MSR

[Quick]

At least it would have been good, if leso told us before the form-planing that this might probably w happen. We have exactly the same race like the years before - with an other finish now...but same route. So...finally it makes no difference for me, but i was quite near losing the tirreno - and if i had seen this finish before, i would have given my best classics tirreno form... . For MSR they are now quite useless...well... winning the tirreno is good to, but i would be very pissed, if i lose it because i thought i have chances to win MSR.

And the thing with 8 riders is funny too...

[Robyklebt]

Why not change the course?

Not changing it just for the purpose of not changing it is not a good policy. No classic course is perfect. They can't be. And all can be improved, all should be improved. And if a different designer designs it, he, as the designer gets to make the final decision on thing that can be made in different ways.

Main changes this year:

Le Manie: not really decisive, I actually would put another version again, not the one from iBan 09, not the one from Aux 10. Far away, not really important.

Capo Berta 5 6 from 4 4 5. This one here is an improvement I believe. Of course it's basically impossible to get the right percentage from tracks4bikers, google earth and or the iBansystem there, on a fairly steep "hang" so nothing will be 100% precise plus la Gazzetta doesn't put up the detailed profile there. From the tests I did, and from designing Capo Berta before (Appennino or Laigueglia, don't remember which, or maybe something different too) I think this is a better solution for Capo Berta

Poggio: 4 4 3 3. No more 5. And that's ok too. Follow reality, you get 4 4 3 3. What iBan did in 09 wasn't wrong either. 5 4 2 3. Aux follows reality 100%, iBan tried to simulate it. With 4 at RSF you can't drop anybody. With 5 yes, and at MSR at the Poggio lots of riders are dropped. With 5 at RSF dropping is possible, but... it doesn't really happen anyway, unless somebody keeps a climber fit just for that, just for dropping a few 48-50 sprinters and dead flat riders. Don't think RSF MSR has ever been decided on the Poggio, except when a small escape managed to survive. So while I think both approaches are correct, maybe I would go for 4 4 3 3 too now. It is the precise %, the simulation doesn't work with 5 either, then might as well go back to the "real" percentages.


As for Quick... look at the profile before you claim your riders are useless now. This version is more classics friendly, Capo Berta, an addional 6, an addional possibility to drop guys who are not that good climbers.


So I see no problem at all in changing a course from year to year in details. Some stuff need to be improved. Capo Berta for example. Some stuff can be done in 2 or 3 different ways. the Poggio, the Cipressa.

Still, not really happy with Aux actually. From 1-10 I would give iBan a 8 last year. Aux a 4. Why? The biggest part is the refusal to explain and defend his choices. He really needs to do that, starting with POSTING his course here, which he didn't, and post the details of the course. Then if there is criticism, he needs to answer, maybe the criticism is wrong, maybe not, but the managers that care enough to look at the design deserve to know how and why something looks like it looks. The main criticism people had, the Cipressa has been corrected. But nobody really was told. The design itself is not bad, not brillant either, his mistake here IMO was designing too fast. Not using all the sources available, especially he mostly ignored the 09 version. If you do it from scratch, ok, but compare it to the old version, there he should have seen that the Turchino he designed was very different from 09. And rechecking it he would have seen that his version was wrong. Is the Turchino important? No. If it was a Giro stage, irrelevant. Too far from the goal, but here we have a race that we have every year, so we need to build on previous editions, improve it, like he did with the Capo Berta. And he could have with the Turchino, right now we have the salite.ch version I think, it's not perfect either, it's salite.ch after all... Roughly ok, but not perfect. The version we had at first was a step backward instead of an improvement on the Turchino. Then there is the problem that after Capo Cervo we don't go down enough, we stay too high (ok, that really only bothers anal Roby probably, can't sleep because of that almost...) and the addional unsourced +3 between Capo Berta and Cipressa bothers me too. That one actually almost counts as major change due to its location.

Aux actually can design well. You see that immediately if you check his courses. We had much worse races in the past. He is fairly precise and very fast. But for some races some people demand more than "fairly precise". He would be better off sacrificing parts of the speed. AND very important, explain his choices.

