April 2026

[Robyklebt]

- let the new teams ride the classics - there might be lots of big cycling fans among the new teams and they sure wouldn't want to ride Rund um den Misthaufen when there is LBL

Sort of agree, but feel insulted by the dig at "Rund um den Misthaufen". The one I designed loooong time ago was a great race. Long term though think having newcomers ride a parallel program like in the old days isn't wrong, even better. Earn your spot. Special circumstances, special rules, agree.

- offer at least some editions of the classics only to Div 1 - 5

IMO all or nothing. All separate, or all mixed. Reason is "fairness". For oldies as much as newcomers. For oldies: With splits, we risk having either some oldies stuck in field 2. Worst case is 1 vs 15 newcomers, the oldie will be bored to death. Normally win (ok, put me there, want to know if I manage to fail... actually now tempted to be the one in group 2) But even if it's 5 of them... somehow could be a bit frustrating because it's just a 5 team race then. Then a traditional split, 11 or more oldies in field 2 sounds more appealing. For newcomers the opposite, a few could end up in group 1, 15 veterans and 3 newcomers? Horrible for the newcomers. Or a group 2 with 8+8, the ones that are lucky enough to land in group 3 will have more fun. Now having all times open or restricted is better, then at least the "fairness between times" kind of stays. Not some times with only veterans, not some other times with the 1 veteran vs newcomers, or x veterans vs 1 newcomer risk. That btw counts not only for the weekend classics. Which one is better, all open or all restricted and separate.. don't know. Maybe I'd be for all separate (hm, restriction by eternal points possible, fast short term programming? because otherwise we still have T-Mobile-A or so there) just to avoid frustrating one with unlucky splits, be in newcomer or veteran.

- offer a few editions for Div 6 every day (depending on how many teams stay active)

Now agree.

[Tukhtahuaev]

Too lazy to create the race now, but profiles for Romandie ready

I few comments after a quick check:

Prolog (stage 1): last km has 5.4%
stage 2: laps look ok, but last km is 0 not 1
stage 3: Laps are fine, per km detailed finish (Vuillens) show 5.8-6.3-4.2 (you have 4-7-4-3), last km +1 looks ok, the -3 before less (but didn't check in detail, just from seeing the detailed last 5 km picture)
stage 4: tricky to design but the overlapping parts look ok and are only end of the downhill part+flat
stage 5: tricky back and forth, but the end (133-end) should be the same rout as (41-you get it), it looks wrong in the end which is more important as the first pass, still like it more if same rout has same incline. Additionally the first 22 km are -1* the km from 41-63, didn't check but looks different too (maybe less important as downhill, but still)

My info come from the Tour de Romandie pdfs+ detailed view on LFR

Got my info from the same source, but the pdf from Romandie homepage definitely with some conflicting information.

Prologue: I see 5.8% from km 2.0-3.0 and then a slightly downhill final 200m. Open to different interpretations of course, but liked the 6 as final km more as it fits the climb itself better imo. But as compensation for the extra downhill +5 is also a possible interpretation

Stage 2: The pdf actually has conflicting information there. In the itinerary at the bottom of the pdf I get about +0.7% for the final km and since the gpx also gives me about the same, I decided on +1 for the final km

Stage 3: Where do you get those 5.8-6.3-4.2 numbers from? From the gpx I get 3.2 7.0 4.1 3.2 -3.5 1.1 for the final 6km. The 3.2 is adjusted to a 4 because the km starts with a short part from the downhill that I assigned to the previous km still.

Stage 5: You are right there. I only made sure that the end is -1* the start of the stage, but forgot to also adjust the part starting from km 41. I will correct that later

[flockmastoR]

Too lazy to create the race now, but profiles for Romandie ready

I few comments after a quick check:

Prolog (stage 1): last km has 5.4%
stage 2: laps look ok, but last km is 0 not 1
stage 3: Laps are fine, per km detailed finish (Vuillens) show 5.8-6.3-4.2 (you have 4-7-4-3), last km +1 looks ok, the -3 before less (but didn't check in detail, just from seeing the detailed last 5 km picture)
stage 4: tricky to design but the overlapping parts look ok and are only end of the downhill part+flat
stage 5: tricky back and forth, but the end (133-end) should be the same rout as (41-you get it), it looks wrong in the end which is more important as the first pass, still like it more if same rout has same incline. Additionally the first 22 km are -1* the km from 41-63, didn't check but looks different too (maybe less important as downhill, but still)

My info come from the Tour de Romandie pdfs+ detailed view on LFR

Got my info from the same source, but the pdf from Romandie homepage definitely with some conflicting information.

