
GP südkärnten AUT 1.2 03.06.
Moderators: systemmods, Calendarmods
Good to have four eyesolmania wrote:Great work !
For the cobblestones, when you can it's good to put the "*" or "**" f.e in the profile, write it in the text thing on the editorWhen it's a circuit, write it only once. For example, you could write it for the pavé in the circuit of GP van Coningsloo, this pavé might be important for the race. For the pavé in the early part, it's not necessary imo (and there is already a lot text due to the hills).
ps : stage4 of the indonesian tour, the cat2 in Malakak is in downhill![]()
Like I said ... If you mean 14h is better than 13, we could race at 14hbergwerk cycling wrote:Les Boucles Tour
9 - 13 - 17 - 19 -21 -23
No tour in the afternoon 14-16 o'clock, but in the evening all 2 hours?
Plan or Error?
+1, that's a bit annoying that theres really few races between 13 and 16hbergwerk cycling wrote:if you ask me personaly ... 14, 15 or 16 is ok ... would be nice 1 race in the afternoon
thks
If the tour starts the 2nd of June, it should be better to have the profiles for RSF for Monday or Tuesdaypolist4ever wrote:2-9 june is Tour of Romania 2.2 UCI ... What is the limit date to post the profile ?? For now the profile is not posted on the oficial site but he tolds me via email that will be post the profile next week
Before you start criticizing, have a look at the profiles from last year and have a look now!gaurain rx wrote:Well, WHY THE HELL ALWAYS REDRAWiNG RACES THAT HAVE ALREADY DRAWN IN THE PAST... ANd furthermore maybe to even not take a look at what have been done the last years.
Look at Ster zlm Toer... It's highly funny to see the differences of draw of stage 2 and 3 (the same parcours, only 3km more for this one) with the 2011 version. Who is wrong or right, I dunno (even if I think I'm right, it's not against you Woddel).
So please, take care of what have been done in the past... It would maybe avoid a totally unecessary amount of work.
I talked about the draw, the intermediates and the category hill system could have changed, I don't care (even for Ster, they only put hill and no categories, so it's a bit up to the designer).Woddeltown Team wrote:Before you start criticizing, have a look at the profiles from last year and have a look now!gaurain rx wrote:Well, WHY THE HELL ALWAYS REDRAWiNG RACES THAT HAVE ALREADY DRAWN IN THE PAST... ANd furthermore maybe to even not take a look at what have been done the last years.
Look at Ster zlm Toer... It's highly funny to see the differences of draw of stage 2 and 3 (the same parcours, only 3km more for this one) with the 2011 version. Who is wrong or right, I dunno (even if I think I'm right, it's not against you Woddel).
So please, take care of what have been done in the past... It would maybe avoid a totally unecessary amount of work.
At Stage 3 you are (maybe) right concerning the profile, but the intermediate sprints are partly different. And if we should take a intermediate mountain cat. 2, i do not know.
But the other stages:
Stage 1 (last year Stage 2): Stage is 24 (!) km shorter and the mountain is 18km before finish and not 7.
Stage 2 (last year Stage 1): also 14km shorter and two intermediate sprints less then last year.
Stage 3 (last year Stage 4): see above
Stage 4: Seems to be a different location with other destinations AND (more important) 28km shorter.
So why should we let the profiles in the calendar, when there are such differences?
You can be sure, that i always check the old profiles first before drawing the new one and if you look above (Franco quotet me), you see, that i thought how funny it is, that the profiles look the same, but the stages are shorter.
Well, I'll only take stage 2 and 3, I never talked about the others.Woddeltown Team wrote:Before you start criticizing, have a look at the profiles from last year and have a look now!
Well, ok, we seems to be on the same line... and as I already said, inter and hill categories change from time to time!!Woddeltown Team wrote:At Stage 3 you are (maybe) right concerning the profile, but the intermediate sprints are partly different. And if we should take a intermediate mountain cat. 2, i do not know.
Anyway i know what you mean, but if you followed the past, you will know, that i first take a look at the old profile.gaurain rx wrote: 2 : You wrote "Cauberg" but where is it (on your draw) really! + Final circuit exactly the same lenght, the same road as last year... Just compare yours and Nopik' (It's like Ying and Yang.. And once again, I don't know which one is good)!!! I can't imagine you took a look at his draw! In fact, you are right, they've shorten the stage of some km but final is exactly the same!
I looked at the draw before. Unfortunately I deleted my old posts, but when I started drawing only the profiles of stage 1 and 2 were online on the official site. I worried, that the profile looks the same as last year, but the stages are shorter. Also the only hill on the sittard stage: i guess it is a big difference between a "5" 7km before finish and a "5" 18km before finish.
gaurain rx wrote: Anyway, It was not a "Woddeltown" criticism. It's just that I know more of these races (or pay more attention) cause I know a bit the places (or drew it last year)... But would be the same criticism if Mortirolo would be changed everytime we climb!!!
I'm not against changes (the past things are not perfect), but it's a loss of time and it becomes a big mess if we don't pay attentions of the former draws.
All stages is up on site (romania12_stage1 ... romania12_stage9). One thing ... stage 1 and stage 2 is both on same day, 2 june.olmania wrote:If the tour starts the 2nd of June, it should be better to have the profiles for RSF for Monday or Tuesdaypolist4ever wrote:2-9 june is Tour of Romania 2.2 UCI ... What is the limit date to post the profile ?? For now the profile is not posted on the oficial site but he tolds me via email that will be post the profile next weekBut if we don't have romania it's not a big deal, not one of the "main races" of the month
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests