cycling4freaks.com

Eikenberg 206 206
Eikenmolen 6 6
Guilleminlaan 3 3 1
Holstraat 5 5
Hotond 4 2
Katteberg 206 206
Kluisberg 7 7
Knokteberg/Cote de Trieu 7 7
Kruisberg(kruisstraat) het Volk 2 6
Kruisberg(kruisstraat) Zentrum 2 6
Leberg 6 6
Molenberg 207 107/105
Nieuwe Kwaremont 5 4
Nokereberg 204 204
Oude Kwaremont 306 303 306 304
Paterberg 206 206
Steenbekkendries (not full climb, dvv) 303 301
Taaienberg 206 206
Ten Bosse 6 6
Tiegemberg 5 2 5
Valkenberg 6 6
Wolvenberg 8 8

Just in case anybody all of the sudden wants to take over, here the hellingen that appeared in Het Volk, Dwars and Nokere Koerse and how they were rated by the ape in 2011 (bold) and by Aywaille in 2010.

Info from the same sources as always

http://www.crvv.be/nl/toerisme/hellingen-en-kasseien
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorie: ... elgi%C3%AB

Nokereberg maybe the strangest decision so far, 205 maybe better, but was in the mood for 204, same as Aywaille. Corrections welcome

Hellingen that weren't in the other races I've done so far.

La Houppe/Hoppeberg 1 6 4 4 6 2
Berg ten Stene 6 7
Boigneberg 5 6
Stationsberg 403 3 3 4
Kruisberg/Oude Kruiskens 106 6
Kapelberg 5 7

Some changes from Aywaille as you can see:

La Houppe, irrelevant, just to me looked more like this
Berg en Stene, average more 5 than 6, but a bit longer than 1 Km, so 6
Boigneberg 1 Km, 5,2 average
Stationsberg...It's part of Steenbeekendries, another climb, and it's part of Mariaborrestraat, a pavésection that obviously is a big mess. 4*according to the RVV site, but as usual they mention that the pavé are in good condition and the pics don't look so bad.... still put 4.
Kruisberg: This time taking the pavéstreet, oude something, who cares, then it's pavé, in the city so 106
Kapelberg: the infos say 7, but there is just no way that it's like that, all my measuring came to much less. plus not 700 meters long as is claimed on the E3 site (which sucks anyway, sometimes they have completely crazy stuff there) but longer... maybe a mix up with the Kappelleberg that is somewhere else, near Eikenberg or something? Anyway, 5, and that's being nice.

Info the usual wiki and RVV toerisme site plus E3

http://www.e3prijsvlaanderen.be/dut/~/P ... ELITE-2011

Here click on the mountain thingy in the profile and info, that is ok, the same as on the RVV site basically shows up.

http://www.e3-harelbeke.be/files/E3_parcour2011.pdf

This one has mostly fantasy-information on the Hellingen...

199 Km 202 Km officially, lost 3 km somewhere between the Tiegemberg and Harelbeke... no clue where, since that was the easiest part to find of the whole course... otherwise sometimes a bit early, sometimes late (more early than late..)

Km tact km 116. Guess you'll want another designer for 2012


Next: Gent-Wevelgem

Not happy with this one at all....

Info: Horrible. Their roadbood says 210 Km, their maps says 235. My measurement says 241.
The climbs: 16 climbs according to them Climb 3-6 fascinating ON the map it takes one route, and it's 5 climbs put into the route there... one is obviously a downhill. The roadbook takes a shortcut, then has 3 climbs in 3 km... but basically leaves out the first one according to the map... I followed the map, climb, down, climb, down. Baneberg and Rodeberg, Baneberg 300 meters, but ok, the way I see it it's just a part of the Rodeberg? No downhill there anyway, anywhere. So came out as 1 hill. The next hill, my favorite, Scherpenberg, a short faux plat, Wiki pages claim different things, but it's 1,2 KM a 2% (which of course doesn't really qualify as anything either) but it's just not there in this length. Kemmelberg, no clue, 2,5 Km? Or 3? much shorter, got 8%, took the easy way and copied Aywailles 309 from last year then. Even though it might have been a different road...
Next Monteberg: 1 km at 7,3 percent says wiki, no way.. I got something under 5... so 5 it is. It's just not 7%. IMO they don't climb the whole Monteberg, keep going straight and yes, it goes higher up, or turn left and actually use the Montebergstraat and it goes up even higher (higher than the climbybikeprofile claims as well. So they just don't take the monteberg just do the beginning of one side. 5.

NOt sure at all that the whole mess is a good design... but will check after De Panne if they changed some stuff, to make it clearer for poor RSF designers, won't start looking for the mysterious Baneberg for hours with their shitty info. It's probably that small road on top of the Rodeberg anyway, way do they claim it's before??? Idiots.

192 mintact

Complaints welcome as usual, but in this case wear some padding, might throw stuff at you.

I think you're doing a great job on this pave and hellingen races, to me they are just mistery, it's tough to measure all this short climbs into RSF format, for me even longer climbs bring difficulties, but getting this small monsters into races is a great job.

