We can replace Azencross with Gavere, makes it 26th instead of 29th Dec, so that's an easy change and we rode Gavere before, so an old profile available too.NBeullens wrote: ↑Tue Sep 02, 2025 1:32 pmAzencross (Loenhout): Loenhout as one of the prestigious ones? Yeah right no. Atmosphere is good but the fields are kinda weak (men was okay 2024 but women was straight ass, nothing against Imogen Wolff though
Let's start with how I used to create these races
1.) Studied the videos of each course (can be found on youtube or cyclocross24.com)
2.) Noted down the difficulties (steep ramps, mud, deep sand) and general "profile" (very hilly or average)
3.) Designed the .gpx just to see how long a course is approximately (rounding up to 3, 4 or 5km)
4.) Came up with a circuit for each course, but I had a "limit" trying not to make it too extreme. The limit was max. +3% and max. ** pavé.
4b.) For World Championships I made a special rule being max. +4% and max. *** pavé because back then the World Championships liked to be suuuper hard (Ostende with the ramp and the sand or Fayetteville with the super long stairs), but maybe now that isn't the case anymore. World Championships don't always have "special hard" features.
Now that approach wasn't perfect, lots of discussions about how it could be more realistic, i.e. a better simulation of these races, without going total extreme/crazy. I mean, putting ***** in every circuit would somehow be realistic as to how difficult the obstacles are, but then the circuit would be only for pure pavé riders and perhaps even too predictable because you don't have to attack and sieb is enough to get rid of your opponents, whereas in reality in these races you have to attack, too, I think. In my view in reality you see some "attacking" action to get rid of the opponents (even if the attacking sometimes happens as early as lap 1 or lap 2). Amateurs like you and me, yeah, we'd be happy to survive the course. But to differentiate the pros from each other (which is what we simulate here) I think some attacking action is realistic.
So, to conclude, I still think a "limit" is necessary to have an exciting race in C4F with various possible outcomes. So what I suggest would be to raise the pavé limit from ** to *** (which we had in WC before anyway, so it's not a monster change) and perhaps to raise the uphill limit from +3% to +5%. I don't think they ever have 50m elevation gain in these races because the hills are ultra short, but to make it more selective, going a bit steeper is a valid option (without making mountain skill too important for these races.
So perhaps if you agree to a limit of *** and +5%, we can look at each race course and adjust the circuit, also according to your comments on each course. Your insights are super helpful to keep a differentiation between the races and then each course should be different to keep the races interesting.
i am really surprised by some of the things i see here. I should look at the hills for the percentages but the cobbles just seem a bit crazy to me.