But back to the topic, no reason to keep the old courses just because we like them and are used to them.

[Pirkio]

for 2013, what version should we use? I liked a lot the 2011 one, where purnomo give to all the peloton 10 seconds in the end

[Robyklebt]

Ah, yes, the usual highlight of march. What course does MSR have this year, what new tunnels are discovered, up to the point to the man!
Can't wait to see this years masterpiece!

[Robyklebt]

Could we start the Milano Sanremo festivities early this year? Like in February?
Course is the same as since 2009..We can do the discussion now and know what version will come on when we put in the forms..

[Pokemon Club]

Let's start



For me looks we need a 6 4 5 5 2 2 for Cipressa, 5 4 3 2 for Poggio this year

[Allagen]

when do we see MSR???

[Pokemon Club]

when do we see MSR???

When we will know the definitive profil, so never.

[team fl]

Just because I wonder: Why has the Poggio profile changed again to a 4-4-3 (Pokemon/leso design) after it has been set as 5-4-4 (Pokemon design) last year after being 4-4-3 (Aux design) the year before?

[Robyklebt]

Agree: And not only the Poggio, the Cipressa too.
Cipressa right now goes up 200 meters, should be 230
Poggio doesn't go up enough either.
And I have some doubts about the last km at -1 too. Last 500 meter at 0, before that -0,8, that's 0,4 over the km.

[Robyklebt]

Here I am again.

Milano-Sanremo on. Same version as last year, clearly too late to change things now.
But would like to mention some things for 2019

Not completely happy with the Cipressa, just don't really see how whoever designed that version (it isn't signed) came up with that.
Poggio, 5-4-3-2, blah, not fully convincing either.
Disagree most with the -1 finish, just saw that I did that 3 years ago too. last km -0,4% average. That's a 0. And even if it was -0,6 average, but the last 500 meter flat, even then I would propose having it at 0. The sprint is at 0, not -1, and at RSF -1 has a strange effect in the sprint, it helps downhillers, which in reality it doesn't.

Anyway, just for 2019, unless I forget it.

[Robyklebt]

So, after years and years, RCS has finally managed to put up profiles for the Capi.. I usually check, maybe didn't last year, so possibly was there then too, but definitely this year.

And we are in trouble.
Capo Mele: 5-2 better, we have 4-3
Capo Cervo: 3-3 we have 4-2

But why trouble, it's irrelevant. Yes... But...

Capo Berta: 5.6%-7.1%. We have 5-5
Donkey long suspected that there was a 6 somewhere in Capo Berta. Never thought 6-7 though. Countless tries with tracking sites and google earth never really answered the question exactly.. even if now on plotaroute I got something close to this 6-7% reading. But not going to 130, only to 127. Readings on the steep coast often imprecise...

Anyway, what to do about this for 2027? Can the Gazzetta percentages be trusted? I say generally yes, so little reason to doubt them here.

Problem is that our 5-5 has actually simulated what happens there pretty much perfectly. Nothing. Unless UAE does the logical thing this year and tries to whittle down the peloton there, so that Del Toro and Christen will have less trouble starting the Cipressa in good position... Easier if the peloton is 60 riders than if it's 120... But 5-5 at c4f means nothing happens, maybe some weaker sprinters could be dropped if a climber or 80-70 tries, but nobody ever tries either. So nothing happens, exactly like in the real race. 10 km later everything explodes at the Cipressa, in reality since 2025 as well Before usually not much happened and then race went wild and somewhat selective on the Poggio. Before Pogacar usually some sort of sprint, since Pogacar less, but 24 still ended in a 12 man group sprint. C4f: Sprint, hill sprint. Classic sprint seems possible, but the teams with one usually end up being to careful not to do something for their chances... so are caught.
With a 6-7 or a even a compromise 5-7 the whole race at c4f would change completely. Flat sprinters becomes really really hard. Twice dropped in case they manage to come back after Capo Berta. Which is not guaranteed. Classics vs Hill sprinters from Capo Berta till the finish?

