Classiques Belges

[Gipfelstuermer]

2x Baneberg 3 6
Kemmelberg from South-West: 3 8***
Kemmelberg from North: 1 7

[Robyklebt]

Mintact at 160

The hills and cobblestones: Basically only copied from the last years, no new analysis. Ok, now half way through, little analyis sometimes.. but when in doubt I just stick with my last analysis and ignore others (Jagerij is a good example why)

34-35: Paddestraat: It's a shorter version than often, and opposite direction than usually in the past. So -1** 0* (2** 1** usually)
51-52 Haaghoek -1*** 1***
53 Leberg 5
102-104 Lange Munte 1* 0** 0**
119-120 Haaghoek -1*** 1***
121 Leberg 5
128 Valkenberg 6
142 Eikenberg 6**
145 Wolvenberg 6
146-148 Hollestraat-Karel Martelstraat combination 2**0**-2*
150 Jagerj 0*
155 Molenberg 4**
159-160 Haaghoek -1*** 1***
161 Leberg 5
166 Berendries 7
168 Elverenberg/Vossehof 4
182 Mur 8****
186 Bosberg 6**

[Gipfelstuermer]

Boembeek 5 instead of Lepelstraat 1 5

Otherwise identical with 2024.


@RKL: Did you try to work on it and Editor didnt allow you? I saw some profiles created, but maybe there is a bug?

[Robyklebt]

@RKL: Did you try to work on it and Editor didnt allow you? I saw some profiles created, but maybe there is a bug?

Yes... see here:
http://www.radsportfreaks.de/RSFForum/v ... 00#p123500

Short version, you (as in "man") can't edit even the cloned profiles meaningfully unless they are originally by yourself. Can do stuff in the little container on the left until you save once. No copying, pasting and stuff at all.

[NBeullens]

I would consider that the thing on Bredene Koksijde classic wrong is. They first ride the Belvedere way and then the Ossuaire. The Ossuaire side is 100% more difficult then the Belvedere side. If u want to know some things about how to grade. I'm from belgium myself and whilst i may not have ridden anything outside of West-Flanders. I know a thing of two about it. Definetely about everything inside of West-Flanders

[Gipfelstuermer]

I would consider that the thing on Bredene Koksijde classic wrong is. They first ride the Belvedere way and then the Ossuaire. The Ossuaire side is 100% more difficult then the Belvedere side. If u want to know some things about how to grade. I'm from belgium myself and whilst i may not have ridden anything outside of West-Flanders. I know a thing of two about it. Definetely about everything inside of West-Flanders

Hi, that post up there is the 2024 version, not 2025. So, is 2025 same route as 2024? If no, what are the changes? If yes, which changes to the gradients do you suggest?

[NBeullens]

I would consider that the thing on Bredene Koksijde classic wrong is. They first ride the Belvedere way and then the Ossuaire. The Ossuaire side is 100% more difficult then the Belvedere side. If u want to know some things about how to grade. I'm from belgium myself and whilst i may not have ridden anything outside of West-Flanders. I know a thing of two about it. Definetely about everything inside of West-Flanders

Hi, that post up there is the 2024 version, not 2025. So, is 2025 same route as 2024? If no, what are the changes? If yes, which changes to the gradients do you suggest?

I don't think there are any chances but does somebody have a map where i can see the lap they do around the Kemmelberg itself to see if it is wrong or right the gradients

[Hansa]

I would consider that the thing on Bredene Koksijde classic wrong is. They first ride the Belvedere way and then the Ossuaire. The Ossuaire side is 100% more difficult then the Belvedere side. If u want to know some things about how to grade. I'm from belgium myself and whilst i may not have ridden anything outside of West-Flanders. I know a thing of two about it. Definetely about everything inside of West-Flanders

Hi, that post up there is the 2024 version, not 2025. So, is 2025 same route as 2024? If no, what are the changes? If yes, which changes to the gradients do you suggest?

I don't think there are any chances but does somebody have a map where i can see the lap they do around the Kemmelberg itself to see if it is wrong or right the gradients

https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/viewtrack/561521

check out here but this years profile is not avaible currently only last years

[NBeullens]

Okay so i watched back the official belgian broadcast of the race for a bit. Someone out it on youtube. And they do both the Belvedere (first) as the ossuaire (last) side.
I both rode those with my city bike (not a smart idea wouldnt recommend, ossuaire was to hard couldnt get over it). And i think it needs to be higher.

So i dont know about the belvedere side cause you first have a hill up but then just before the cobbles it goes down a bit. The cobbles themselves are 500 metres. They are pretty decent to ride on that's not the worst in the world and those 500 metres are somewhere between 10 and 11%. I dont know how that should translate into the game.

