May 2025

[Robyklebt]

Since we don't have a Giro thread.... (yes, I could open one, but why should I, if you guys want a chaotic thread) I do it here

As I said the Giro details are out:
Climbs, final kilometers, all very good and worth a check. Don't think every hill 120 km from the finish needs to be pefect and checked, but the last km and the important climbs... ideally yes.

Stage 1: More -1 -1 0 than -2 -1 0but pretty irrelevant (last climb more 2 2 to start, but irrelevant as well, we could go to 320 meters difference there, it's 316 after all, but this version seems fine)

Stage 2; Climb to Sauk, climb and downhill should be the same, they do a u-turn on top and go down the same road. Last km * is of course wrong. The Giro site says last 500 meters on asphalt, if you look at google view it's not really asphalt but the easiest imaginable pavé. That's not even * if it's a full km of it, here it's only 500 meters. Don't even know if that should be called pavé. Btw, same last 2 km as stage one too.

Stage 3: No info on the climb, so I assume that is ok

Stage 4: Second last km could be +1, goes up 5 meters, but pretty irrelevant

Stage 5; Ok interpretation of the final I think. +1-2+5-1+2 Going PURELY by the numbers, would be 2-2 +4-1 +2/3. But the 5 there IMO is good, it's 750 meters at 6.3 percent, so having a 5 there good IMO. Last km 2 or 3 difficult to say, it's 2.5 average... Last 500 meters 3.3%, so that would be for +3, better for our sprint, last 500 meters should be more relevant for that. On the other hand "blockability" would speak for 2% . Ah, the first of the last 5 km probably at 2 better, rest works like it is. (I'd probably go for 3% here, but both is fine)

Stage 6: All fine

Stage 7:
-Monte Urano: 457 meters up, so 460 logic, right now only 440. I'd go for 2 8 8 11 11 8/7, that's 480/470, so 20/10 too much, so go down to 7 for the last km ok too. 5.7 km climb(not sure why they include the first km..) last 700 meters at 8.1... so here either overdesigning it (lengthwise) to have the right percentage or since it's shorter making it a 7% (could be a 6% then perfect height, but seem the percentage then is too low compared to reality)
-Tagliacozzo: No 6 at km 158. Only the last 3 km are 6+. Looking at the last km bit on the Gazzetta site: 9 10 7. 9 10 6 as it is now works too though, since the last 250 meters are at 0.7%, and actually probably more like the last 350 or so meters. Both ok, but the early 6 is wrong.

Rest later, but I know I will have quite a bit to say on some other stages... Mortirolo all wrong, so is stage 9 btw, but hard to convince people of that it seems.

[Robyklebt]

I continue having fun (sarcasm) here...

Stage 8, early mountain not to precise, but ok, final looks good to me.

Stage 9: Lots to say: First the principle, it's still wrong, we're changing the nature of the race. This is like insisting on designing the Tour of Flanders purely on the numbers, without interpretation. Paterberg? Up steep a few 100 meters. Let's take the whole km from somewhere and we probably end up at 2% for the km. Or maybe less, more depending on where we start the measurement.. .But of course we don't do that? We interprete the thing in a way that we think makes it somehow realistic and fitting for the race. How successful is another question. Here we have the outright refusal to consider anything else. Gravel can't just be *. Why? It's selective!! Will the flat gravel sectors, or mostly flat ones like Serravalle actually be selective in reality? Ah, but it depends how it's ridden, Pokemon has seen both! Yes in the Giro, when we had gravel with hard climbs we had a lot of selection. Hint: It's more the climbs, or the combination of climbs and gravel, DOWNHILL and gravel, that makes Strade Bianche or the STrade Bianche stages in the Giro selective. The flat gravel is pretty unselective. * fits perfecty for c4f. Which, btw, is also selective in non flat parts.

But ok, I won't win this argument, stupidity and unrealistic (FL, if you're reading this tell me what word I'm looking for since weeks, you don't need to agree, I just want the word) gameplay, will win out, we don't want a somehow realistic simulation.