Anyway, everybody sees the issue I guess, ideas what to do for 2027? Better start discussing early, for 26 too late anyway (saw it sometimes early this week or late last week, was too late anyway) Follow the % reality or follow the "race reality" like until now? (We're not following race reality on Cipressa-Poggio anyway though)

[Alkworld]

Is that the one?
https://climbfinder.com/de/anstiege/cap ... ano-marina

That would indeed be a 6-7. Although I would really like to have that tomorrow, I agree that we shouldn't change it now, after some prepared for a year with the supposably wrong profile in mind. But for the future, I'm certainly pro fixing it, even though it'll change the race in C4F.

[flockmastoR]

Agree that it needs a fix for next year. Maybe more 5-7 than 6-7 if it can be backed by the information we have. Would in any case shift the battle from pure sprinters vs anybody else to really strong hill sprinters vs classics

[Alkworld]

Agree that it needs a fix for next year. Maybe more 5-7 than 6-7 if it can be backed by the information we have. Would in any case shift the battle from pure sprinters vs anybody else to really strong hill sprinters vs classics

Last real race ending with some kind of bunch sprint was 2021, so I guess it should be fine that the probability for such an outcome becomes lower in C4F as well.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Agree that it needs a fix for next year. Maybe more 5-7 than 6-7 if it can be backed by the information we have. Would in any case shift the battle from pure sprinters vs anybody else to really strong hill sprinters vs classics

Last real race ending with some kind of bunch sprint was 2021, so I guess it should be fine that the probability for such an outcome becomes lower in C4F as well.

Agree that mass sprint probability can be reduced in-game.

A bit odd to increase it via Capo Berta where in reality Cipressa and Poggio are more selective, even if that reflects true incline percentages.

But I don't know a better solution either and perhaps a Capo Berta sieb also increases Poggio attack success probability so it can be good change.

Important for 2027 team planning...

[drei.zehn]

We have no Pogi.

[Radunion]

It is an old issue. The riding style make those profiles hard not the profile, the distance matters as well If you have a this finish at the end of a 150 km stage it is probably a big group. We would need a bigger physics reform to fix this, but the fix could make it easier to win for the best rider. This would make the game more realistic, but less fun.

[Pokemon Club]

We have no Pogi.

+1
What happens in C4F is really realistic, the issue is Pogacar who sieb and attack and resist to peloton like a 90-90-90.
If it isn't that we always have hillsprinters vs sprinters in Cipressa and classics vs sprinters in Poggio.

[Robyklebt]

First time the Sanremo-site has the detailed profiles for Turchino to Capo Berta, until now it was just "ultimi chilometri" till the Cipressa. Look under percorso, then info tecniche then dettaglio salite.

Of course the rest can be re-discussed too:

Poggio: We have 5-4-4-1, which seems fine, yes the last 700 meters are 2%, but then we overdesign it be 10 meters, which wouldn't be tragic, only 700 meters, guess it sort of fits, even if a 2% somehow would be better, for the attacking classics... But IMO 5-4-4-1 here fits (and we poured over that many times, this has been available for a long time.)

Cipressa: The same, the profile was availabe and we discussed this at length in the past. 5.650km long, which creates the problem of where to put the 6%. There's 2 places that are possible, depending if we start counting from the bottom or from the top. From the bottom would be 6-4-5-5-2-1, (Last 650 meters technically steeper, we go up 21 meters, but then we overdesign by 10 meters, which of course we could) We at some point in the distant past thought it was better to have the km, that if taken from the bottom is split into 2 as the 6, it's the steepest full km of the Cipressa at 5.7, first km 5.6, and if I remember correctly was also done to increase sprinters chances to come back (that was before all sprinters realized they need to drop back a climber/classic to carry up their sprinter after the sieb.) We could change that the "from the bottom version", we could overdesign it by making the last km a 2

Capo Berta, see above biggest change, while a 6% always seemed likely, didn't expect a 7%. 5.6% and 7.1%, what do we do, this IMO is the biggest question we have after RCS finally gave us the info (other sites might have shown that earlier, but other sites often are not really correct (although thinking about it, probably improved a lot in the last 10 years, it used to be a bit hit and miss, different profiles from one site to another, often seemed like guessing at times (some like cyclingcols, I think a guy that rode the passes and posted his GPS readings seemed good, others not, nowadays probably more in the high quality tier))
Anyway, 6-7? 5-7 because the first km at 5.6% is almost a 5%? 5-6 to make it easier for our sprinters? 6-6? 5-5 to keep everything as it is?

