May 2025

[Gipfelstuermer]

I see there is no Giro 2025 Thread in the "coordination and discussion important races" as it was the case for the former editions. Is that wanted or has just been overseen?

To clarify: In above question, "that" relates to the observation in the previous sentence that there is no Giro thread, yet. Therefore in my answer to the question ("it is neither wanted nor overseen") "it" also relates to the observation that there is no Giro thread, yet. To make it clearer, I should have written "that is neither wanted not overseen", or even better "That no Giro Thread exists, yet, is neither wanted nor overseen".

I still won't open a thread as neither (!) do I feel responsible nor do I need it necessarily.

Now, if you don't feel responsible for it, I respect that, and if you also don't necessarily need it, all seems fine, and we'll have a great Giro hopefully

[team fl]

(...) and we'll have a great Giro hopefully

That's the goal .

Now join the afternoon

[Robyklebt]

Giro 9-14-18-21
Then IMO there is a bit much parallel with the same times:
Yes I know that parallel races now are no problem anymore (they never turned out to be one in flash either, but there was the potential I was told), but it's still nice to have the other times represented, especially since possibly some of the non-Giro teams don't start the Giro because the starting time doesn't fit, if then the parallel stuff is again on that time....not ideal.

9h: 1 parallel, fits well, no problem. Doesn't have to be 0
14h: 4 of 8 one day races at 14 too. Plus a stage race. The plan on the 29th of course then is extreme... all at 14h
18h 3 of 8 1 day races parallel, seems quite a high percentage too
21: 5 of 8 and Norway as well, so the 29th the same super time for 21

Evening really should be little problem to spread it out, 22/23 for one day races and 22 for Norway too.
AFternoon maybe trickier, all 15 overdoing it, but 13 is usually actually surprisingly ok, and 16 can have the occasional race too.

[olmania]

not sure if we have the playerbase for 5 editions currently?

I would say yes. Maybe better to have a starterfield of 8 active teams, than a 10+ field with teams being off some stages, cause the starting time is not what they wanted, just the best they could find…

That's a good point. 4 or 5 times this year for Giro ?
The // program as it is now is not really attractive, especially with a week of fantasy races, and most of the real races in // are cat2 (except Dunkerque which is a kind of specialist tour). I'd believe that if the // stays this "un-attractive", Giro participation could be high !

I'd risk 5 times; as having a 5th time could also attract a few more teams; especially the ones riding the tours only/mainly + the few very active new players who are climbing the ladders of the game in the past few months !

[C.Pommes]

+1 for 15:00 for the afternoon giro

[ECS Cycling]

Romandie done:

[olmania]

Eschborn-Frankfurt looks very similar to last year. 3kms less. Maybe just 3kms less at the start; might also be a little difference around km120. Totally fine to use last year profile imo.

Boucles de l'Aulne - Châteaulin no info yet, should be the same as past year.

Tour du Finistère only 168kms this year, same final circuit. Will design it if I have time.

Grand Prix du Morbihan is the same.

Tro-Bro Léon : a few differences; a nice rating of gravel sectors is available now. Won"t be easy, but will re design if I have time.

Classique Dunkerque / Grand prix des Hauts de France : no details yet, only a map but will be hilly (light hill maybe). I could design from that map even if it's gonna take ages; might wait a bit to see if more details come.

[Bear]

I prefer 21:00 over 22:00 for Giro.

[cataracs]

1st draft :


About that stage : used the rule of 3kms of * before switching to ** for long sectors. last two short sectors are ** (as they are in strade bianche classic). final climb to siena is 6* like in the classic of March. There are less kms of gravel here than in reality as I had to remove gravel for steeper sections than -2. 4cat kom had to be put in the downhill in order to avoid the usual issue. Open to change/adapt it if needed.

km117,122, 132-133-134 are ** instead of * for the rule you followed.

[olmania]

1st draft :


About that stage : used the rule of 3kms of * before switching to ** for long sectors. last two short sectors are ** (as they are in strade bianche classic). final climb to siena is 6* like in the classic of March. There are less kms of gravel here than in reality as I had to remove gravel for steeper sections than -2. 4cat kom had to be put in the downhill in order to avoid the usual issue. Open to change/adapt it if needed.

km117,122, 132-133-134 are ** instead of * for the rule you followed.

This two 3 sectors are long. The downhill kms should be gravel too, but because of the pavé bug in downhill, they are ignored in the design; but in fact the secor is still gravel, that's why the kms following km116 (-7; which should be *) are ** and not starting again at * (it's the same sector; and the first 3 kms were * (114-115 + 116 ignored).
Same with 121 in -4, ignored when should be **; so 122 is still **. 128-138 same logic, with -8 being ignored when it should be continuous and **.
km139-148 : no problem as no more than -2.

I hope this explanation makes it clear and makes sense; designing according to the pave downhill bug.

[Robyklebt]

Of course the question remains the same as in 24. Do we design to simulate the race the best possible way, or do change a stage that in reality will have some, but not a huge influence on the race, into one of the most decisive ones?
Right now we're going for the second one.

[cataracs]

Of course the question remains the same as in 24. Do we design to simulate the race the best possible way, or do change a stage that in reality will have some, but not a huge influence on the race, into one of the most decisive ones?
Right now we're going for the second one.

Agree, the ** pavés influence is huge on climbres in the game. Should just be * max.

[drei.zehn]

Of course the question remains the same as in 24. Do we design to simulate the race the best possible way, or do change a stage that in reality will have some, but not a huge influence on the race, into one of the most decisive ones?
Right now we're going for the second one.

Agree, the ** pavés influence is huge on climbres in the game. Should just be * max.

Yes. 20 kms * is much lighter than 10kms ** for example

[cataracs]

14h Giro for me!

[Radunion]

Agree, the ** pavés influence is huge on climbres in the game. Should just be * max.

I disagree. Climbers are disadvantaged by flat finals and we do not change them either. The way climbers work is not realistic but it makes the game nice to play and this includes climbers and pave as well.

[Pokemon Club]

Agree, the ** pavés influence is huge on climbers in the game. Should just be * max.

I disagree. Climbers are disadvantaged by flat finals and we do not change them either. The way climbers work is not realistic but it makes the game nice to play and this includes climbers and pave as well.

Nothing is realistic as we have no Pogacar-like in game.
Some random climbers like Bardet already made good result bit they had good form and some skills for this kind of races.
For rsf a good climber with good paves will do nothing without a team anyway, and I don't remember we adapt paves for climbers during TDF no I see no reason to adapt white road for climbers during Giro.
If we use the same logic the adaptation to do is for the dirty road during Sestrieres stage