cycling4freaks.com

How is it with Amstel and Apennino for the 15th. ?

lesossies wrote:How is it with Amstel and Apennino for the 15th. ?

I have tried Amstel several times with all resources possible, but it is only 253km long, not 256.
If it is not that big problem, i will paint it todays evening

OK with Amstel, Woddel, I can help if some hills are to be corrected.
Aux will design Appennino.

We can now look for Fleche wallone and LBL.

lesossies wrote:OK with Amstel, Woddel, I can help if some hills are to be corrected.
Aux will design Appennino.

We can now look for Fleche wallone and LBL.

1. Can we just look at the past version of the Amstel Gold race. They look similar to the one of this year. I think the percentages of the hill were discussed lots of time!

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=67&start=25
Page 2, Aywaille analysis for the hills in 2010!

2. L-B-L and Flêche are mine... Info not available yet!

Discussion for the % of these hill was made in 2009 apparently... Can't find the topic anyway (should be on the old forum)!

YEAh...; Info online for the flêche!

L-B-L didn't change apparently but Leso draw from 2011 for the part between Stockeu and Rosier seems not the correct. The rest is good + Should discuss a bit about Roche aux Faucons I think!

Difficult, please check the mountains, especially the last km

Sorry Gaurain I tried to design la Flêche, maybe you can use what I did.
It is with geo coords.

http://www.radsportfreaks.de/radsport/p ... ension=c4f

fleche 2012: http://www.letour.fr/2012/FWH/COURSE/us ... cours.html

15 Apr Giro dell'Appennino Ita 1.1 2012

Well, can check Amstel but can't see the % of Woddel!

lesossies wrote:Sorry Gaurain I tried to design la Flêche, maybe you can use what I did.
It is with geo coords.

http://www.radsportfreaks.de/radsport/p ... ension=c4f

mmmm... First of all, one huge problem... Second foot of Mur de Huy is 90 meters under the one of passage 1 and 3 !!

My proposal : We have exactly the same distance between first passage in Huy and top of Bousaille than in 2012 (and the hills are exactly the same on the same distance)... So take 2011 version for this part of the race (km 71 to km 150).

So 0 to 70 : 2012 draw
71-150 : 2011 version
151 to finish : to be checked.

Gaurain proposal 151 --> 163 : -2/-6/-3/-4/0/1/-1/0/1/1/-1/3/11 (Downhill Bousalle same as 2011 (just change the -5 in -4 cause of the 20 meter prob)... Rest is quite clear... It is the Meuse Valley road!

Then (I had one km too much so decided to include him in 3 km of the downhill after Mur of Huy) : 164 --> 194 2/1/0/-1/0/-2/-1/-3/-1/-2/-4/-3/0/1/8/3/-4/-2/-2/7/2/-1/0/1/-1/-4/-5/-3/0/3/11

Mur Amay : First km they take 85m... So 8 or 9, steepest part at the begin then It's regular and easier so decided to put 8... Don't really know why... I have no knowledge of this hill;

So 2 options (to be decided). 0/9/3 (more fitting to rsf maybe) or 1/8/3 (more real)

Villers-Le-Bouillet : They don't really take the foot of the climb... if yes, would have put 8-2... Here 7 seems more realistic!

Anyway, really don't know how they have only 6,5 km between the top of Villers-le-Bouillet and the foot of Mur the Huy. I'm sure of the road and T4B gives me 10km between both. So decided to get a compromise between these 2 options (Anyway, Leso gets this gap, really don't know how he did!!!). So top of Villers-Le-Bouillet is one km too soon in my draw!! But ok, could still be adapted but if I follow the road on the maps, that's what I obtain!!! So, I quasi never agrees with Leso version (which is in any case not correct cause he gains 90 meters on the last round)!

Anyway, even in 2011 version there is a problem... the second foot of Huy is 20 meters under the first one. Leso, is this possible to see the 2010 draw? CHecked the thing... Apparently a prob between the top of Bousalle and the foot of Huy!!

Woddeltown Team wrote:
Difficult, please check the mountains, especially the last km

Highly funny draw ^^

Basically, I propose we take 2011 draw as basis and just check the changes!

I adapted last night WWCTs work:
I used the 2011 hill-profiles.
This should be OK

I dont see your version but OK
I adapted my own version.

2010

http://www.radsportfreaks.de/radsport/p ... ension=etn

2011


2012

http://www.radsportfreaks.de/radsport/p ... ension=c4f

The hill-profiles should be the same like last year.
Maybe the last 15-20kms must be changed.

Well, I didn't draw the race as you had already done it... I just give my thought about how it should be. Anyway, if you say I can redraw it, I'll do!

Can you please check the final km of Amstel again. It was wrong last year, there is no flat section after the final hill.

Radunion wrote:Can you please check the final km of Amstel again. It was wrong last year, there is no flat section after the final hill.

Last year, final was 6-2!!!