Another argument was we can't change the same roads 2 months later... of course they have been changed. Both pavé rating and %.
But let's see in order: Reversed order
Finish:
-Last 3 km should be -4 +1 6*. Certainly not -2 the second last km (which btw is different from our Strade Bianche version where it's -1, which seems wrong too. We could use the Giro to improve Strade Bianche too) Second last could even be put at 2, prolong the third last km by 200 meters or so, then start from the bottom. (This all only makes sense to people who actually take the time to look at the profile details on the giro site)
-Colle Pinzuto 6** 3** like in Strade Bianche. Actually it really should be more climb over 2 km, it goes up 100 meters in those 2 km. (The whole sector is longer, but the last 300 or according to the strade Bianche site 2.4 goes up 0.1%...) Can this be corrected now? Or do we have to wait for fantasy races? Or for Strade Bianche 26? Here of course we're not following that "general rule", first 3 km are *, then the fourth **. We are following the special rule for Strade Bianche. Which is a different race with WAY more gravel, 81.7 km of gravel. Not the less than 30 we have here. Why did we introduce the special rule for the late sectors? Can probably be read somewhere in the forum, do it yourself, I suspect it was to take account of all the gravel we had early, to simulate the tiredness due to it, thus make it more selective. Here with much less tiredness... does it make sense to have it at **? (I go off a tangent once again: Look at old Flanders with the Mur and Bosberg combi and Omloop now with the same combi. Why is the group at Omloop generally much bigger than it used to be at Flanders? Part maybe early season, but part of it is also the comparably very easy run in to Gerardsbergen, no Oude Kwaremont, no Taaienberg, no this berg no that berg. That makes a huge difference. Also it's shorter. Now the combi interpretation actually works well for Omloop at c4f like it is, but we used to often have complaints during old RVV versions that it didn't really sieb enough... (I often disagreed with that since I thought it's more the idea people had that helpers should sieb leaders, but ok, don't remember exactly. ) Anyway, isn't it worth taking into account why we put in that special rule, what is different here in this race to the race where that special rule was agreed upon that blindly claim "it's selective, we can't change it 2 months later"? I'd say so. I'd be for 7* 3*. Even if the numbers on the Strade Bianche site somehow don't make sense, 101 meter gain, but the added percentages come to something else... a mystery, some plotarouting or other might be necessary to confirm how this should be exactly. Anyway, % to be reviewed, gravel IMO should be downgraded. Unless you don't won't to follow the general rule suddenly.

Monteaperti: In Strade Bianche it's 6**. It's 600 meters long. Climb itself very short, 500 meters at 7.6%, but the the climb probably only 400 meters long. Km 159 in Strade Bianche btw. Here it's 5**. The climb is one of those annoying ones short. The pavé/gravel the same. Actually at only 600 meters I'll argue for just * in next year's Strade Bianche too. In the meantime this is the Giro, so: should be *, and the designer should explain why he went for 5% in the climb (which doesn't have to be wrong, but an explanation is useful)

San Martino in Grania: Percentages are different than during Strade Bianche: Why? We can have the rating discussion again of course, I still don't see ** as making sense here, even if here the general rule at least is followed, not just the "Strade Bianche special rule".

Serravalle: Different from Strade Bianche as well. % and gravel, also position of the downhill. Also after the downhill break we restart with * in Strade Bianche, here with **. So there's 3 more ** km here than we had "just 2 months ago". Horror, horror, I thought it was also about consistency? Not just about the principle of designing it wrong! But yeah, what's up with that, can't be changed, except when it has to be? Make up your mind. I stick with my idea to have all at * btw. Makes more sense and will simulate it better 4 4 -9 0 0 1 -1 1 0 would be an ok version.

Pieve a Salti: Different from STrade Bianche, % Also we discover a new rule here somehow, so in a 8 km sector you put the last km in the 9th km when some km are eliminated by downhill? REdo, thanks.

