April 2026

[Robyklebt]

- let the new teams ride the classics - there might be lots of big cycling fans among the new teams and they sure wouldn't want to ride Rund um den Misthaufen when there is LBL

Sort of agree, but feel insulted by the dig at "Rund um den Misthaufen". The one I designed loooong time ago was a great race. Long term though think having newcomers ride a parallel program like in the old days isn't wrong, even better. Earn your spot. Special circumstances, special rules, agree.

- offer at least some editions of the classics only to Div 1 - 5

IMO all or nothing. All separate, or all mixed. Reason is "fairness". For oldies as much as newcomers. For oldies: With splits, we risk having either some oldies stuck in field 2. Worst case is 1 vs 15 newcomers, the oldie will be bored to death. Normally win (ok, put me there, want to know if I manage to fail... actually now tempted to be the one in group 2) But even if it's 5 of them... somehow could be a bit frustrating because it's just a 5 team race then. Then a traditional split, 11 or more oldies in field 2 sounds more appealing. For newcomers the opposite, a few could end up in group 1, 15 veterans and 3 newcomers? Horrible for the newcomers. Or a group 2 with 8+8, the ones that are lucky enough to land in group 3 will have more fun. Now having all times open or restricted is better, then at least the "fairness between times" kind of stays. Not some times with only veterans, not some other times with the 1 veteran vs newcomers, or x veterans vs 1 newcomer risk. That btw counts not only for the weekend classics. Which one is better, all open or all restricted and separate.. don't know. Maybe I'd be for all separate (hm, restriction by eternal points possible, fast short term programming? because otherwise we still have T-Mobile-A or so there) just to avoid frustrating one with unlucky splits, be in newcomer or veteran.

- offer a few editions for Div 6 every day (depending on how many teams stay active)

Now agree.

[Tukhtahuaev]

Too lazy to create the race now, but profiles for Romandie ready

I few comments after a quick check:

Prolog (stage 1): last km has 5.4%
stage 2: laps look ok, but last km is 0 not 1
stage 3: Laps are fine, per km detailed finish (Vuillens) show 5.8-6.3-4.2 (you have 4-7-4-3), last km +1 looks ok, the -3 before less (but didn't check in detail, just from seeing the detailed last 5 km picture)
stage 4: tricky to design but the overlapping parts look ok and are only end of the downhill part+flat
stage 5: tricky back and forth, but the end (133-end) should be the same rout as (41-you get it), it looks wrong in the end which is more important as the first pass, still like it more if same rout has same incline. Additionally the first 22 km are -1* the km from 41-63, didn't check but looks different too (maybe less important as downhill, but still)

My info come from the Tour de Romandie pdfs+ detailed view on LFR

Got my info from the same source, but the pdf from Romandie homepage definitely with some conflicting information.

Prologue: I see 5.8% from km 2.0-3.0 and then a slightly downhill final 200m. Open to different interpretations of course, but liked the 6 as final km more as it fits the climb itself better imo. But as compensation for the extra downhill +5 is also a possible interpretation

Stage 2: The pdf actually has conflicting information there. In the itinerary at the bottom of the pdf I get about +0.7% for the final km and since the gpx also gives me about the same, I decided on +1 for the final km

Stage 3: Where do you get those 5.8-6.3-4.2 numbers from? From the gpx I get 3.2 7.0 4.1 3.2 -3.5 1.1 for the final 6km. The 3.2 is adjusted to a 4 because the km starts with a short part from the downhill that I assigned to the previous km still.

Stage 5: You are right there. I only made sure that the end is -1* the start of the stage, but forgot to also adjust the part starting from km 41. I will correct that later

[flockmastoR]

Too lazy to create the race now, but profiles for Romandie ready

I few comments after a quick check:

Prolog (stage 1): last km has 5.4%
stage 2: laps look ok, but last km is 0 not 1
stage 3: Laps are fine, per km detailed finish (Vuillens) show 5.8-6.3-4.2 (you have 4-7-4-3), last km +1 looks ok, the -3 before less (but didn't check in detail, just from seeing the detailed last 5 km picture)
stage 4: tricky to design but the overlapping parts look ok and are only end of the downhill part+flat
stage 5: tricky back and forth, but the end (133-end) should be the same rout as (41-you get it), it looks wrong in the end which is more important as the first pass, still like it more if same rout has same incline. Additionally the first 22 km are -1* the km from 41-63, didn't check but looks different too (maybe less important as downhill, but still)

My info come from the Tour de Romandie pdfs+ detailed view on LFR

Got my info from the same source, but the pdf from Romandie homepage definitely with some conflicting information.

