cycling4freaks.com

Discussion already started in the Editor Chat. So better to move it here.

Who has time to design it?

I already checked the classifications. All unchanged from last year. (Perhaps we can even implement the 8-5-2 bonus seconds along the route.)

Green:
Maximum amounts of points: 50 – 30 – 20 – 18 – 16 – 14 – 12 – 10 – 8 – 7 – 6 – 5 – 4 – 3 – 2
Medium amount of points: 30 – 25 – 22 – 19 – 17 – 15 – 13 – 11 – 9 – 7 – 6 – 5 – 4 – 3 – 2
Minimum amount of points: 20 – 17 – 15 – 13 – 11 – 10 – 9 – 8 – 7 – 6 – 5 – 4 – 3 – 2 – 1
Amount of points in intermediate sprints: 20 – 17 – 15 – 13 – 11 – 10 – 9 – 8 – 7 – 6 – 5 – 4 – 3 – 2 – 1


Polka dot:
The distribution of points in the Tour is as follows:
HC-category: 20 – 15 – 12 – 10 – 8 – 6 – 4 – 2
1st-category: 10 – 8 – 6 – 4 – 2 – 1
2nd-category: 5 – 3 – 2 – 1
3rd-category: 2 – 1
4th-category: 1

https://www.cyclingstage.com/tour-de-fr ... ification/

Bonus seconds:
NO bonus seconds at IS or KOMs.
10-6-4 at the finish line on each stage.
8-5-2 at some selected points during some selected stages ! (@Alk: Can we implement that already?)

I can design a bit, but not as much as I did for the Giro

I should be able to design some stages if info/details are available early enough !

The important info I started to discuss on calendar chat :

We need to discuss how to do the gravel sections on the TDF. I think the sectors will be quite short.
Switching to ** after 3kms of * does not seem really appropriate as IRL it might be truly selective.

We have no knowledge/experience of these sectors in previous races. Even if I personnaly rode some similar sectors nearby, I have no clue how it will be for pro riders going full speed I just assume it will be quite/very selective.

I'd go for all ** as I always already doing 10 years ago when designing fantasy races on selective gravel paths (execpt for the ones that seem really easy/kinda paved after checking it; then * is fine).

My general opinion is that ** after 3kms of * is not a good option for the gravel paths of that TDF because of the lenght of the sectors, its potential selectiveness (is that even a word !?) and the fact that * is kinda useless for selection / energy loss.

The idea to put 3km of * and afterwards ** was introduced by Poke some years ago for Strade Bianche, and it has become the consensus for gravel sectors.

However, no rule without exceptions:
1) Even in Strade Bianche, there are exceptions. Colle Pinzuto and Le Tolfe are both ** even though they are shorter than 3km, because it is well known that are selective and often decisive for the race.
2) In Tro-Bro Leon, the organizers provide ratings (* or ** or ***) of the different gravel sectors, and then we use them for designing (* or **).

I don't know anything about the sectors of this year's TDF stage. Will ASO provide ratings of the different sectors? Have they ever been used before in a bike race?

All I found so far are some comments and footage from World Tour teams recons:

Cycling Weekly: Tom Pidcock and Laurens De Plus test 'challenging' Tour de France gravel ahead of 2024

Team Visma Lease A Bike: In the meantime in Troyes: exploring de Tour de France gravel stage

Cycling Up To Date: VIDEO: PRIMOZ ROGLIC SPOTTED RECONNING TOUR DE FRANCE GRAVEL STAGE

Probably best solution would be ASO ratings, but I doubt we will get some. There is hardly any info on the website yet... or am I looking in the wrong place? Normally would expect them to have profiles and maps and everything by now... la-flamme-rouge has all profiles already, though, but don't know how precise they are.

You are right, we lack info and previous history of these sectors as they were never ridden pro.
About flamme rouge profiles, I don't know where they had the full routes, but I'd be super cautious about it. I often spot route mistakes on flamme rouge. Last big one I saw was on the pavé stage of Dunkerque, their route was 100% on road, not a single pavé sector was taken

The interesting info on flamme rouge is the lenght of the sectors. If these are right, it means that only 3sectors are >3kms, which means we'd get in RSF only 3kms of ** for the whole stage ! To me its non sense to have only 3 possible "sieb" on these sectors, so I'd prefer to see an exception here, sector by sector if needed/prefered.

Of course there are not complete street view of these paths, but sometimes you can find a view of the beginning of the sector, f.e here's a view of 5 of the 6 first sectors I could find (I could keep the work like that for all sectors if wanted) :
Knowing that the entrance of gravel paths are often 'cleaner' than the rest of the sector; also knowing that these are only one pic and not representative of all sector ofc.

(click to see it full size)

I'm for an exception too.

All * regardless of length.

Because while something "might" happen, most likely it will be like pavé 22, Strade Bianche 24, Only thing happening in pavé 22 in the end was crashes and flat tires. No time gains, losses due to anything else. What happened a few days ago in the Giro? Nothing at all this time, not even crashes and flat tires that resulted in time losses.