Stage 10: Seems ok

Stage 11: Last climb: Details say 6 7 6 6 6 3, 340 meters up, 334 in reality, 5.850 km, now it's 320. The 6 in the 4th km actually a 7 purely on numbers, 6.55% that km, but then 350 meters. Which would be ok for the the average though, 5.8%, 350/6 is 5.83%, 340 is 5.66%. So the above version or the one with a 7 at km 4 better than the underdesign we have no (problem probably the preceding km at 3 at our version, doesn't look to be there in reality)

Stage 12: They changed that one, climb 2 not there, climb 3 neither, but a different one, starting from San Polo d'Enza, not Ciano d'Enza. Anyway, seems a partially different route after the intermediate in Felina. One of the not untypical late Giro stage changes. We didn't always adjust for those in the past, even if doing it probably is better.

Stage 13: Looks fine to me. Well Arugnano (not GPM but Red Bull now) has a 9 followed by 500 meters at 5%, for us 8 5, which works, but 9 whatever would be ok too, but actually 8 5 works

Stage 14: -1 -1 0, we lose all of 5 meters in the last 3 km, so 0 0 0 seems more logical then this. IF we need those 5 meters because we're too high, then the -1 0 0. The last hill, Saver, no info, but looking at the map and the timetable, we gain 72 meters over something under 2km, , but no idea how the distribution is. Maybe check that somehow? Or interprete as 5 (it might be something like 4 3, might be 7, I have no idea) because very likely in reality that will end up as what for us is a 5?

Stage 15: Finish: Last km 0, correct by number, but 1 might simulate it better since in the last 900 meters we gain 5 meters, and the last 250 meters, so where we sprint, are at 1%. But 0 works too, since over the whole km we gain 3 meters. Monte Grappa too annoying to check all, probably there should be 1 or 2 7% in the first part though.
Dori, depending on how you do this 16.5 km, either the second or the first km should be a 7, second part has too many 7s though, more 6. But ok, both Grappa and Dori in the end seem low priority for corrections.

Stage 16: Finish -4 8 8, not -4 9 8, pretty clear from details. Santa Barbara a bit difference, 16 km for us, so in that case the last km probably should be under 6%, last 750 meters according to detaglie salite: 500 meters at 5.5, 250 meters at 2.4.. the 2 km before should both be 8 though. Other details, but here too rather low priority I guess. Final climb more important. Km 196 for me a clear 6. On the other hand km 188 is probably too steep. Or km 190? Km 8+9 of the climb should both no be siebable... dammit: 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 -2 9 10 9 10 8 6 -4 8 8 is my (fast) interpretation.. Altitude gain should be exactly 1110, but check anyway...

Stage 17: Ok, seems already corrected, good work. Mortirolo "changed", there was talk about a new shortcut version, they stick with the old one, but don't think the new version was ever official. Le Motte which was wrong in our earlier design correct now, Didn't check the corrected Mortirolo, since I assume it was done with the now available details, like Le Motte

Ok, just wanted to go at least until 17.... Mortirolo decision and wrong Le Motte, done that, already corrected when I see it, very good job! Break time. Might continue in an hour. Might not. Even if I don't. before publishing check stage 18-21!

Anyway, I don't claim my proposals are the ultimative correct solutions, if something is corrected don't just copy this, look at the stage details on the Giro site and think. On the other hand I don't think what I wrote is completely wrong either, after all I spent enough time on it....

[cataracs]

You're talking about the Gravel stage but who is in charge of taking the decision to change it to * or keep it as it is? Designer? Gip? Alk? the inactive community?

[zizou]

You're talking about the Gravel stage but who is in charge of taking the decision to change it to * or keep it as it is? Designer? Gip? Alk? the inactive community?

If its community than I’m with the Donkey^^

[Robyklebt]

Ok, let's do the remaining 4 stages:

18: No details on climbs, so ok, finish though: Last km a 0. 0 -1 0 is correct. Yes we gain 4 meters in the last km, that's still 0, but also the last 250 meters, where the sprint actually is, looks flat on the finish profile.