The ossuaire side is 100% harder and way misrepresented in this race (in the game). The entire hill is around 750m with an average gradient of 10.4 following Climbfinder. The thing is ± 530 metres (which the last 100 of are already 12+%) the cobbles start. Those ±220 metres are cobbled (about the same level cobbles as the other side) but are about 17 to 18% with the steepest 100m 21.1% and the steepest they say on the ground is 25/26. (They do say belvedere 24 but i dont know how or when, so dont believe it)

So Gipfel, i want to hear from you what you think should happen to the Kemmelberg with this new information. I dont know about the way they go to belvedere in Gent-Wevelgem so that downhill might be different. But for the Ossuaire on Gent-Wevelgem thos 750 metres do count but maybe not the first 250 of a km. So i dont know about Gent-Wevelgem but we could change it to whatever we get here together

[Gipfelstuermer]

So i dont know about the belvedere side cause you first have a hill up but then just before the cobbles it goes down a bit. The cobbles themselves are 500 metres. They are pretty decent to ride on that's not the worst in the world and those 500 metres are somewhere between 10 and 11%. I dont know how that should translate into the game.

The ossuaire side is 100% harder and way misrepresented in this race (in the game). The entire hill is around 750m with an average gradient of 10.4 following Climbfinder. The thing is ± 530 metres (which the last 100 of are already 12+%) the cobbles start. Those ±220 metres are cobbled (about the same level cobbles as the other side) but are about 17 to 18% with the steepest 100m 21.1% and the steepest they say on the ground is 25/26. (They do say belvedere 24 but i dont know how or when, so dont believe it)

So Gipfel, i want to hear from you what you think should happen to the Kemmelberg with this new information. I dont know about the way they go to belvedere in Gent-Wevelgem so that downhill might be different. But for the Ossuaire on Gent-Wevelgem thos 750 metres do count but maybe not the first 250 of a km. So i dont know about Gent-Wevelgem but we could change it to whatever we get here together

I'm getting totally confused about this.

I think what I called Kemmelberg from South-West, you call Belvedere side, and it is the same approach as in Gent-Wevelgem via Monteberg? Then it should be same percentages as in Gent-Wevelgem, where we have 6 -3 8***?

And I think what I called Kemmelberg from North, you call Ossuaire side, and it is also the same approach as in Gent-Wevelgem? Then it should be same percentages as in Gent-Wevelgem, where we have 10**?

But then you are saying Ossuaire is 100% harder than Belvedere? In terms of steepness or cobbles? 10 obviously not 100% harder than 8, but maybe ok? ** obviously less hard than ***, so that's what you mean? But you explain Belvedere is 500 metres between 10 and 11% vs. Ossuaire being 220m at 17%... so I see how in total Belvedere might still be harder because of the length of the sector....

If you have an opinion, just propose something. Now is the time

The gpx is online on their website now, btw, and it looks to me like 2025 is same route as 2024. So we only need to adjust percentages if you can confirm to me.

[NBeullens]

Okay I do think that the way the Gent-Wevelgem climbs are. I do not know if the few kms before the cobbles for Belvedere (South-West) are the same but that 8*** sound correct to me. Same with the Ossuaire (North) That side is named to the French military cemetery from WW1 on that side of the hill. Just before the cobbles you pass it. 10** sounds okay for me on paper.

I don't know who did the Gent-Wevelgem bit but it seems that guy did a good job. .

[Gipfelstuermer]

- New run-in, to Oudenaarde including Paddestraat 2** 1**
- New finish with a reversed circuit, makes the finish line 300m at +3% on cobbles according to LFR. I make it +2*.

[Gipfelstuermer]

With the Kemmelberg ratings from Gent Wevelgem.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Re-designed to get the correct length (no idea where they shortened it).



Same as last year.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Some changes vs. 24:

- Different route from Roeselare to Berchem (without Varent)
- Trieu-Hotond twice in same direction
- no Kanarieberg
- in total 5km shorter (in RSF only 4km)

[Gipfelstuermer]

This year start in Bruges.

So the first few difficulties are:

Oude Kwaremont 6*** 3***
Eikenberg 6**
Holleweg+Karel Martelstraat 2** 0** -2**
Jagerij 0*
Molenberg 4**
Paddestraat 2** 1**

After that, same final 70km as last year:

Berg Ten Houte 6**
Oude Kwaremont 6*** 3***
Paterberg 7**
Koppenberg 7****
Mariaborrestraat+Stationsberg 3*** -2***
Taaienberg 6**
Oude Kruisberg 3 6*
Oude Kwaremont 6*** 3***
Paterberg 7**

[Robyklebt]

E3



Same hills and pavé as last year, 2 exceptions:
Lippenhovenstaat in after Paddestraat
Eikenberg back instead of Ellestraat.
Mintact as last year on the Oude Kwaremont, this year 40 km from the goal, last year 43 or so.

Some minor changes in some other places, start, finish, between Kanarieberg and Kruisberg, so

33 Katteberg 5*
34-35 Holleweg 2** 1*
47-48 Paddestraat 2** 1**
49-50 Lippenhovestraat 0** -1* Paddestraat is 2.4 km, Lippenhovestraat 1.2, together 3.6, so made it 4 km, the last one only *.
88-90 La Houppe 2 4 6
98 Kanarieberg 8
105 Kruisberg 6**
114 Knokteberg 8
124 Kortekeer 7
129 Taaienberg 6**
136 Berg ten Stene 6
141 Boigneberg 5
147 Eikenberg 6**
152-153 Mariaborrestraat 2*** -2***
162 Kapelberg 5
166 Paterberg 7**
170-171 Oude Kwaremont 6*** 3***
178 Karnemelkbeekstraat 6
185-186 Varent 0* 1*
189 Tiegemberg 5

[Gipfelstuermer]

Changed section from Aywaille (km23) to Vielsalm (km149), with

Côte de Saint-Roch +11
Col de Haussire +5 +8 +6 +10

Last 100km identical with the recent past.