I remember that I realised it was wrong after I saw the race on TV last year. I think the hill began just before they reached the last km.

Radunion wrote:I remember that I realised it was wrong after I saw the race on TV last year. I think the hill began just before they reached the last km.

6-2 has been discussed 2 or 3 years ago... The things is rsf physics doesn't dit with the reality. If you do a 6, if a group of 30-40 come at the foot of Cauberg, the best climber will win without any problem...which is not the case in reality. So that's why it has been adapted in a 6-2 which gives an opportunity to win to a lot more of riders and which opens the race too!

4 or 5 should be the 2nd last km of Amstel i guess. And then 1, 0 or -1 should be

Woddeltown Team wrote:4 or 5 should be the 2nd last km of Amstel i guess. And then 1, 0 or -1 should be

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO... 6-2 have been discussed over years... Please Nopik', SInge, Franco a Allagen and all the oldies, help me ^^

gaurain rx wrote:

Woddeltown Team wrote:4 or 5 should be the 2nd last km of Amstel i guess. And then 1, 0 or -1 should be

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO... 6-2 have been discussed over years... Please Nopik', SInge, Franco a Allagen and all the oldies, help me ^^

Just because something has always been like that before doesn't mean it has to stay
But the idea of Woddel to have a minus or a 0 at the end of course is not one that I would define as brilliant.

We had 6-2 for the reasons you said. To simulate it quite well. Pure reality would be a 6.

But... the Cauberg 1200 meters according to their site... the first 700 meters it seems to go up 58 meters. (if their percentages are correct, probably not 100%, rounded anyway.) So an average of over 8%. Then the next 500 meters it's just 13 or so meters. So an average of 2.6% So what to do? Different possibilities:

Make it one km because it's just 1,2 Km.
Make it a 6. + closest to reality. - the result isn't closest to reality since at RSF the climbers would always win (unless there is an earlier group)
Make it a 5. + Topclassics still have a chance to follow attacks? (I don't really know actually..) - it's not a 5... it's more. It's possible to block the 5 for any Alighieri and other idiocies. (then at 5 they don't necessarily win the sprint, but it's possible to have a 30+ group easily at the top)

Make it 2 km
6-2 Like now. It simulates it ok... hill, then the last meters are not really up that much.
2-6 just take the last km, a 6, the 200 meters from before in the km before.. and 2-6, actually then probably 1-6 better, but don't know if it goes up very slightly before. Basically this is the 1 km 6 finish though
7-2? The first 700 meters, especially the 200-700 are really way steeper than 6. simulate it like that? Overdesign it? Possible too. Here the "advantage" would be that it helps strong riders, and hurts hill sprinters. Hillsprinters that might stay there with a 6, if they have a mountain rider to block, and then can cover the 2 themselvers, or do it with following. With 7 that would be more difficult. And maybe better, in fact I don't remember real SPRINTS of 10-15 riders in the Amstel... it's usually a group that is fairly strung out with time differences in the group. While at RSF there have been fairly big groups after the 2.. (could be wrong)

There is x possibilities that make sense, and none is the right one. 6-2 isn't it either, it's just what we are used to. Which one is best? I really don't know. 6-2 seemed ok so far. 7-2 could actually be an alternative that I like. Just a 6... too pro climbers IMO. Although it might open up the race with classic groups trying earlier? Which seldom happens in reality actually... Most of the time it's a bigger group at the bottom. Just a 5? Don't know, doesn't really convince me either. The least of all maybe. 6-1? Similar to just a 5, in the sense that I personally don't really like it, it's what we seem to have now actually. 6-3.. to pro climbers? Maybe. They have chances to win it in reality... But ok, in reality the thing is not as clear cut anyway... Cunego, F Schleck. Climbers? Yes, but... doesn't mean they suck at everything else... Gilbert classic? Yes, but he could be a "climber" too.... if for some weird reason he decided to go for a GT one year, he could be in the top 10 for sure. But climbers have won it at RSF too I think, so no reason to make it more pro climbers?

Anyway, could be any number of endings. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with most of them, IF they are supported by good reasons by their proponents.

It's not just about the last km. The Cauberg will be crossed several times. So a change to 7-2 for example would change more than the final part. We have to think about that too. For my taste, 7-2 is a good idea because this would simulate the real race very good. In RSF we had big groups sprinting for the win (with 6-2) and in reality the group splits into several parts. But hard to decide.

gaurain rx wrote:

Woddeltown Team wrote:4 or 5 should be the 2nd last km of Amstel i guess. And then 1, 0 or -1 should be

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO... 6-2 have been discussed over years... Please Nopik', SInge, Franco a Allagen and all the oldies, help me ^^

and now its 6-1?

IMO 6-1 is not good. If we split the 1,2km into 2 pieces, the second part is more like 2%.
The steepest part is about 400m long and its 8-11% (maybe 12%), so I really think 7% would be a good thing for RSF.