19: 5 last km shown on the Girosite -1 -2 -8 -6/7 +1/2. 65 meters down, 15 up in the 2 last km, 1 is better IMO, since the last 500 meters are flat, the altitude gain is in the first 500 meters of that km. Even 0 would work actually. The problem in our design is the second last km, not -2, but -6 (and then +1), -7+2 is clearly an inferior interpretation. -2+1 just wrong.
Col de Joux, end is perfect, but is one km too long. Unless the Giro site starts one km late, possible, at times they start too early. It goes up before the official climb starts, the question is how much.. Anyway, the first 3 shown km until a place called Moron should be 5 8 8, so our 6 5 7 5 is definitely not correct, regardless of the first km (that might be there or not) then continues with 7 7 8 after that a tricky passage, the 500 meter sectors are 7.2 4.3 5.7 7.5, which taken like this is 6 (5.75) 7 (6.6) But with one km at 5% in this 2 km sector downgrading the 6 to 5 would be ok too, in case we need this at the end to get the right height. 8 8 7 next, 5 6 7 7. From 138 to 146 we have the same version as I proposed (without the possible downgrading), my great thing here would have 1040 gain, (if I didn't miscalculate) 1045 says the Girosite, 990 our version in the last 15 kms (+6 in one before) .
St Pantaelon: Annoying 16.5 km, best to do the first km half, which seems to be the case, altitude gain seems roughly 1210 gained, ignore the first km it's 1180, reality 1184 including the first 350 meters, without them 1171, so seems ok finally, I refrain from checking the whole climb, last 3 km seemed perfect.
Tzecore :start harder: 8 8 8 8 5 6 8 6 6 4 7 10 13 11 8 8, is 1240 up, should be 1234, seems to fit. If 1230 is better, first idea would be to downgrade the 7th km, from 8 to 7, it's 7.6% if I calculated correctly, prime candidate then. Or the second last km that is 7.6 too.
Antagnod: Weirdos include the first 500 meters that are -1.5 to make it 9550 meters... Ignore that, then it's 2 7 2 8 argh, see the problem... Maybe don't ignore it. Argh, bitch of a climb. NEver fits nicely, whatever you try. Wild Donkey interpretation. 2 7 2 8 0 8 7 5 ? (I ignored the first 500 meters , then the 5.3 500 meters before the flat part (that should be 0, not -1) so I'm left with 5 at the end I guess, then 440 meters up in 9 km, 9.55 they say 430, but since we lose 7,5 meters in the first 500 meters shoudl be 437, thus 440... Annoying climb this one, very.. see for yourself.
They have Croce Serra too, but being so early pretty irrelevant, after the 8 maybe the next km a 5 or 6 (comes to 5.5 average) last km 7 seems fine, didn't check the rest.

Here IMO the end and a thorough analysis of the annoying Antagnod necessary, rest is lower priority.

20: Last km a 3, not 4.
Colle del Lys, start is more 7 than 6, should be 7 7 7 7 7 6 2 0 (the 6 theoretically a 7 too, 6.6, but we go up 426 meter, so 430 seems better than 440, then didn't bother, last km a 6 seems right. Low priority of course
Finestre: km before the climb shouldn't be 0 I guess? Or do we go down to a river back up? Rest I basically agree, except km 3+4, better 9 9 than 8 10. Gravel starts 1 km early, but ends 1 km early, seems fine too. Altitude gain somehow is off by 30 meters but since we ignore the first 500 meters at 4.6, 23 meters so would be 1671 gain, we have 1660 seems fine. Or if we want it precisely keep km 4 at 10 while doing 3 at 9. (there is a km at 9.5 in there, km 4 if you include the first 500 meters) But actually no need to change anything here.
Sestriere: Climb detail doesn't really fit with the last 3 km somehow.... here it looks like 7 6 4 finish, but no info for the last 200 meters which according to the final km are.... last 100 are 0.5, the 250 before 1.8, but probably last 200 are closer to 0 than 1 in the end. So for the last kms I'd stick with the final km thingy. 199 to 203 seem fine, 204 for me a 3, before that I disagree a bit, seems much more regular at 2%, 194 at 4 seems strange...