Prologue: I see 5.8% from km 2.0-3.0 and then a slightly downhill final 200m. Open to different interpretations of course, but liked the 6 as final km more as it fits the climb itself better imo. But as compensation for the extra downhill +5 is also a possible interpretation

Stage 2: The pdf actually has conflicting information there. In the itinerary at the bottom of the pdf I get about +0.7% for the final km and since the gpx also gives me about the same, I decided on +1 for the final km

Stage 3: Where do you get those 5.8-6.3-4.2 numbers from? From the gpx I get 3.2 7.0 4.1 3.2 -3.5 1.1 for the final 6km. The 3.2 is adjusted to a 4 because the km starts with a short part from the downhill that I assigned to the previous km still.

Stage 5: You are right there. I only made sure that the end is -1* the start of the stage, but forgot to also adjust the part starting from km 41. I will correct that later

Its from LFR, there are detailed informations per 0.5km with the GPX file. I checked for some other races and found that info the most precise (compared to redesign of the climb from top reversely) + the altitude info matches the official numbers mostly

Prolog: yes interpretation, didn't check the climb in detail just summarize this: https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/vie ... 25?climb=1, okay now I checked and the end looks really steep

Stage 2: here it is really 0 based on official information, it inclines for 10m in the 2 km before, for me it looks like +0.5, +0.5, 0 Just check the image of the last 3 km in the pdf (455m Rue du Léman 3km to go, 470m Flamme Rouge, 471m MARTIGNY) that's crystal clear 0 IMO

Stage 3: https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/vie ... 26?climb=7

Climbs are always interpretation, but the +1 is simply wrong and has the biggest influence, imo the +7 at the Vuillens is also wrong having a great impact, the per km values of the climb (last 3.1km) are those that I posted, it has a very short passage with steeper (approx. 7%) in it (in the link you can adjust per 500m, per 100m etc)

Thanks for considering the feedback!

[Tukhtahuaev]

Its from LFR, there are detailed informations per 0.5km with the GPX file. I checked for some other races and found that info the most precise (compared to redesign of the climb from top reversely) + the altitude info matches the official numbers mostly

Prolog: yes interpretation, didn't check the climb in detail just summarize this: https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/vie ... 25?climb=1, okay now I checked and the end looks really steep

Stage 2: here it is really 0 based on official information, it inclines for 10m in the 2 km before, for me it looks like +0.5, +0.5, 0 Just check the image of the last 3 km in the pdf (455m Rue du Léman 3km to go, 470m Flamme Rouge, 471m MARTIGNY) that's crystal clear 0 IMO

Stage 3: https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/vie ... 26?climb=7

Climbs are always interpretation, but the +1 is simply wrong and has the biggest influence, imo the +7 at the Vuillens is also wrong having a great impact, the per km values of the climb (last 3.1km) are those that I posted, it has a very short passage with steeper (approx. 7%) in it (in the link you can adjust per 500m, per 100m etc)

Thanks for considering the feedback!

Never realised I could do all that stuff with LFR. That helps a lot

Stage 2: This is the conflicting information I am talking about. I saw the final 3km picture, but also the stuff below that says something different. Because I was not sure which info to trust here. Because of that I decided to go with the option that looks true to what I get from the gpx


Stage 3: If i compare the positioning of the GPM from LFR and the official pdf it explains a bit. LFR has it about 400m earlier. I actually positioned the GPM a bit too late, which creates 2 very different interpretations of how the climb looks. I will definitely check this one again.

[Gipfelstuermer]

- offer at least some editions of the classics only to Div 1 - 5

IMO all or nothing. All separate, or all mixed. Reason is "fairness".

I absolutely agree with RKL.

I'm pausing my role as calendar planner as long as the planned calendar gets overwritten.

[Alkworld]

- offer at least some editions of the classics only to Div 1 - 5

IMO all or nothing. All separate, or all mixed. Reason is "fairness".

I absolutely agree with RKL.

Question to both of you (and everyone else), what's your preference:
- Strictly separated classic editions or all mixed + additional Div 6 races?
My preference would be separated editions for cat 5 and 6 one-day races and Giro (if that question is still relevant in two weeks)

I'm pausing my role as calendar planner as long as the planned calendar gets overwritten.

Until Tuesday evening, I would have understood that, but the situation changed (slightly ).
If we want to offer more of the new teams the possibility to ride, we need to offer additional races (i.e. timeslots) now. If you have time for that, feel free to take part in the planning for it, but meanwhile I jumped in and added races (implemented a script first, then ran it) to fill the gaps between the already planned races. I also started the discussion for the races in a few days. The faster we get a decision there, the smoother it will be. E.g. the two additional timeslots today look pretty fine regarding participation at least partially because they were available yesterday.

[Hansa]

My opinion.

Make the classics open, and offer kat 1 fantasy race for D6+

[Gipfelstuermer]

Question to both of you (and everyone else), what's your preference:
- Strictly separated classic editions or all mixed + additional Div 6 races?

For me clearly all mixed + additional Div 6 races.

Why?
1.) As written, cycling fans will want to ride the big races. Better to let newcomers ride LBL in field 2 (or even 3) than to ban them from riding it at all.
2.) Classics are usually very specialized (long races / difficult profiles). So offer some easy fantasy races (short / less difficult profile) for those newcomers who might prefer such race. (I.e. There is IMO no point in offering Brabant or Amstel as Div6 only. Instead, offer additional fantasy races.)

Until Tuesday evening, I would have understood that, but the situation changed (slightly ).

I'm serious. If it's emergency and I don't reply, OK, no problem, good that someone else is active. But there is no emergency (splits are working without bugs and even without performance issues) and I reply reasonably quickly (here, pn, whatsapp,...). So in that case it just undermines my work to overwrite things. Now we have people signed up for a Cat4-Classic, Div6 only, at odd times. This reduces the quality of winning it, it raises unrealistic expectations for the future und it creates uncertainty about the future calendar.

[flockmastoR]

Its from LFR, there are detailed informations per 0.5km with the GPX file. I checked for some other races and found that info the most precise (compared to redesign of the climb from top reversely) + the altitude info matches the official numbers mostly

Prolog: yes interpretation, didn't check the climb in detail just summarize this: https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/vie ... 25?climb=1, okay now I checked and the end looks really steep

Stage 2: here it is really 0 based on official information, it inclines for 10m in the 2 km before, for me it looks like +0.5, +0.5, 0 Just check the image of the last 3 km in the pdf (455m Rue du Léman 3km to go, 470m Flamme Rouge, 471m MARTIGNY) that's crystal clear 0 IMO

Stage 3: https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/vie ... 26?climb=7

Climbs are always interpretation, but the +1 is simply wrong and has the biggest influence, imo the +7 at the Vuillens is also wrong having a great impact, the per km values of the climb (last 3.1km) are those that I posted, it has a very short passage with steeper (approx. 7%) in it (in the link you can adjust per 500m, per 100m etc)

Thanks for considering the feedback!

Never realised I could do all that stuff with LFR. That helps a lot

Stage 2: This is the conflicting information I am talking about. I saw the final 3km picture, but also the stuff below that says something different. Because I was not sure which info to trust here. Because of that I decided to go with the option that looks true to what I get from the gpx


Stage 3: If i compare the positioning of the GPM from LFR and the official pdf it explains a bit. LFR has it about 400m earlier. I actually positioned the GPM a bit too late, which creates 2 very different interpretations of how the climb looks. I will definitely check this one again.

I see now for stage 2. didn't realize they also show the height in the roadbook. OK

about the tools on LFR? don't know, just restarted some designing a month ago and discovered it. It's pretty usefull imo

[flockmastoR]

Even if I might regret saying so: Let them ride the classics.

(Favorites will love that trick)

[schappy]

I am still against Div6 races, if we have splits, its nothing bad in my opinion, so so have div 6 races witthout making div 6 races, and classics should be available, most of them looks really interested in Cycling. So if a Amstel Gold race in RL is on a day and they can not ride them, it will be not the best for them.

[Falcor CC]

I am still against Div6 races, if we have splits, its nothing bad in my opinion, so so have div 6 races witthout making div 6 races, and classics should be available, most of them looks really interested in Cycling. So if a Amstel Gold race in RL is on a day and they can not ride them, it will be not the best for them.

Completely agree. Besides, as of now the rookies with the most points will end up in field 1, which is fine, at least they have 3-4 races under their belt already and gained the most points of all new teams. The other D6 teams seems to get a split anyway, and I think they rather have a fun fight with a chance to win a classic in a field 2 than to ride a parallel race...