Just a reminder how MSR is ridden in reality: Nothing happens till Capo Berta. That is ridden at a sustained, but not really hard pace, breaking some legs, dropping very few riders. Cipressa is ridden hard, eliminate weaker sprinters, break the legs of some of the others. Poggio: Attacks! Last 2 years were different of course.
Our way of riding was always different, decision in Cipressa and the flat part after, here we decide if it's a flat sprint or a hill sprint. Attacks on the Poggio... never successful? Ok, probably somewhere some year it worked... but don't remember. End result often was very much in line with what happens in reality, the way of getting there different.

By changing that we get even further away from reality, possibly also of the result. Is that good? Part of me says yes. While I still love MSR at c4f, a great course that has given us great races (and also amazingly horrible ones) that has simulated the incomparable expectation of fireworks that we have in the real MSR fantastically, it feels the most real monument because at c4f we ride exactly the same way until the finale, and we have the slow building of tension, the same feeling that we get when we see the peloton riding along the coast, ooh, what will happen soon, we have that same here, Everybody with a guy he thinks has a chance getting more and more nervous the closer the Cipressa gets, mintact from Capo Berta, which prolongs that already long approach even more, last minute doubts, losing confidence, gaining confidence, whatever. Perfect simulation. But... it has become a bit stale in other regards, a change wouldn't be bad. And well, there IS a 6-7 climb there, making that 5-5 feels wrong. 6.3% average, so 6-7 might be overdesigning it (slightly, 6.3 average, 6.5 for us), I would think 5-7 or 6 6 might be better? The only reason I can think of to keep it at 5-5 really is: No siebs in reality. But we are not following reality exactly anyway. And it gave us a cool 20 years or so of MSR (but we might have had a 6 once or twice years ago, see this thread)

Capo Cervo: 2.7-2.6 the 2 km, make that 3-3 and put it in the c4f Sanremo bible, never needs to be discussed further.
Capo Mele 4.6 then 3.4 for 500 meters then 0.0 for 250 tiny little uptick in the last 50... so 5-2 or could even be 5-1 Both works
Turchino: Find our version amazingly bad after seeing this. Annoying, it's very likely a Donkey version (ah yes, for those designers that always feel personally insulted and are then unable to have a normal discussion about the design, when the Donkey criticizes that... take note the Donkey is mostly criticizing his own design here, grow up crybabies) It's 1.5 km at 6.5 at the end... last km 6.45--- hm, ok, 6 4 as we have it can work but probably the last km at 6 is better? It's of course rather irrelevant. Could also be a 7% since it goes up 50 meters more after the 500meters at 6.8.. last 5 km at 2 1 2 5 6 seem better...

Last km from top of the Poggio, that stays as annoying as it ever was with 5.5 km (ok, changed sometimes when the finish was not in Via Roma) ... -5 -5 -4 -1 0, we lose 155 meters in reality, 150 here, seems fine. But since it's 5.5 km there's always possible changes... Looking from the goal the last 2 km would be 0, the one before -2, but then we have to either make it 6 km (possible) and -5 -5 -4 (would then be 160 meters) or overdesign the steeper part of the downhill... by a lot, -7 -6 -2 0 0. But somehow the version we have seems fine? Although overdesigning he downhill might help potential attackers? Taht seldom have a chance at c4f

But also think possible changes in the Cipressa and the downhill from the Poggio depend a bit on what we decide to do on the Capo Berta, that's the first issue.

[Schartner Bombe]

Was soll das? Du lullst uns voll mit deinen
Texten?
Keiner liest das? Geht das in drei Wörtern auch?

[Schartner Bombe]

Oder ist "Zusammenfassung" ein Wort des du ned verstehst?