21: They now want to start at the Vatican, start at +4 seems wrong, but irrelevant, finish 0 0 1 good.

[Gipfelstuermer]

You're talking about the Gravel stage but who is in charge of taking the decision to change it to * or keep it as it is? Designer? Gip? Alk? the inactive community?

Technically admins and calendar managers can approve profiles and publish races. So, in theory, Alk, AAD, you and me are in charge.

In practice, it should probably be me as I volunteered for the planning of real races, even though planning and taking design decisions are two different things. Anyway, someone has to decide and I'm ok with receiving complaints over the next three weeks.

In any case I can only decide on existing profiles. If there is only one designed profile, I hesitate to get involved in overruling the designer. If we had the luxury of mutiple profiles for one race, I could pick and choose and the best design.

Edit: Actually I even have to insert the IS, so that makes it even less likely that I find the time/will to modify some kilometers.

[Robyklebt]

You're talking about the Gravel stage but who is in charge of taking the decision to change it to * or keep it as it is? Designer? Gip? Alk? the inactive community?

Not only for the gravel stage but for every proposed change, correction whatever:
Official race so: Community. Ideally informed community consensus decision, not just pure majority, sort of consensus. If the community seems very split, very divided, then it's up to the highest ranking calendar guy, so Gipfel to put the hammer down and decide. In the end we will need a decision after all. And then it's the highest ranking calendar guy's decision, if he refuses or can't decide it gets moved up to the owner-game runner. Split role now, Luques owner that isn't running the game, so we skip him, then it's the main game runner, which is unclear. Alk the main programmer, but Gipfel and AAD are admins too, no idea how they take decisions internally, really up to them, but I would guess if Gipfel passes it's simply up to Alk then. If I was Gipfel (or then Alk) I would take these factors into consideration:
- General opinion of community, if he feels that the majority is big enough for one, even without consensus, then follow that (if anything right now that would mean keep it as it is, although a full keep it like it is to me seems really wrong, percentages etc.)
-Quality of arguments produced (3 guys say: I like this better, but without explaining why vs 2 guys that say that better with arguments that make sense, I would value the 2 guys with arguments more, the question is when quality of opinion starts beating quantity of opinion 3 vs 2, seems clear. 4 vs 2? 5 vs 2? I have no idea, guess depends on how high quality the quality arguments are as well...) (Here of course I think I'm easily on the winning side....)
- What the designer says. (He designed, he is then supposed to be a specialist that thought about these issues (you can have doubts that he did of course), he spent the time to design, in the end the decision maker should value that input higher than just some guy who just says "A is better"
-Unavoidably his own opinion, as objective as you try to be, you will always be influenced by that.

[Robyklebt]

I see Gipfel already answered.

In practice, it should probably be me as I volunteered for the planning of real races, even though planning and taking design decisions are two different things. Anyway, someone has to decide and I'm ok with receiving complaints over the next three weeks.

We agree! Common ground

In any case I can only decide on existing profiles. If there is only one designed profile, I hesitate to get involved in overruling the designer. If we had the luxury of mutiple profiles for one race, I could pick and choose and the best design.

We disagree! I will convince you with quality of arguments on this though:
1) Dangerous proposal. So you're basically asking me to now redesign the whole Giro, so that for EVERY SINGLE STAGE you can then decide on which stage you like better. Taking into consideration not only percentages and gravel ratings, (imagine I redesign that stage, with superior percentages and let's just assume you prefer the ** version to my * version, but prefer my % to the OL %.. does the decision get easier) but also mintact, precision of the last km and everything. So YOU will be the guy who has to go and check every stage for the finish (in the Giro) to see who got it closer, you will have to check the Mortirolo, Saver and Santa Barbara, Tzecore, Alpe di San Pellegrino and whatever that climb on day 1 is called. You will have to check the last 500 meters of stage 1 and 2 (well, you might end up having to check that anyway). Right now you had me checking it... If you end up with the whole Giro double designed, a few stages triple, and the Siena stage with 5 versions... it doesn't get easier but mroe complicated. Having 1 design with multiple opinions is enough to take a decision. You did it in Romandie already btw, the same counts for all the other races. And as I wrote in my post above, obviously value the opinion of the original designer higher than that of the average user. But like in Romandie, it shouldn't be "unchallengable" By asking for multiple version of single stages you unnecessarily complicate your job.