Thanks thanks, although I'm afraid you chose the wrong time, really not sure at all about Gent-Wevelgem... otherwise it's actually getting easier a bit now, practice.

Stage 1 "new" hellingen (meaning not apelized yet this year before De Panne (strontrennen)

Edelare 6 2 6 2
Rekelberg 5
Stuivenberg 4

Strontrit 2: The ultrastront part of strontvlaanderen again. Where the strange hills with no sense and logic are.

Mesenberg 4 a nothing basically, short, around 6%.. could have been a 3, made it look better at 4.
Monteberg followed immediately by Kemmelberg:

Monteberg 1240m 70up 5,65% then 332m 17down 5,12% Kemmelberg 362m 43up 11,88%

A mess... made Monteberg a 6. then put in an extra km, down, don't remember how much, then made the 362meters of the Kemmelberg a 6 too. So added a km in between. No pavé according to the dutch wikipedia.

The profile Aywaille posted last year of the MOnteberg. Imo a different approach or different summit, there is a Montebergstrontstaat too , somehow this monteberg though doesn't use it, maybe the summit (there is one) on the Montebergstraat is called Monteberg too? Anyway, for future generations of Vlaanders-Designers: When you see Monteberg, don't copy from earlier years, look what it is exactly.

Next idiocy: Rodeberg-Vidaigneberg:

Rodeberg ost (Rodebergstraat) 5
Vidaigneberg 1

The Aywailleprofile Rodeberg Ost is actually the "east route" from the north.. this one here just from the east. 5. Then on top it goes slightly down, then slightly up, we are on the Vidaigneberg. From the north it's a real hill, from here a joke. Put in the extrakm as well so that at least it's not in a downhill... but goes up 1%...

Still lost 3 km or so somewhere in this stage, otherwise was always very close to the real km given on the site, here somehow all of the sudden was 3 km off, then didn't change anymore.

3+4 nothing to say. complete stront of course.

PS: oh, forgot the a in stage 3a. will change it maybe...pff

Next Ronde, but won't start this week, now I take a few days off... ok ok, stupid Handsome Ape or something "classic", but nothing to do in this thread.

Mintact at 168, just before the Oude Kwaremont. Was nice, could be 152 before the Kruisberg as well. Will change it to there if too many people say 168 is too early! Designers choice, ha!

"New" Hellingen, meaning in no race so far this year:

Rekelberg nord 5
Kaperij (Bosgat 6
Koppenberg 409 408
Stekkendries/Mariaborrestaat 404 304
Muur von G. 409 308
Bosberg 206 206

bold 2011, behind the 2010 version
Both Koppenberg and Muur deserve a 9 IMO. We make short 500 hills steeper, if it's 500 meters a 9 percent which would be a km at 4,5% we make 6 or 7, so here the same. Koppenberg at 8 would have been ok, it's only 700 meters long, but with max up to 19%,... liked 9. Muur IMO at 8 simply wrong, it is a km long, average 9, if anything we could make it a 10, not an 8. 4 pavé at the Muur too now, maybe wrong, here you have the chance to get it back to 3

Generally, pavé harder than last year, used the RVV site system. Almost everything is a 3, so...

Consistency with the other races who used the same roads should be there, but not 100%, Haaghoek-Leberg combi, could have a 1km break in some races, don't remember, here it goes directly. Even though there are some 100 meters flat without pavé before the climb. Stuff like that. Generally not completely satisfied with the pavéstretches, basically took the percentages of every new measurement each time, so the same road in one race might be 401, in another 400.. but got tired of looking for consistency there too.

Will post the complete "hellingen" thing later.

2012

Het Volk basically done. But... street view now exists in Belgium! Gaurain, NoPik, iBan, go check and tell me how hard you think the different pavé sectors are! Yes yes, checked myself, just to see what others think.

Robyklebt wrote:2012

Het Volk basically done. But... street view now exists in Belgium! Gaurain, NoPik, iBan, go check and tell me how hard you think the different pavé sectors are! Yes yes, checked myself, just to see what others think.

Seems not everybody looks into this important forum yet, after it hasn't been in use for a couple of months. So let's move bring this one up again
(content wise I cannot help you, I can only distinguish pavé from non-pavé)

My hero Gaurain the only one who answered so far...

But ok, the big question in the end is: WHAT do you want?
flat pavé parts:
a) Use the classification on the RVV site if they are there
b) Use our own judgement?

If it's a) ok, easy. The "problem" though there is. Different organizer from PR obviously. "Same" scale I think, from 1-5 (or maybe only to 4?, then different scale) BUT, a **** in PR from pictures looks harder than a ****. Haaghoek for example, **** according to RVV, seems much easier than a **** from PR. Comparing pictures. So if ASO was organizing RVV I think Haaghoek wouldn't be a ****.

So what does the RSF user want? The RVV classification or one adapted a bit too "PR-Standard"?

