May 2025

[Gipfelstuermer]

I see there is no Giro 2025 Thread in the "coordination and discussion important races" as it was the case for the former editions. Is that wanted or has just been overseen?

To clarify: In above question, "that" relates to the observation in the previous sentence that there is no Giro thread, yet. Therefore in my answer to the question ("it is neither wanted nor overseen") "it" also relates to the observation that there is no Giro thread, yet. To make it clearer, I should have written "that is neither wanted not overseen", or even better "That no Giro Thread exists, yet, is neither wanted nor overseen".

I still won't open a thread as neither (!) do I feel responsible nor do I need it necessarily.

Now, if you don't feel responsible for it, I respect that, and if you also don't necessarily need it, all seems fine, and we'll have a great Giro hopefully

[team fl]

(...) and we'll have a great Giro hopefully

That's the goal .

Now join the afternoon

[Robyklebt]

Giro 9-14-18-21
Then IMO there is a bit much parallel with the same times:
Yes I know that parallel races now are no problem anymore (they never turned out to be one in flash either, but there was the potential I was told), but it's still nice to have the other times represented, especially since possibly some of the non-Giro teams don't start the Giro because the starting time doesn't fit, if then the parallel stuff is again on that time....not ideal.

9h: 1 parallel, fits well, no problem. Doesn't have to be 0
14h: 4 of 8 one day races at 14 too. Plus a stage race. The plan on the 29th of course then is extreme... all at 14h
18h 3 of 8 1 day races parallel, seems quite a high percentage too
21: 5 of 8 and Norway as well, so the 29th the same super time for 21

Evening really should be little problem to spread it out, 22/23 for one day races and 22 for Norway too.
AFternoon maybe trickier, all 15 overdoing it, but 13 is usually actually surprisingly ok, and 16 can have the occasional race too.

[olmania]

not sure if we have the playerbase for 5 editions currently?

I would say yes. Maybe better to have a starterfield of 8 active teams, than a 10+ field with teams being off some stages, cause the starting time is not what they wanted, just the best they could find…

That's a good point. 4 or 5 times this year for Giro ?
The // program as it is now is not really attractive, especially with a week of fantasy races, and most of the real races in // are cat2 (except Dunkerque which is a kind of specialist tour). I'd believe that if the // stays this "un-attractive", Giro participation could be high !

I'd risk 5 times; as having a 5th time could also attract a few more teams; especially the ones riding the tours only/mainly + the few very active new players who are climbing the ladders of the game in the past few months !

[C.Pommes]

+1 for 15:00 for the afternoon giro

[ECS Cycling]

Romandie done:

[olmania]

Eschborn-Frankfurt looks very similar to last year. 3kms less. Maybe just 3kms less at the start; might also be a little difference around km120. Totally fine to use last year profile imo.

Boucles de l'Aulne - Châteaulin no info yet, should be the same as past year.

Tour du Finistère only 168kms this year, same final circuit. Will design it if I have time.

Grand Prix du Morbihan is the same.

Tro-Bro Léon : a few differences; a nice rating of gravel sectors is available now. Won"t be easy, but will re design if I have time.

Classique Dunkerque / Grand prix des Hauts de France : no details yet, only a map but will be hilly (light hill maybe). I could design from that map even if it's gonna take ages; might wait a bit to see if more details come.

[Bear]

I prefer 21:00 over 22:00 for Giro.

[cataracs]

1st draft :


About that stage : used the rule of 3kms of * before switching to ** for long sectors. last two short sectors are ** (as they are in strade bianche classic). final climb to siena is 6* like in the classic of March. There are less kms of gravel here than in reality as I had to remove gravel for steeper sections than -2. 4cat kom had to be put in the downhill in order to avoid the usual issue. Open to change/adapt it if needed.

km117,122, 132-133-134 are ** instead of * for the rule you followed.

[olmania]

1st draft :


About that stage : used the rule of 3kms of * before switching to ** for long sectors. last two short sectors are ** (as they are in strade bianche classic). final climb to siena is 6* like in the classic of March. There are less kms of gravel here than in reality as I had to remove gravel for steeper sections than -2. 4cat kom had to be put in the downhill in order to avoid the usual issue. Open to change/adapt it if needed.

km117,122, 132-133-134 are ** instead of * for the rule you followed.

This two 3 sectors are long. The downhill kms should be gravel too, but because of the pavé bug in downhill, they are ignored in the design; but in fact the secor is still gravel, that's why the kms following km116 (-7; which should be *) are ** and not starting again at * (it's the same sector; and the first 3 kms were * (114-115 + 116 ignored).
Same with 121 in -4, ignored when should be **; so 122 is still **. 128-138 same logic, with -8 being ignored when it should be continuous and **.
km139-148 : no problem as no more than -2.

I hope this explanation makes it clear and makes sense; designing according to the pave downhill bug.

[Robyklebt]

Of course the question remains the same as in 24. Do we design to simulate the race the best possible way, or do change a stage that in reality will have some, but not a huge influence on the race, into one of the most decisive ones?
Right now we're going for the second one.

[cataracs]

Of course the question remains the same as in 24. Do we design to simulate the race the best possible way, or do change a stage that in reality will have some, but not a huge influence on the race, into one of the most decisive ones?
Right now we're going for the second one.

Agree, the ** pavés influence is huge on climbres in the game. Should just be * max.

