cycling4freaks.com

We still have no dirt road in RSF, but we can't put pavé on the Plan de Corones. Monte Paschi, Tro Bro Leon, Giro stage 6(?), Ok. But not on a mountain of a Giro stage. It would create wrong results.

not my fault if we do not have the dirt road, but the pave are 'more selective, so it more similar to the dirt!

No, they are not.

Reality: dirt road, climb. What happens? The differences get bigger, it's harder.

RSF: Pave, climb: What happens. The opposite. With ** as you plan a 85-60 with 60 Pavé wins LESS time to a 70-80 with 70 Pavé then if it would be paved. In reality it's the opposite.

So yes, not your fault that we don't have dirt road, it's Buhmann's fault of course , but your fault if you put in pavé which has the opposite effect from the effect that sterrato has.

The problem is that the value and pave the Joint!
Should be an absolute value by multiplying the slope!
But my mountain driver, never had problems with 2 * Pave!
I have always seen * und * little selective.

for me is the same, I did not Pave specialist team ...
no Pave, auxilium go better!!!!

However, without dirt, fatigue is not 'the same, those who are runners with great regeneration, the day could have more strength.
So is also distorted the GK

Who has a 65 reg. would have an advantage against those who have a 40 reg. with dirt

Why should we introduce dirt road for 5km in 3 years? That doesn't justify the effort, it's just unneccessary.

why not??

That's offtopic here. Go there for it viewtopic.php?f=3&t=72 .

As long as we don't have a solution for sterrato we can only discuss how to handle that few km to Kronplatz. And I tell you, if we ever get gravel roads introduced to RSF, it will probably not happen befor this year's Giro.

And since the gravel roads at steep mountain favour the climbers, we should leave out the cobbles in RSF, because that would favour the flat riders.
And if the weather would be so bad, that the gravel road became more difficult, they would cancel the stage or cut it down to where the unpaved roads begin, i guess

But my mountain driver, never had problems with 2 * Pave!
I have always seen * und * little selective.

You weren't there for Andes 08. And there we saw that it makes a big difference. Death road all with *. The difference between 85-60 and 70-80 got much much smaller. Instead of bigger as should be expected. Ask iBan who was there with a 7x-7x, not even a big pavé rider. Now with ** as you announce? Horror. A 76-80 with 71,6 pavé like Guggisberg might actually be stronger than a 89-58 with 55,8 pavé like Gamov. Maybe not stronger, but close. And in 2011 we might get the Finestre back, finally. (If not in 11, then 12, 13, but it will be back) With the 2010 precedent, dirt road = pavé oh, we make it pavé. What happens: Finestre-Sestrières, it will NOT be a climber that wins that stage. Finestre the "classic riders" are not dropped, downhill, flattish before the Sestrières climb start, who is basically very easy as well, after the downhill the classic riders go, and that's it. Or maybe one guy still rides for the climber, so he chases... and we have a 25 riders group at the finish. Not a good interpretation of the Finestre.

So 1) It changes with ** the classic riders are stronger than they should be. 5 km where the climbers should make the biggest difference become 5 km where they gain little or no time.
2) Follow the precedent (Giro 08, no pavé on Kronplatz) and not create a new bad precedent for the future, which is called Finestre.

auxilium torino wrote:for me is the same, I did not Pave specialist team ...
no Pave, auxilium go better!!!!

Don't care about that.

However, without dirt, fatigue is not 'the same, those who are runners with great regeneration, the day could have more strength.
So is also distorted the GK

Who has a 65 reg. would have an advantage against those who have a 40 reg. with dirt

Mmh, actually not a bad point. But it's a 13 Km TT. How much does 100% cost? On flat ones less than 20, 18-17 maybe. So here maybe 25 average? Just guessing, don't know. Would be: 325 energy gone. Nobody in regproblems. Ok, add the 5 km with Pavé? plus 5? 350, still everybody in reg. makes no difference at all. But ok, maybe it costs a bit more, 10 per pavékm... so all the riders with 35 reg are 25 under reg. Still no problem, the next stage starts very easy mostly downhill... starting with 975 wouldn't be a problem usually, you have enough time to get back to 1000. Probably even 950-960 would be no problem, you get back to 1000 before the first climb. So in the end here it doesn't really change much, the TT is to short to make anybody really suffer.
But, the partial times for the last 5 km will be completely off. 85 with 55 pavé and 60 TT risks being slower than 75 with 72 pavé. instead of much faster. Not good.

No pavé on the Kronplatz. Follow the precedent set by LCB in 2008.

so why not just let the pave section out of your profiles? as long as there is no good solution and pave only helps the classic riders and weakens the climbers its better just to let it asphalt road!

flockmastoR wrote:so why not just let the pave section out of your profiles? as long as there is no good solution and pave only helps the classic riders and weakens the climbers its better just to let it asphalt road!

although i might have some advantages with pave, i would suggest the same. leave the pave out of the profile, as simple as that.

Roby says the gap between the riders becomes bigger? Why not simulate this with higher %. Then not the real mountain anymore...but nearer to the real situation... don't know if you want that, or not...

i cant understand tis discussion

1. there is no pave !!!!!

2. everybody said that we should do it without pave

so let the pave out and all is ok


for me more important are the startinf times

yes..now it´s important that all the stages are ready and the starting-times are fix.if there is pave or not oder which pave ot something like that, is not as important as finish painting the stages

1 min/Km:186

1 min/Km:200

1 min/Km:108

1 min/Km:134

1 min/Km:161

1 min/Km:134

1 min/Km:164

1 min/Km:200

1 min/Km:210

1 min/Km:185