Prologue: I see 5.8% from km 2.0-3.0 and then a slightly downhill final 200m. Open to different interpretations of course, but liked the 6 as final km more as it fits the climb itself better imo. But as compensation for the extra downhill +5 is also a possible interpretation

Stage 2: The pdf actually has conflicting information there. In the itinerary at the bottom of the pdf I get about +0.7% for the final km and since the gpx also gives me about the same, I decided on +1 for the final km

Stage 3: Where do you get those 5.8-6.3-4.2 numbers from? From the gpx I get 3.2 7.0 4.1 3.2 -3.5 1.1 for the final 6km. The 3.2 is adjusted to a 4 because the km starts with a short part from the downhill that I assigned to the previous km still.

Stage 5: You are right there. I only made sure that the end is -1* the start of the stage, but forgot to also adjust the part starting from km 41. I will correct that later

Its from LFR, there are detailed informations per 0.5km with the GPX file. I checked for some other races and found that info the most precise (compared to redesign of the climb from top reversely) + the altitude info matches the official numbers mostly

Prolog: yes interpretation, didn't check the climb in detail just summarize this: https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/vie ... 25?climb=1, okay now I checked and the end looks really steep

Stage 2: here it is really 0 based on official information, it inclines for 10m in the 2 km before, for me it looks like +0.5, +0.5, 0 Just check the image of the last 3 km in the pdf (455m Rue du Léman 3km to go, 470m Flamme Rouge, 471m MARTIGNY) that's crystal clear 0 IMO

Stage 3: https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/vie ... 26?climb=7

Climbs are always interpretation, but the +1 is simply wrong and has the biggest influence, imo the +7 at the Vuillens is also wrong having a great impact, the per km values of the climb (last 3.1km) are those that I posted, it has a very short passage with steeper (approx. 7%) in it (in the link you can adjust per 500m, per 100m etc)

Thanks for considering the feedback!

[Tukhtahuaev]

Its from LFR, there are detailed informations per 0.5km with the GPX file. I checked for some other races and found that info the most precise (compared to redesign of the climb from top reversely) + the altitude info matches the official numbers mostly

Prolog: yes interpretation, didn't check the climb in detail just summarize this: https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/vie ... 25?climb=1, okay now I checked and the end looks really steep

Stage 2: here it is really 0 based on official information, it inclines for 10m in the 2 km before, for me it looks like +0.5, +0.5, 0 Just check the image of the last 3 km in the pdf (455m Rue du Léman 3km to go, 470m Flamme Rouge, 471m MARTIGNY) that's crystal clear 0 IMO

Stage 3: https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/vie ... 26?climb=7

Climbs are always interpretation, but the +1 is simply wrong and has the biggest influence, imo the +7 at the Vuillens is also wrong having a great impact, the per km values of the climb (last 3.1km) are those that I posted, it has a very short passage with steeper (approx. 7%) in it (in the link you can adjust per 500m, per 100m etc)

Thanks for considering the feedback!

Never realised I could do all that stuff with LFR. That helps a lot

Stage 2: This is the conflicting information I am talking about. I saw the final 3km picture, but also the stuff below that says something different. Because I was not sure which info to trust here. Because of that I decided to go with the option that looks true to what I get from the gpx


Stage 3: If i compare the positioning of the GPM from LFR and the official pdf it explains a bit. LFR has it about 400m earlier. I actually positioned the GPM a bit too late, which creates 2 very different interpretations of how the climb looks. I will definitely check this one again.

[Gipfelstuermer]

- offer at least some editions of the classics only to Div 1 - 5

IMO all or nothing. All separate, or all mixed. Reason is "fairness".