Ok, finally kept the RVV system. Gaurain had completely different ratings in some places...So easiest to leave the pavé as it is. Even in the Hellingen, even there we mostly disagreed..

So minimal changes to last year, one more Hellingen in, cut 1 km at 4 (simply was too many I think) and one at * (one km of the Paddestraat Lipsomethingcombi)

HOU... Worse decision you've ever taken...Well, Haghoek 4-4 is really a joke!! SO Aremberg should be 7-7 or thing like that... Anyway, I didn't checked the Heilligen... + In my ratings, I took in account the lenght of the cobble part!

Well, nobody answers except you....

Haaghoek 4-4, yes, too much, agree. But that's what the RVV site gives it. There we almost would have agreed btw. Lippenhoeventhing to me is actually even worse at 3, that looks like a 1 in places...
And since we had quite big differences in places I finally went for the RVV site.

Hellingen, ok, that expains some of the things... thought it strange that Taienberg is so low, too me that looked more like a 3 than a 1.... short yes, but so is the hill itself basically.. Anyway, will send you my rating by PN.

Stop looking at it millimeter by millimeter, you will never find a solution, since there isn't any.
Juste make it as good as possible regarding the rsf physics and what SHOULD happen. Of course with approximately the good numbers But that's how you final decision should be made.

Btw are you really going to design all this stuff ?

Of course there is no perfect solution...

Still, why not try to make it as good as I can?
And yep, I'll probably do the whole shit this year too. REason nr 1: Did it last year. So won't spend as much time analyzing each "hellingen" as I did last year, should take me less than half the time this year. Somebody new does it, would review all the stuff 100% again, good to do it, I'm sure there is stuff that is not so good in it as well.. But save some time for everybody in the end.

Basically what iBan+Aywaille+me have done from 09-11 is analyzing and reanalyzing the hellingen. Mostly the climbing percentage. That IMO should be fairly "good" by now. Still of course we can discuss about almost any single one, but see above, since I will do it again this year, very likely not much will change in the percentages. If somebody disagrees with something say it anyway, corrections of course are possible. But what hasn't been done really is: Pavé. Last year I think street view wasn't there for those belgian shit roads yet. So all we had was some pictures and the RVV rating for the flat parts. Here btw http://www.crvv.be/nl/toerisme/hellingen-en-kasseien

The "job" for this year would be pavé. The flat ones, AND the ones in the climbs. With street view we have one important source more than a year ago. Right now many of the hellingen are just **, mostly because well, 2 seems ok, there is pavé, from the pics on the RVV site it doesn't look THAT terrible, let's make it 2... sort of a standard for many of the climbs. But very likely in some hills that are 2 now 3 would be better, in some 1, in some maybe 4 etc. So that's what in fact should be done this year. The problem: I don't trust myself to do this alone... so depends a bit on Gaurain too... if he's ready to check out all the hellingen til RVV and rate them (I'll do the same) ok, let's do it. If he doesn't have the time.. I just will leave most of the pavé like it was 11.

So anyway, Het Volk might still change, the pavé parts might change.

Robyklebt wrote:Still, why not try to make it as good as I can?

Because in case of indecision it's better to be close to the racefacts than close to a theoric perfection. Adding one pavé star will make it easier for flat riders on a berg. Is that good or not ? I dont know. Have fun

If somebody disagrees with something say it anyway

As if that would happen

Yes yes, let's have the discussion about theoretic perfection another time..

The question here is more: Is Haaghoek at 4-4 better than at 3-3 or 2-3? Should the Taienberg be **6 or *6 or ***6? Then we can talk about if it's theoretical or practical.

Chances that somebody says something?

Was thinking about 5 guys that might say something, one is already talking here!

Pavé in Het Volk

Haaghoek 3 3
Donderji 2
Holleweg 2 2
Paddestraat 1 2 2
Lippenhovenstraat 2
Lange Munte 1 2 2

Other pavé bits at 1

Hellingen: Same as 2010, changes:

Taaienberg 306 from 206
And one new one in, but forgot which one, doesn't matter will post the whole list sooner or later anyway.

Done, pavés changed together with Gaurain according to our analyses.
New hellingen Berendries (either forgot it last year or not in) : 7

Nokere Koerse basically done... waiting for Gaaaaaaaaauraaaaaaaaaaain...

Next E3

Nokere Koerse

New pavés as well, important, Nokereberg only *, not ** as in the last year after the awesome Roby RX analysis.

* is not supposed to be "urban and perfect" cobbles ? Is it "urban and perfect" cobbles here ?
Tell me more about your brilliant analysis

No, I'm done with "discussions"... I and Gaurain decide, the rest accepts, that's the way it is. And no explanations for anything either.

Chinese rules ...

E3 or Harelbeke

Same as usual, Gaurape pavé checks etc. the % of the hellingen mostly unchanged from 11, think updated Trieu to 8 from 7 this year (in the other races too), might not have mentioned that yet.. but then who cares.

Gent-Wevelgem, Kemmelberg 9**** as last year I think. Rest boring. Maybe let's ride fantasy races next year instead of this shit.