community guidelines, finding a common way and try to have everyone playing the game. Playing at h23 everyone will say to you that is a bad time.
I'm defending h22 instead of h21 because who's asking for h21 have already H19 h20 spot.
Also I'm defending H19 Because seems the most request/played. and Having the common composition 16 - 19 - 22 is nice.
Than Radu opened another topic, they need higher cat at h19, And I agree with that too watching the table, but again don't forget that H19 could play H21 - 22 While h21 cannot play h19 - 20 so this is probably why late night use to have better category (Or just randomic but I want to belive Gip is a fair and smart guy)

Sorry Ape but you are building confusion around I don't know what please stop.
Everything else just doesn't deserve answers.

[Hansa]

but again don't forget that H19 could play H21 - 22 While h21 cannot play h19 - 20

thats a totally wild assumption btw

teams that play 19 or 20 cant alway play at 21 or 22 is you work shift, you cant play 21 or 22 with shift starting at 22 if you have to get up early you also cant play 21 or 22 so this assumption is just wildly wrong. i btw prefer 21 a lot over 22 and i dont see any good arguments you make that 22h needs to be protected over 21

[Yamaka Corse]

but again don't forget that H19 could play H21 - 22 While h21 cannot play h19 - 20

thats a totally wild assumption btw

teams that play 19 or 20 cant alway play at 21 or 22 is you work shift, you cant play 21 or 22 with shift starting at 22 if you have to get up early you also cant play 21 or 22 so this assumption is just wildly wrong. i btw prefer 21 a lot over 22 and i dont see any good arguments you make that 22h needs to be protected over 21

let's make a pool than with only 1 vote/time

[Hoefs Cycling Team]

I have started working on the design for the "Tour of the Netherlands" (RvN). The race will feature teams of six riders, so I have adjusted the setup accordingly. The prologue is already included, but for the stages, I need to be patient and wait for the GPX files.

Don´t change the number of riders after formsettings!

Hey hey, we generally play real life + 1 rider, so would be 7 in this case

Then i think it will be 7 but why + 1 rider?

[Robyklebt]

Should I really reply to this confusing monologue??

You probably shouldn't have.
Anyway, my "monologue" was only confusing if somebody lacks the brains to understand what I wrote.

Everything else just doesn't deserve answers.

Fascinating.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Then i think it will be 7 but why + 1 rider?

This is my understanding of the history:

- When the game started, Grand Tours were 9 riders per team.
- For a variety of reasons, in real life, it was reduced to 8 riders per team.
- The game dynamics stayed exactly the same.
- To keep the equilibrium in terms of game physics, it was decided to go for real life + 1 in the future.

[Hoefs Cycling Team]

Ok. Tnx for the explanation.
I knew did for the 3 big Tours (ofcourse), but i didnt know it is the same with the other tours.
7 it will be.

[flockmastoR]

European Championship - ITT Elite Men



LFM doesnt let me download the men's race, but all info that I found tells me its the same as the women's race.

On Preview, pls check and publish

[Zappes Raiders]

I did Gran Piemonte yesterday. Completely new route...

[Zappes Raiders]

Il Lombardia also changed quite a lot, especially in the end. I designed it completely new. Open for discussion...

[flockmastoR]

Il Lombardia also changed quite a lot, especially in the end. I designed it completely new. Open for discussion...

I didn't review it, but the climbs are usually ridden in previous editions (maybe in a differet order). So please check those earlier editions for the climb informations there to be consistent.

[Robyklebt]

Donkey likes Zappes!

Good work on Piemonte, only really checked the end though, nothing else on the Piemonte site, details wise (ok, did a short unreliable 31" check on La Morra, seemed ok too) but the 4 2 finish is perfect.

Lombardia since WZF seemed to have panic, looked at it a bit more closely today, at the site I mean, just in case there was a emergency design needed, then would have done it Friday... But this Zappes version is nice too, but maybe look at the official Lombardia site, dettagli salite too. No guarantee it's always perfect correct, but looks reliable and when doing checks often I come out with similar (of course not that precise) results.

Selvino is super hyper regular, you could almost just make 10km a 6%. Or one at 5%, at least the part that is in dettagli salite.
Valpiana, main complaint is the name, i no l, Valpiana not Valplana. And it's very regular too, but ok like this
That wall though is a bit strange Giovenzana. You have 4 km, Total according to the site is 3650 meters, but the wall part is only 2850... so IMO the 4th km shouldn't be that steep anymore, you also end up 30 meters too high.
Ghisallo, I'm sure it's perfect, that one is highly annoying to design, so almost anything is fine there, as long as I don't have to think
But all not big problems,
The only serious problem is Civiglio:
218 8 298 294
219 9 388 400
220 10 488 501
221 11 598 596
222 7 668 670
223 1 678 678 Civiglio

You end up too high, top of the climb is 614 according to their site. 4.2 km, 406 meters up, 9.7 average. Not sure where that higher altitude comes from in the GPS, but don't think should be there, checked on plotaroute too, it just goes to 610 something.
On the Lombardia site it's like this in 500 meter increments
9.2 9.4 average 9.3
9.4 9.0 average 9.2
10.4 8.4 average 9.4
10.4 10.8 average 10.6
And the the last 200 meters at 6.7. With 9 9 9 11, 380 meters up, we miss 26 meters altitude gain
Plotaroute is more like 7 11 10 11 (but each time you do it it's a bit different) and we still only gain 390. The first 4 km of Zappes 380 again.