[Robyklebt]

Gipfel added a sneaky edit!

I'll do a new post, after all edits are often missed:

Edit: Actually I even have to insert the IS, so that makes it even less likely that I find the time/will to modify some kilometers.

Taking the decision and implementing it are not the same. You could take the decisions and delegate it to somebody with access. That's Alk, AAD and Taka. Not talking only about stage 9, the Donkey-review has other proposals for improvements too. And of course counts for Red Bull thingy too, you can delegate since you clearly don't have much time yourself.

But anyway, decisions (see plural! not only stage 9) probably better sooner than later, if I was you I would want to put the stuff online Wednesday evening at the latest.

[olmania]

Can't update stage 4 online; and other stage designs by Chem (who asked me to do so). I sent Gip a message with all instructions for it

[Robyklebt]

Hiliarous!

So now we have the Giro designer, that instead of going over the Giro, that starts 09.05. to correct some stuff (in the generally well designed Giro), decides to help in the lower priority Dunkerque that starts on the 14th.

He could correct or at least look at things like
-stage 2 downhill (same us up) and last km,
-stage 9 the percentages in the sectors, mostly Monteaperti, The placement of the downhill in sector 1, 2, also if in sector 1 prolonging it by 1 km is really the right decision, if the method used in Strade Bianche isn't better. Stage 9 isn't only about the gravel (but also)
-stage 11 the last climb which is underdesigned
-stage 12 they changed the route,
-stage 18 last km 0 not 1
-stage 19 look at that annoying last climb on details again.

And look at the other, stuff written by a fantastic helper who was friendly enough to look the stages over.

Ok, I of course could design stage 18 now, as brilliantly proposed by Gipfel, to slap in the correct 0 in the last km instead of the wrong 1. Seems a stupid usage of resources.

[Hansa]

Boucles done.

Tried to use the same percentages as donkey last year for the same circuits, the first 2 circuits are different the number of circuits are different. the last circuit is 8.5km long thats why i added another flat km every 2nd loop. We miss some kms as the first 2 loops are 21kms according the the official site but 20 kms according to la flamme rouge and the 3 middle loops are 20.4 kms i did loops of 20 kms so we miss another 1.2 kms here.

[Hansa]

Can someone give me acces to Grand Prix du Morbihan from last year? i could edit it then but cant find it in the profile editor

i also can clone profiles from others. so even if i find it i cant edit it.

[Gipfelstuermer]

i also can clone profiles from others. so even if i find it i cant edit it.

You can or you can not ? ^^

I see that you saved it and it was published.

Giro > I will try to publish today. Probably late evening today or early morning tomorrow. Sorry that it wasn't possible earlier because or the problems with IS and also discussions around profiles and of course my personal time constraints too.

[Hansa]

You can or you can not ? ^^

I see that you saved it and it was published.

i cant.
Boucles is a different race then Grand Prix du Morbihan. Boucles i simply designed new because it had a bunch of changes, Grand Prix du Morbihan i would prefer editing the old profile.

But i can neither find it in the profile editor and also i cant clone profiles from others users so even if i would find it i cant work with it.

[Schartner Bombe]

GIRO 2025
Maybe it's written here somewhere, but I can't find it.
What points and time bonuses do we have this year? Uphill, flat, hill - finish ... intermediate sprints and koms ... SB Sprints

[Hansa]

GIRO 2025
Maybe it's written here somewhere, but I can't find it.
What points and time bonuses do we have this year? Uphill, flat, hill - finish ... intermediate sprints and koms ... SB Sprints

You can see this if you go to the calender and click on the Giro and there go to prizes.

Giro > I will try to publish today. Probably late evening today or early morning tomorrow. Sorry that it wasn't possible earlier because or the problems with IS and also discussions around profiles and of course my personal time constraints too.