[drei.zehn]

Of course the question remains the same as in 24. Do we design to simulate the race the best possible way, or do change a stage that in reality will have some, but not a huge influence on the race, into one of the most decisive ones?
Right now we're going for the second one.

Agree, the ** pavés influence is huge on climbres in the game. Should just be * max.

Yes. 20 kms * is much lighter than 10kms ** for example

[cataracs]

14h Giro for me!

[Radunion]

Agree, the ** pavés influence is huge on climbres in the game. Should just be * max.

I disagree. Climbers are disadvantaged by flat finals and we do not change them either. The way climbers work is not realistic but it makes the game nice to play and this includes climbers and pave as well.

[Pokemon Club]

Agree, the ** pavés influence is huge on climbers in the game. Should just be * max.

I disagree. Climbers are disadvantaged by flat finals and we do not change them either. The way climbers work is not realistic but it makes the game nice to play and this includes climbers and pave as well.

Nothing is realistic as we have no Pogacar-like in game.
Some random climbers like Bardet already made good result bit they had good form and some skills for this kind of races.
For rsf a good climber with good paves will do nothing without a team anyway, and I don't remember we adapt paves for climbers during TDF no I see no reason to adapt white road for climbers during Giro.
If we use the same logic the adaptation to do is for the dirty road during Sestrieres stage

[Elaska]

Of course the question remains the same as in 24. Do we design to simulate the race the best possible way, or do change a stage that in reality will have some, but not a huge influence on the race, into one of the most decisive ones?
Right now we're going for the second one.

RSF has nothing to do with irl.
Then in this case we can start to discuss a lot of things to start with not making a single km 6% selective for fresh sprinters.... And this is just an example.

If we use the rule for strade bianche of 3 kms at * and next one at **, why do we want to change the rules now?

[Robyklebt]

RSF has nothing to do with irl.

Well, actually it has, we try to simulate the races as closely as possible. At least that's what we do in most races. And if it hadn't anything to do with irl, then let's just skip the days off, add some better stages and make sensible bonifications, 10-6-4 is idiotic, less difference between 2nd and 3rd than between 3rd and fourth... But no, c4f actually has something to do with reality.

Then in this case we can start to discuss a lot of things to start with not making a single km 6% selective for fresh sprinters.... And this is just an example.

No problem with discussing that. Just because something has been like it is, doesn't mean we can't change it. See Flanders, where a lot of things could be discussed. From downgrading Paterberg to 5% because it goes only up 48 meters, to upgrading Paterberg to 12% because that's the average gradient of these 400 meters. First idea makes more sense, but well, leaving it at 7 too. 12% no IMO. But we can discuss. Same for your 6%. NO more pavé there because it's just 400 meters is another option, a stupid one of course. As stupid as Gipfel insisting on having 200 meters of the easiest imaginable city pavé as a km at ** in the Giro in 2022. Because it's there! Can't ignore it! Like the 600 meters of asphalt in Flanders: Can't ignore it. Ok, not every idiocy needs to be discussed, that was just a little (and fully deserved) dig at Gipfel for that idiocy (his argumentation in the PNs then made this dig way too soft btw) But stuff that makes sense (like not having the easy pavé in tourangelle as **, but *) should be discussed. Same for your 6%.

If we use the rule for strade bianche of 3 kms at * and next one at **, why do we want to change the rules now?

Because
a) It's a different race. In Strade Bianche the goal was not to have it too climber friendly... now of course in reality there is a climbers win every year when Pogacar starts... but that's Pogacar. If he doesn't start it's not automatically a climber. Pidcock wasn't the best climber at the start when he won, and not the second best climber this year, etc. etc. That's why in the end we came up with this rule. The Giro is a different race, where we try to simulate a different outcome. One that will see much smaller gaps than the mountain stages. By making gravel harder we make it a much bigger GC stage than many of the mountain stages. Which simply is interpreting the gravel stage in a way that is contrary to what will happen in real life. Because we can't just interprete it as a one day race when it isn't. Same as we can't interprete the Paterberg without looking at what's around it. The rating is has now is also very much a comparison to the other hellingen in the race.

b) It's not like the solution for Strade Bianche actually works. It's one of the races we simulate the worst. And I really don't know how exactly to simulate it better, not just result wise but also action wise. Maybe go back to the 6 -1 finish? And anyway, is it better now than it was when we had another system, at one point we just had every x km it would be a **, then back to * . Is it better now? Doesn't really feel like it to me, none of the solutions, 6 -1 (we had that, but don't remember when) just ** few km, all ** after 3 km really worked so far. All kind of ok, but not really good. Ah, btw looking at this: https://gfstradebianche.it/en/gran-fondo-route/
I'd say Colle Pinzuto should be more like 7-2 than 6-3. But has been 6-3 at strade Bianche forever. Can't be changed?
Monteaperti on the other hand was 6 ** at Strade Bianche this year, and I suppose in previous years. Here at the Giro 5**. So we do some interpretations, it should be less steep now?

Next: It's gravel, not pavé.

Can you spot the difference between these pictures?



One is pavé, rated ** this year, so picture from this year. Used to be rated three, downgraded to ** by ASO now.

The other one is from Strade Bianche, no idea where.

Colle Pinzuto, one of our ** sectors at the end, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTY81-9ORn0&t=3112s

Again, what looks easier to ride, surface wise? I know which one I would prefer to ride on, which one looks more comfortable to ride. Even if that sector was *** like before, the gravel still doesn't looks 2/3 as hard, still * for me.