@RKL: On Fleche Wallone, there seem to be two changes: 1) different start is manageable but 2) change to the circuit is for experts... Do you have time for that perhaps?

[Robyklebt]

Yes yes... I can do the Flèche. Before the change of month should be early enough though.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Technical stuff: What Tukh was saying a bit is that the Paterberg somehow "destroys" the pavé guys. True in a way. Make it harder pavé? Make it softer mountain. Problem is that in reality that stupid hill is short, very short, but tough, possible to make differences there. Not sure what should, could be changed there. 7** ... what's better? Last year though our afternoon ended up with a 5 man group in the end, (From the peloton) so not sure what went differently this time exactly. EAsier race earlier maybe one thing? Worse classics? Or stealth changes in the calculation (again?) somehow? No idea. Let's assume it was the way we raced.

Really difficult to say what the right solution is. It's just completely different to the real race where a rider that is dropped on the Kwaremont a few km before doesn't magically close an almost 10s gap again. I had a tiny hope to keep ahead of the classics still, which would have created a perfect situation for a small group to go through, but in the end not enough and then the win was pretty much gone. Maybe I should have tried an attack just before Banane and Fortuny went into tempo, but mostly likely everyone hangs or I get caught again

Adding it here, if you want to discuss further.

My thoughts:

The good old Paterberg. +7** in C4F. Does it require discussion after this year's RVV? This year many big groups arrived, whilst in reality we had a solo winner, again, for the third year in a row. However, in my memory, the usual C4F arrival is more like a 3-5 man group (not 20), and that fits well to what we've been seen in reality pre-2023.... so is this year in C4F simply an outlier in one direction and the last 3 real editions were outliers in the other direction? Also, climbs should be consistent, and not changed every year. Otherwise the game isn't reliable for transfer/form planning. However, if we are really convinced that it's not correctly represented, we should probably at least be open to discussion.

So: Paterberg in reality is how much? 400m? Max. 20% but average... 13%? If that's correct, purely based on elevation gain one could argue +7 is too much. Strictly speaking, it is 0.4*13% = 5.2%? So it's easy to argue for +6 and one could even argue to round down to +5. Then the pavé ** is probably a good representation based on its length and surface? Even though with the steepness one could argue it somehow has a different effect... Potentially favoring riders who produce the necessary torque in seated position? So some sort of hill-pavé specialists instead of the currently favored classics? The argument in favor for classics would be that very steep sections, albeit very short in this case, should favor climbers and the way this Pogacar rides up there could underpin that position, if we qualify him as a climber (although he is more of an absolute allrounder). So probably anything between +5*** and +7** can be argued for... I really don't like changing it after years and years, but if we can find a better representation, it can be done. But certainly any change needs better arguments than my small analysis here. Hopefully someone has strong counter-arguments

[cataracs]

RVV is in favor of strong pavés riders for sure. Changing the Paterberg will 200% kill the classics.

[Radunion]

I do not think it is bad the way it is. If there is a early fight between classics and pave specialists a smaller group is more likely. You could also argue that bigger groups often sprint for places further behind in the real race and we just have a more evenly matched field in the game. Team tactics are more important as well which improves the game experience and makes in much easier to beat the best rider compared with real life.

What else, we have nothing that makes those super-long races harder in the game. In fact they favor bigger groups as the helpers can do less damage. But a big physics is unlikely, so I will not think too much about this.

[Gipfelstuermer]

New start (Beersel) and new route, consisting out of

Alsemberg 3
Bruine Put 6
Beerselberg 5
Bruine Put 6
Eigenbrakelsesteenweg 4
Chemin dit le Bois 4
Rue François Dubois (La Hulpe) 4
Holstheide 5

Otherwise, same circuit as previously, but only 3x

In total makes it a relatively short classic of just above 160km.

[Tukhtahuaev]

I would not really agree that RVV favours strong pavé riders over classics atm, at least if classics have a decent pavé value themselves. There really are not that many opportunities to hurt them in this race. The question is if you actually want classics with only decent pavé value to be able to have good chances to win.
In the end I'm not sure if there is really a need to "fix" this race or if it is just my personal preference and disappointment that I don't find one of my favourite real life races that enjoyable to ride ingame

[Bear]

I think we should keep it the way we design RVV and stay the same style we had it all the years.

Since 2009 my personal memory is that a lot of classic riders with good sprint skill won RVV most of the years. But with more classics with 75+ pavé skill and more 60-85 with 80+ pavé skill, it changed a bit.

So I think it's not too bad right now. It just needs a hard race. I dont know if there once was a rider winning both, PR and RVV, but I think with our current riders and designing it's possible, which is similar to real life.