cycling4freaks.com

Zappes Raiders wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2026 12:35 pm

I have designed my first Race. Maybe someone can check
Its Heistse Pijl - I am not sure about the cobbles. I chose ** after checked it on Google Maps. The climb is 1 2
There seem to be no IS/KOM on the way

Zappes Raiders wrote: ↑

Mon May 18, 2026 11:47 am

I designed Tour de Wallonie - at least Stage 1 to 4 as it seems Stage 5 is not revealed yet. Will do it as well as soon as there is something available.









I used CAT3/4 instead of 1/2 as it seems to match the real classification better.
As they always use circuits in the final part of the stages the length slightly vary to match the real circuits as good as possible. The climbs are often steep but very short (~500m) so it is difficult to match the real climbs perfectly. I have tried to modiy it slightly in decisive parts to better match a short 11% climb in the final part of a race.

Zappes Raiders wrote: ↑

Wed May 20, 2026 2:54 pm

Falcor CC wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2026 12:56 pm

Zappes Raiders wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2026 12:35 pm

I have designed my first Race. Maybe someone can check
Its Heistse Pijl - I am not sure about the cobbles. I chose ** after checked it on Google Maps. The climb is 1 2
There seem to be no IS/KOM on the way

My hometown race! Looks great. Last 100ish km are all in Heist-op-den-Berg, the city. I would replace those labels with "Heistse Berg", the name of the actual climb. ** definitely works there, good that it is 2% in that case, cause a 3%** would make it unrealistically hard for the sprinters to hang on.

Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑

Thu May 21, 2026 11:34 am

Falcor CC wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2026 12:56 pm

Zappes Raiders wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2026 12:35 pm

I have designed my first Race. Maybe someone can check
Its Heistse Pijl - I am not sure about the cobbles. I chose ** after checked it on Google Maps. The climb is 1 2
There seem to be no IS/KOM on the way

My hometown race! Looks great. Last 100ish km are all in Heist-op-den-Berg, the city. I would replace those labels with "Heistse Berg", the name of the actual climb. ** definitely works there, good that it is 2% in that case, cause a 3%** would make it unrealistically hard for the sprinters to hang on.

Thanks for preparing this, Zappes.

One note, with real one day races, it is always good to compare with previous years, too:
- If the race is identical >>> You can reuse last year's profile
- If there are small changes >>> You can clone and adapt with small changes
- If there are big changes >>> New design needed
So here, six ascents of the Heistse Berg, same run-in, almost identical? But no KOMs this year - maybe there never were KOMs? You could be right.

Then with the Heistse Berg itself. I would be curious to know how you arrived at 1** 2**.

I was lazy and looked at last year's profile:
- Previously we had this as 3* only. Of course OK to change it if it makes sense
- How long is the Berg? Is it 2km or 1km? Have never been there, but I think it's actually around 1km?
- How much elevation gain has it? 32m according to la-flamme-rouge.
--> So to me it would point more to the +3 instead of +1 +2
For the pave:
- How long is the cobble section? According to la-flamme-rouge it's 500m. Correct?
- If that's correct, how rough are the cobbles? You seem to agree ** but if it's only 500m / not 1km, make it * only?

So probably I would keep it 3*
Now question, does it match what happens in real life? Last years' winners Magnier, Kristoff, Kooij. All basically pure sprinters? Now in-game multiple ** probably make it too hard for pure sprinters, especially with the last section shortly before finish. So I would probably keep it 3*. What do you think?

Falcor CC wrote: ↑

Thu May 21, 2026 11:49 am

Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑

Thu May 21, 2026 11:34 am

Falcor CC wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2026 12:56 pm

Zappes Raiders wrote: ↑

Fri May 15, 2026 12:35 pm

I have designed my first Race. Maybe someone can check
Its Heistse Pijl - I am not sure about the cobbles. I chose ** after checked it on Google Maps. The climb is 1 2
There seem to be no IS/KOM on the way

My hometown race! Looks great. Last 100ish km are all in Heist-op-den-Berg, the city. I would replace those labels with "Heistse Berg", the name of the actual climb. ** definitely works there, good that it is 2% in that case, cause a 3%** would make it unrealistically hard for the sprinters to hang on.

Thanks for preparing this, Zappes.

One note, with real one day races, it is always good to compare with previous years, too:
- If the race is identical >>> You can reuse last year's profile
- If there are small changes >>> You can clone and adapt with small changes
- If there are big changes >>> New design needed
So here, six ascents of the Heistse Berg, same run-in, almost identical? But no KOMs this year - maybe there never were KOMs? You could be right.

Then with the Heistse Berg itself. I would be curious to know how you arrived at 1** 2**.

I was lazy and looked at last year's profile:
- Previously we had this as 3* only. Of course OK to change it if it makes sense
- How long is the Berg? Is it 2km or 1km? Have never been there, but I think it's actually around 1km?
- How much elevation gain has it? 32m according to la-flamme-rouge.
--> So to me it would point more to the +3 instead of +1 +2
For the pave:
- How long is the cobble section? According to la-flamme-rouge it's 500m. Correct?
- If that's correct, how rough are the cobbles? You seem to agree ** but if it's only 500m / not 1km, make it * only?

