Classiques Belges

[Alkworld]

I dont know if there once was a rider winning both, PR and RVV

Hugo Scheichelbauer and JesusRafael Soto (if I didn't miss anyone)

[team fl]

As it has not been designed yet: Omloop has some minor changes and is around 10 km longer. Infos available here:

- https://www.omloophetnieuwsblad.be/en/r ... /race-info

and a good overview about the changes here:

- https://www.cyclingnews.com/pro-cycling ... rg-remain/

The race, as ever, will begin in the famous 't Kuipke velodrome in Gent and, for the most part, take on the same roads, cobbled sectors, and Flandrien bergs as it did in 2025.

Eight cobbled sectors fill the route along with 12 hills, including the Leberg, Eikenberg, Wolvenberg, and Molenberg. Much of the route, up to the final ascent of Leberg and Berendries at 174km into the race, will remain similar to last year.

A major change earlier in the race includes the removal of the Valkenberg and the addition of two ascents of the Eikenberg. After Berendries, the Elverenberg is also out.

From there, the peloton will race to Brakel, home of Peter van Petegem, and tackle two additional climbs before heading to the final. The hills of Tenbosse and Parikeberg provide additional challenges before the final one-two punch of the Muur van Geraardsbergen and Bosberg, and the 11.8km flat run to the finish line.

[Gipfelstuermer]

New difficulties compared to last year:
2x Eikenberg 6**
Tenbosse 5
Parikeberg 5

Not 100% sure about classification of those. Tenbosse could be 4 but was even 6 in the past in some races, so opted for 5.

[Falcor CC]

Not 100% sure about classification of those. Tenbosse could be 4 but was even 6 in the past in some races, so opted for 5.

Just depends what you prefer, it's a .5km 6% avg climb. So 6% if you want to just have the climb that km, 3-5% more 'realistic' for a whole km.

[team fl]

Not 100% sure about classification of those. Tenbosse could be 4 but was even 6 in the past in some races, so opted for 5.

- Eikenberg: https://climbfinder.com/de/anstiege/eikenberg
6% looks fine for 1 km and the fact that it gets as steep as 9.4% on its steepest parts. Was a 6% with ** last year as well

- Tenbosse: https://climbfinder.com/de/anstiege/tenbosse
Hardly half a km long, 6.2% on average. Technically it would be 3.1% for the km. But looking at max. 8.2% steepness, 5% seems fine. Could argue for a 4% as well.

- Parikeberg: https://climbfinder.com/de/anstiege/parikeberg
800m long, 4.4 % on average, 8.4% on the steepest part. Longer than Tenbosse, but only around 350m with more than 5%. So both hills at 5% looks like a good compromise. I guess Tenbosse is more "kurz und knackig" while Parikeberg has a bit of "acclimation" before the steepest part.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Lepelstraat 1 5 instead of Boembeek 5.

Otherwise identical with 2025.

[team fl]

Copy from the March 2026 thread:

Anyway, to be productive as hell today, here some infos for E3 and Gent Wevelgem:

E3 Harelbeke:
- The 2026 profile is not the same as 2025. It has been made tougher and modified. The 2026 route includes a second ascent of the Oude Kwaremont (for a total of two) and two ascents of the E3-Col (Karnemelkbeekstraat), making the final more challenging, according to information from Cyclingnews
- The race still remains a 208.5-kilometer route starting and finishing in Harelbeke.

-> GPX-File can be found here: https://www.e3saxoclassic.be/cycling-ra ... d-tour-men

Gent-Wevelgem:
- slightly new route: starts in Middelkerke and finishes on Vanackerestraat in Wevelgem. (cyclingnews.com. first 70 km are different (with no impact for us though, as cross winds don't play a role in the game), finish is the same.
- race is 240.8 kilometers long.

-> couldn't find a GPX-File so far.

[Tukhtahuaev]

If no one else does, I will try to design E3. Could probably have it done by tomorrow

[Gipfelstuermer]

If no one else does, I will try to design E3. Could probably have it done by tomorrow

That would be super helpful, Tukh.

[Falcor CC]

I think I stumbled upon the gpx of Gent-Wevelgem - In Flander Fields here: https://www.touretappe.nl/in-flanders-f ... -iff-2026/. I have imported it into the designer and will link it to the stage, add labels etc, but could use some help with how hard the pavé is considered. Will work work on it in the coming hours.