Don't have a magic solution for this.. (hm, probably could check again how it was in wheneve we rode Civiglio last...) but should be 4 km. And the +1 on top should rather be -1 more likely, the 200 meters up at the top really can be ignored/integrated into the 4 km climbing.

Rest seems good, this Zappes seems a talented designer!

Grr, forgot to send now...

[Radunion]

There is very nice information on the website. For the last climb I would go 4-7-8 (or 5-7-7). It keeps the steepest section. Very nice work overall.

[Zappes Raiders]

Donkey likes Zappes!

Good work on Piemonte, only really checked the end though, nothing else on the Piemonte site, details wise (ok, did a short unreliable 31" check on La Morra, seemed ok too) but the 4 2 finish is perfect.

Lombardia since WZF seemed to have panic, looked at it a bit more closely today, at the site I mean, just in case there was a emergency design needed, then would have done it Friday... But this Zappes version is nice too, but maybe look at the official Lombardia site, dettagli salite too. No guarantee it's always perfect correct, but looks reliable and when doing checks often I come out with similar (of course not that precise) results.

Selvino is super hyper regular, you could almost just make 10km a 6%. Or one at 5%, at least the part that is in dettagli salite.
Valpiana, main complaint is the name, i no l, Valpiana not Valplana. And it's very regular too, but ok like this
That wall though is a bit strange Giovenzana. You have 4 km, Total according to the site is 3650 meters, but the wall part is only 2850... so IMO the 4th km shouldn't be that steep anymore, you also end up 30 meters too high.
Ghisallo, I'm sure it's perfect, that one is highly annoying to design, so almost anything is fine there, as long as I don't have to think
But all not big problems,
The only serious problem is Civiglio:
218 8 298 294
219 9 388 400
220 10 488 501
221 11 598 596
222 7 668 670
223 1 678 678 Civiglio

You end up too high, top of the climb is 614 according to their site. 4.2 km, 406 meters up, 9.7 average. Not sure where that higher altitude comes from in the GPS, but don't think should be there, checked on plotaroute too, it just goes to 610 something.
On the Lombardia site it's like this in 500 meter increments
9.2 9.4 average 9.3
9.4 9.0 average 9.2
10.4 8.4 average 9.4
10.4 10.8 average 10.6
And the the last 200 meters at 6.7. With 9 9 9 11, 380 meters up, we miss 26 meters altitude gain
Plotaroute is more like 7 11 10 11 (but each time you do it it's a bit different) and we still only gain 390. The first 4 km of Zappes 380 again.

Don't have a magic solution for this.. (hm, probably could check again how it was in wheneve we rode Civiglio last...) but should be 4 km. And the +1 on top should rather be -1 more likely, the 200 meters up at the top really can be ignored/integrated into the 4 km climbing.

Rest seems good, this Zappes seems a talented designer!

Grr, forgot to send now...

Thanks for the flowers

I changed Civiglio slightly and came up a little lower. I dont know where the GPS height came from either, but it seems the climb was 1km too long in my version for which reason ever.
We had nearly the same final in 2022 so I tried to come as close as possible to the 2022 edition.

I am open to change gradients for both final climbs - it really depends in which information you believe for exact gradients. I used the KOM profiles in procyclingstats but they are slightly different as well. In the end I think it reflects the steepest parts as well as the length of the climbs well now. So I would go with version as it is now...

[Gipfelstuermer]

I have started working on the design for the "Tour of the Netherlands" (RvN). The race will feature teams of six riders, so I have adjusted the setup accordingly. The prologue is already included, but for the stages, I need to be patient and wait for the GPX files.

Hi Hoefs - just wondering what's the status here. Still waiting for the GPX?

[Hoefs Cycling Team]

Yes waiting for the GPX. The women races are there, but i dont know how to adjust it to the length of the men races.
Its the same routes, but the men has more rounds.
An option to do the shorter women races?
(As a contrast to Anders)

[flockmastoR]

Yes waiting for the GPX. The women races are there, but i dont know how to adjust it to the length of the men races.
Its the same routes, but the men has more rounds.
An option to do the shorter women races?
(As a contrast to Anders)

The plans/maps on the page were quite detailed last time I looked. Think having a gpx of the womens race and the plan side by side can do it

[Hoefs Cycling Team]

The only difference: for the stages in Ede, Sittard, the VAM-berg, and Arnhem, the men simply ride a few extra local laps at the end of the race. The roads and the route itself are 100% identical. I’ll look into how to add the laps this weekend. Riding shorter versions probably isn't an option for most of you.