So probably I would keep it 3*
Now question, does it match what happens in real life? Last years' winners Magnier, Kristoff, Kooij. All basically pure sprinters? Now in-game multiple ** probably make it too hard for pure sprinters, especially with the last section shortly before finish. So I would probably keep it 3*. What do you think?

Notes from my side: Heist-"on-the-mountain" is all uphill (and then downhill ofc). The climb itself isn't that steep gradient wise, so 2% would be fine for that km, 3 as well. I would keep the 1% the km before though, but now that you mention it, no cobbles there. The run up to the climb is definitely false flat, so 1% is fine, but the climb itself (max ~1km from whichever of the 6 sides) is the only place in the city where there's pavé .

In conclusion: 1% first km, then 2/3% next km both fine. No cobbles on the 1%, could be * or ** on the climb km depending on the designer. Agree it's for the sprinters, but the cobbles is definitely the hardest part about the climb, and they're not in good condition.

Zappes Raiders wrote: ↑

Mon May 18, 2026 11:47 am

I designed Tour de Wallonie - at least Stage 1 to 4 as it seems Stage 5 is not revealed yet. Will do it as well as soon as there is something available.









I used CAT3/4 instead of 1/2 as it seems to match the real classification better.
As they always use circuits in the final part of the stages the length slightly vary to match the real circuits as good as possible. The climbs are often steep but very short (~500m) so it is difficult to match the real climbs perfectly. I have tried to modiy it slightly in decisive parts to better match a short 11% climb in the final part of a race.

Nomorelulz wrote: ↑

Mon May 25, 2026 11:18 pm

Zappes Raiders wrote: ↑

Mon May 18, 2026 11:47 am

I designed Tour de Wallonie - at least Stage 1 to 4 as it seems Stage 5 is not revealed yet. Will do it as well as soon as there is something available.









I used CAT3/4 instead of 1/2 as it seems to match the real classification better.
As they always use circuits in the final part of the stages the length slightly vary to match the real circuits as good as possible. The climbs are often steep but very short (~500m) so it is difficult to match the real climbs perfectly. I have tried to modiy it slightly in decisive parts to better match a short 11% climb in the final part of a race.

Thanks for designing this tour, I just had a brief look at the first stage and was wondering how you designed the tour?

For example 1st stage: The end looks different to me if I look at the website to your design (-3 5 1)



--> its more like 4 1 at the end? and the dh part at the km before is a bit difficult (cause whole km would be flat but ofc it has dh inside of it).

and stage 2 you have (1 1 5) while the picture shows 3 0 3? (the last km at maximum is a 3 than a 5) and thats a major difference in c4f.




I think we need to review these stages

Zappes Raiders wrote: ↑

Tue May 26, 2026 10:08 am

Nomorelulz wrote: ↑

Mon May 25, 2026 11:18 pm

Zappes Raiders wrote: ↑

Mon May 18, 2026 11:47 am

I designed Tour de Wallonie - at least Stage 1 to 4 as it seems Stage 5 is not revealed yet. Will do it as well as soon as there is something available.









I used CAT3/4 instead of 1/2 as it seems to match the real classification better.
As they always use circuits in the final part of the stages the length slightly vary to match the real circuits as good as possible. The climbs are often steep but very short (~500m) so it is difficult to match the real climbs perfectly. I have tried to modiy it slightly in decisive parts to better match a short 11% climb in the final part of a race.

Thanks for designing this tour, I just had a brief look at the first stage and was wondering how you designed the tour?

For example 1st stage: The end looks different to me if I look at the website to your design (-3 5 1)



--> its more like 4 1 at the end? and the dh part at the km before is a bit difficult (cause whole km would be flat but ofc it has dh inside of it).

and stage 2 you have (1 1 5) while the picture shows 3 0 3? (the last km at maximum is a 3 than a 5) and thats a major difference in c4f.




I think we need to review these stages

For stage 2 you are totally right. I am not sure I think the final km profile was not available on the homepage at the time I designed and I made it solely based on the GPX. I will review this and change. 3 0 3 looks pretty accurate to me.

For Stage 1 I would say it is okay from my point of view. I checked it on the GPX and the start of the second last km is on 141m and start of last km is on 186 which means a gradient of 4,5%. Of course we could argue about 4 or 5 - I think when having a look on the total profile -3 5 1 makes sense as the climb of the second last km starts a few meters earlier already. So I think a 5 is more realistic here when we are between 4 and 5 anyways. Same for the -3 before. Of course it is a 0 if we only look at the start and end of the km. But to approximate the real profile I think -3 5 1 is realistic. Maybe someone else also want to review.

I have reviewed all other stage finals as well and I would not change anything as I think the c4f approximates the real profiles as best as possible with very short climbs.

I am happy for review and your opinions about it.