I finally found this years regulations (https://www.giroditalia.it/wp-content/u ... 034859.pdf)

And there should be the following changes:

IS:
-No Bonusseconds on the Normal IS
- 12, 8, 5, 3, 1 Points on the IS
- 15, 8, 5, 3, 1 points at the Redbull kms
- 6, 4, 2 seconds time bonis on the redbull km.

Stage finish:
- Stage 13 and 14 should be considered Flat

GPM:
Stage 7 and 16 the GPM at the finish should be a Special GPM awarding 50, 24, 16, 9, 6, 4, 2, 1 Points.

[Schartner Bombe]

GIRO 2025
Maybe it's written here somewhere, but I can't find it.
What points and time bonuses do we have this year? Uphill, flat, hill - finish ... intermediate sprints and koms ... SB Sprints

You can see this if you go to the calender and click on the Giro and there go to prizes.

Giro > I will try to publish today. Probably late evening today or early morning tomorrow. Sorry that it wasn't possible earlier because or the problems with IS and also discussions around profiles and of course my personal time constraints too.

I finally found this years regulations (https://www.giroditalia.it/wp-content/u ... 034859.pdf)

And there should be the following changes:

IS:
-No Bonusseconds on the Normal IS
- 12, 8, 5, 3, 1 Points on the IS
- 15, 8, 5, 3, 1 points at the Redbull kms
- 6, 4, 2 seconds time bonis on the redbull km.

Stage finish:
- Stage 13 and 14 should be considered Flat

GPM:
Stage 7 and 16 the GPM at the finish should be a Special GPM awarding 50, 24, 16, 9, 6, 4, 2, 1 Points.

ah thanks Hansa - forgot that we have this nice calender

[Gipfelstuermer]

i cant.

But i can neither find it in the profile editor and also i cant clone profiles from others users so even if i would find it i cant work with it.

Ok... ehm... that actually shocks me because I thought we had solved that.

Do you get any errors messages or blank screens ?

[Hansa]

i cant.

But i can neither find it in the profile editor and also i cant clone profiles from others users so even if i would find it i cant work with it.

Ok... ehm... that actually shocks me because I thought we had solved that.

Do you get any errors messages or blank screens ?

I cant even click the clone button on my ownprofiles i can on other profiles it is "ausgegraut"

[Robyklebt]

Tested without saving, I can clone both my own and other designer's races. Only archived ones, maybe that's Hansa's problem?

Anyway: Search profile: Plumelec. Clone. Should work.

[Gipfelstuermer]

I can clone both my own and other designer's races

Good

Only archived ones,

Not good. But at least partially explains your unwillingness to redesign Giro stages.

Anyway, Giro published with lots of last minute changes. Some were implemented by OL and now some by me.

SB and HCC points will need to updated in the code to reflect correctly in the prizes tables. I plan to complete that later today.

[Hansa]

Tested without saving, I can clone both my own and other designer's races. Only archived ones, maybe that's Hansa's problem?

Anyway: Search profile: Plumelec. Clone. Should work.

Yes archived ones work thanks.

Anyway, Giro published with lots of last minute changes. Some were implemented by OL and now some by me.

SB and HCC points will need to updated in the code to reflect correctly in the prizes tables. I plan to complete that later today.

Can you give an update on my list which parts you already changed/ and which ones youplan on changing later? Otherwise i have do doublecheck it.

IS:
-No Bonusseconds on the Normal IS
- 12, 8, 5, 3, 1 Points on the IS
- 15, 8, 5, 3, 1 points at the Redbull kms
- 6, 4, 2 seconds time bonis on the redbull km.

Stage finish:
- Stage 13 and 14 should be considered Flat done

GPM:
Stage 7 and 16 the GPM at the finish should be a Special GPM awarding 50, 24, 16, 9, 6, 4, 2, 1 Points

Country:
- give our Giro an italian flag please^^

[team fl]

Yeah, we now ride the Albanian Giro d' Italia

[flockmastoR]

Yeah, we now ride the Albanian Giro d' Italia

corrected