[Gipfelstuermer]

I think I stumbled upon the gpx of Gent-Wevelgem - In Flander Fields here: https://www.touretappe.nl/in-flanders-f ... -iff-2026/. I have imported it into the designer and will link it to the stage, add labels etc, but could use some help with how hard the pavé is considered. Will work work on it in the coming hours.

Cool. Thank you.

For the hills and pave sections, the old profiles and/or a quick search in the forum can help to find how they were rated in the past. (see also Design Guide)

[team fl]

https://steenstraat.pro/index.html might help as well for the pavé parts.

[Falcor CC]

I think I stumbled upon the gpx of Gent-Wevelgem - In Flander Fields here: https://www.touretappe.nl/in-flanders-f ... -iff-2026/. I have imported it into the designer and will link it to the stage, add labels etc, but could use some help with how hard the pavé is considered. Will work work on it in the coming hours.

Cool. Thank you.

For the hills and pave sections, the old profiles and/or a quick search in the forum can help to find how they were rated in the past. (see also Design Guide)

Scherpenberg: last year not mentioned on the rsf profile, barely a hill too. Came out as 2-2 from the gpx, climbfinder profile shows 1-3, so used that (1.2km climb, last km is 3% avg). Took the label out as well, the 'climb is on km135 and again on km191.

Baneberg: Last year 2-6, opted for 2-7 here, depends on how you round off.

Monteberg-Kemmelberg: Last year 6,-3,8***. Need to find something for this year, gpx seems to say way less steep. Will edit it in later.

Kemmelberg (3rd passage, from another side) last year 10**, don't know where that came from for a 900m 9.1% climb. Now 9**.

Plugstreets - last year 3* - -2*, 0*, 0*. Seems to be the same this year. Light gravel, will keep it like that for now.

Any feedback? Linking it to the profile as I post this.

[Robyklebt]

Another good resource is the dutch wikipedia btw

Hier the Kemmelberg, which probably isn't of much use in this case, but for other "hellingen" and "kasseien" it's often quite good. UPs, changed the link to the overview, Kemmelberg seemed unhelpful anyway, So overview now
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorie ... Vlaanderen

Why the Kemmelberg is too steep at c4f: Generally we very often overdesign it, if we don't we end up with stuff that doesn't really make sense. Paterberg at 5* or so. If I remember correctly that side of the Kemmelberg after the Monteberg is very short and steep... overdesigned for sure. And probably close to 1 km too long, Monteberg-Downhill-Kemmelberg is way less than 3km (if I remember correctly) As for specifics why it is like it is, might find something in this thread here, maybe just the numbers without explanation though. As with everything can be changed of course.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Monteberg-Kemmelberg: Last year 6,-3,8***. Need to find something for this year, gpx seems to say way less steep. Will edit it in later.

Beullens and me discussed that last year, his conclusion was:

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. .

[team fl]

other gpx-file maybe to check: https://cdn.cyclingstage.com/images/in- ... route.gpxs

[Falcor CC]

Monteberg-Kemmelberg: Last year 6,-3,8***. Need to find something for this year, gpx seems to say way less steep. Will edit it in later.

Beullens and me discussed that last year, his conclusion was:

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. .

Helps a lot. Based on the gpx I found the exact route they take on the Monteberg-Kemmelberg passages.
Monteberg part: 1.6km 3.6% avg. First km 5% avg exactly, then it flattens out (1% on the last 600m)
Then 300m downhill (-4% avg), followed by 300m uphill (+-3%), being the Monteberg in reverse, the uphill part is actually the downhill part from the Eastside reversed.
Kemmelberg part: 500m 10% avg. It is the last 500m from the climb starting from the East side, even though they start the Monteberg from the West.

My proposal: 5% first km, pretty clear first part Monteberg. -3% second km, combining 600m à 1% and 300m à -4%. Third km hardest. Average would be around 8% over a full km, divided into 300m à 3%, 500m à 10% and 200m of ignored flat (so actually average lower). Would either go 8% or 10%, depending on how much we want the Kemmelberg to be factored in that km. Set it for 8*** now.

Additional note: seems like the cobbles on the last passage are in a worse state than the first 2 passages, so 8/10*** for the first 2 and 9** for the last passage seems fine.