With ** we GUARANTEE (well, almost, depends a bit where exactly these ** would be) time differences at c4f, while in reality we stay at ..... might. At c4f we would make it the stage where differences between climbers would be most likely the biggest, while in reality that surely won't be the case. As usual discussion not necessary, I'm right and that's it, you'll see it after the stage. But feel free to have the unnecessary discussion and come to the wrong conclusion anyway.

olmania wrote: ↑

Tue May 14, 2024 10:15 am

You are right, we lack info and previous history of these sectors as they were never ridden pro.
About flamme rouge profiles, I don't know where they had the full routes, but I'd be super cautious about it. I often spot route mistakes on flamme rouge. Last big one I saw was on the pavé stage of Dunkerque, their route was 100% on road, not a single pavé sector was taken

The interesting info on flamme rouge is the lenght of the sectors. If these are right, it means that only 3sectors are >3kms, which means we'd get in RSF only 3kms of ** for the whole stage ! To me its non sense to have only 3 possible "sieb" on these sectors, so I'd prefer to see an exception here, sector by sector if needed/prefered.

I'm with you OL.
I asked my rider Stian - what he said: "It's a key stage, even in reality. The real Tour 2024 is supposedly designed so that several types of riders have a chance in the GC, and the best Le Tour all-rounder wins. In my opinion the stage should play a role for the GC in rsf."

In reality there is a lot of stress there because of the gravel - falls, defects, dirt on your face... it's getting harder and harder ... so I think we should simulate this

but not with all *

This Gravel (if its like on the pics) is not a real challenge for pro riders nowadays. Especially this normal wide gravel roads. You dont need to be a specialist to ride fast. If it goes uphill its another thing. But for this the gameplay works with *. So imo * is totally fine for these sectors.

Gipfelstuermer wrote: ↑

Mon May 13, 2024 11:09 am

8-5-2 at some selected points during some selected stages ! (@Alk: Can we implement that already?)

Technically, it would be possible, but lots of changes required
- display in profile
- display in profile picture
- defining race rules
- handle it in race editor
- race calculation
- race report
- testing (to avoid it failing in the race)

I'll have a closer look at it and let you know.

Is it possible to build the first two stages next days?

Bugatti wrote: ↑

Mon May 27, 2024 10:27 am

Is it possible to build the first two stages next days?

Try here: https://www.letour.fr/de/etappe-2

i found that too, but there is stage 1 profil missing

Bugatti wrote: ↑

Mon May 27, 2024 5:24 pm

i found that too, but there is stage 1 profil missing

https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/vie ... 899f050d4a

but you need a free account there

I have no clue about those gravel sectors in reality, but I would tend to vote to keep the current consensus. Exception for making them harder, expection for making them easier, I think there is no foundation for both, just speculation.

If the ASO provides ratings, we have a new fountation for discussion.

Although for me it would be better to make them harder, yesterdays Race shows that downhill pave/Gravel is buggy. So at least downhill it should Not be more than * imo.

ASO published lots of details for the tour, including all profiles for all stages and btw also ratings for the gravel sectors.

I take a look at google maps, but you only can see the start and the beginning. The streetview car dont like theses "streets" for me it look like very good gravel ways. Not to hard to ride, maybe difficulter for defects and accidents, but not much harder to ride. So 1* looks fine for me, i personally prefer more, but only for the game. The 3* difficult things from ASO maybe could be 2*, there are some holes, but dont know, if the streets look like this way, when the Tour comes here.

Maybe we need a task force to take a look there? Some guys who wants to make a journey?

First draft of stage 1 is here. I had to register it as a one day race, if you design next stage, add it after that one and change the ruleset

Also, midrace the route from la flamme rouge was wrong, I had to redesign it manually. so don't forget to double check the route on the official website if you download the GPX from flamme rouge.



other stages I designed :

olmania wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 03, 2024 10:24 pm

First draft of stage 1 is here. I had to register it as a one day race, if you design next stage, add it after that one and change the ruleset

Also, midrace the route from la flamme rouge was wrong, I had to redesign it manually. so don't forget to double check the route on the official website if you download the GPX from flamme rouge.

i did stage 2 today:



i couldnt save after adding it to the OL one so i created he new one as Tour de France and added Ols design there.

I'll start from stage 21 soon

flockmastoR wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2024 2:25 pm

I have no clue about those gravel sectors in reality, but I would tend to vote to keep the current consensus. Exception for making them harder, expection for making them easier, I think there is no foundation for both, just speculation.

If the ASO provides ratings, we have a new fountation for discussion.

soo we now have aso ratings, but as i never designed any classics or anything else with aso gravel ratings i have no clue how these ratings translate to our game.

is the aso rating the same 1-5 rating we use so we take the aso rating like it is or is it a different scale?

Hansa wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 05, 2024 12:28 pm

flockmastoR wrote: ↑

Tue May 28, 2024 2:25 pm

If the ASO provides ratings, we have a new fountation for discussion.

is the aso rating the same 1-5 rating we use so we take the aso rating like it is or is it a different scale?

Normally gravel in-game is max **

So for example, in Tro-Bro Léon * becomes * and **/*** become ** (no ***)

As you already designed quite a bit here (thanks for being so fast !), is it ok in the coming weeks I look at the climbs / % you designed and I send you PM (or message here, what do you prefer) if I have suggestions for updates ?