[Tukhtahuaev]

Faster than expected since most of the final part seems to be identical to last year. Feel free to point out any mistakes I may have made

[team fl]

Kapelberg is 77m while the Paterberg is 65m (where the road goes, not the highest point) according to La FlammeRouge. In your profile though, the Paterberg is clearly higher. but I guess that's due to overdesigning?

Rest looks fine to me. And thanks for the work!

[Tukhtahuaev]

Yes. I think Paterberg is the same as last year's RVV and E3 like this

[Falcor CC]

Can't overdesign enough for those walls. As far as slope goes anything under 10% kinda does the Paterberg (and the same goes for the Koppenberg) injustice. I get it because it's so short, but the slope being just 1% higher than the Oude Kwaremont feels wrong somehow.

[Robyklebt]

2 OUde Kwaremonts this year, the first one is a "new" Oude Kwaremont it seems, starts from a slightly different place than usual.
That's the 4 3*** at km 123-124, would be nice to note that here in the thread, so future designers have a reference.

Also ideally all the hills, what km, what % and cobbles. if things change again next year, easier to see it for the designer. Ok, not absolutely necessary, and some work, so no need to do that (If you don't mind I might do it myself later today or tomorrow, just as info for next year) but writing if you changed any of the hill ratings would be good, just the changes and new things mentioned can make designing in the future much easier. (Even for yourself actually)

[Tukhtahuaev]

I think only the new side of the Oude Kwaremont (4 3***) is new this year. All other hills already there last year, just in different order. As it was a rather quick design, I decided to not change any of the climbs

[NBeullens]

Monteberg-Kemmelberg: Last year 6,-3,8***. Need to find something for this year, gpx seems to say way less steep. Will edit it in later.

Beullens and me discussed that last year, his conclusion was:

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. .

Helps a lot. Based on the gpx I found the exact route they take on the Monteberg-Kemmelberg passages.
Monteberg part: 1.6km 3.6% avg. First km 5% avg exactly, then it flattens out (1% on the last 600m)
Then 300m downhill (-4% avg), followed by 300m uphill (+-3%), being the Monteberg in reverse, the uphill part is actually the downhill part from the Eastside reversed.
Kemmelberg part: 500m 10% avg. It is the last 500m from the climb starting from the East side, even though they start the Monteberg from the West.

My proposal: 5% first km, pretty clear first part Monteberg. -3% second km, combining 600m à 1% and 300m à -4%. Third km hardest. Average would be around 8% over a full km, divided into 300m à 3%, 500m à 10% and 200m of ignored flat (so actually average lower). Would either go 8% or 10%, depending on how much we want the Kemmelberg to be factored in that km. Set it for 8*** now.

Additional note: seems like the cobbles on the last passage are in a worse state than the first 2 passages, so 8/10*** for the first 2 and 9** for the last passage seems fine.

So can someone now just tell me what the percentages are for the kemmelberg both sides? cause what does he mean with 8/10*** (and i guess ossuaire gets downgraded to 9**)

[Falcor CC]

Monteberg-Kemmelberg: Last year 6,-3,8***. Need to find something for this year, gpx seems to say way less steep. Will edit it in later.

Beullens and me discussed that last year, his conclusion was:

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. .

Helps a lot. Based on the gpx I found the exact route they take on the Monteberg-Kemmelberg passages.
Monteberg part: 1.6km 3.6% avg. First km 5% avg exactly, then it flattens out (1% on the last 600m)
Then 300m downhill (-4% avg), followed by 300m uphill (+-3%), being the Monteberg in reverse, the uphill part is actually the downhill part from the Eastside reversed.
Kemmelberg part: 500m 10% avg. It is the last 500m from the climb starting from the East side, even though they start the Monteberg from the West.

My proposal: 5% first km, pretty clear first part Monteberg. -3% second km, combining 600m à 1% and 300m à -4%. Third km hardest. Average would be around 8% over a full km, divided into 300m à 3%, 500m à 10% and 200m of ignored flat (so actually average lower). Would either go 8% or 10%, depending on how much we want the Kemmelberg to be factored in that km. Set it for 8*** now.

Additional note: seems like the cobbles on the last passage are in a worse state than the first 2 passages, so 8/10*** for the first 2 and 9** for the last passage seems fine.

So can someone now just tell me what the percentages are for the kemmelberg both sides? cause what does he mean with 8/10*** (and i guess ossuaire gets downgraded to 9**)

Belvedere 8***, Ossuaire 9**