I absolutely agree with RKL.

I'm pausing my role as calendar planner as long as the planned calendar gets overwritten.

[Alkworld]

- offer at least some editions of the classics only to Div 1 - 5

IMO all or nothing. All separate, or all mixed. Reason is "fairness".

I absolutely agree with RKL.

Question to both of you (and everyone else), what's your preference:
- Strictly separated classic editions or all mixed + additional Div 6 races?
My preference would be separated editions for cat 5 and 6 one-day races and Giro (if that question is still relevant in two weeks)

I'm pausing my role as calendar planner as long as the planned calendar gets overwritten.

Until Tuesday evening, I would have understood that, but the situation changed (slightly ).
If we want to offer more of the new teams the possibility to ride, we need to offer additional races (i.e. timeslots) now. If you have time for that, feel free to take part in the planning for it, but meanwhile I jumped in and added races (implemented a script first, then ran it) to fill the gaps between the already planned races. I also started the discussion for the races in a few days. The faster we get a decision there, the smoother it will be. E.g. the two additional timeslots today look pretty fine regarding participation at least partially because they were available yesterday.

[Hansa]

My opinion.

Make the classics open, and offer kat 1 fantasy race for D6+

[Gipfelstuermer]

Question to both of you (and everyone else), what's your preference:
- Strictly separated classic editions or all mixed + additional Div 6 races?

For me clearly all mixed + additional Div 6 races.

Why?
1.) As written, cycling fans will want to ride the big races. Better to let newcomers ride LBL in field 2 (or even 3) than to ban them from riding it at all.
2.) Classics are usually very specialized (long races / difficult profiles). So offer some easy fantasy races (short / less difficult profile) for those newcomers who might prefer such race. (I.e. There is IMO no point in offering Brabant or Amstel as Div6 only. Instead, offer additional fantasy races.)

Until Tuesday evening, I would have understood that, but the situation changed (slightly ).

I'm serious. If it's emergency and I don't reply, OK, no problem, good that someone else is active. But there is no emergency (splits are working without bugs and even without performance issues) and I reply reasonably quickly (here, pn, whatsapp,...). So in that case it just undermines my work to overwrite things. Now we have people signed up for a Cat4-Classic, Div6 only, at odd times. This reduces the quality of winning it, it raises unrealistic expectations for the future und it creates uncertainty about the future calendar.

[flockmastoR]

Its from LFR, there are detailed informations per 0.5km with the GPX file. I checked for some other races and found that info the most precise (compared to redesign of the climb from top reversely) + the altitude info matches the official numbers mostly

Prolog: yes interpretation, didn't check the climb in detail just summarize this: https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/vie ... 25?climb=1, okay now I checked and the end looks really steep

Stage 2: here it is really 0 based on official information, it inclines for 10m in the 2 km before, for me it looks like +0.5, +0.5, 0 Just check the image of the last 3 km in the pdf (455m Rue du Léman 3km to go, 470m Flamme Rouge, 471m MARTIGNY) that's crystal clear 0 IMO

Stage 3: https://www.la-flamme-rouge.eu/maps/vie ... 26?climb=7

Climbs are always interpretation, but the +1 is simply wrong and has the biggest influence, imo the +7 at the Vuillens is also wrong having a great impact, the per km values of the climb (last 3.1km) are those that I posted, it has a very short passage with steeper (approx. 7%) in it (in the link you can adjust per 500m, per 100m etc)

Thanks for considering the feedback!

Never realised I could do all that stuff with LFR. That helps a lot

Stage 2: This is the conflicting information I am talking about. I saw the final 3km picture, but also the stuff below that says something different. Because I was not sure which info to trust here. Because of that I decided to go with the option that looks true to what I get from the gpx


Stage 3: If i compare the positioning of the GPM from LFR and the official pdf it explains a bit. LFR has it about 400m earlier. I actually positioned the GPM a bit too late, which creates 2 very different interpretations of how the climb looks. I will definitely check this one again.

I see now for stage 2. didn't realize they also show the height in the roadbook. OK

about the tools on LFR? don't know, just restarted some designing a month ago and discovered it. It's pretty usefull imo

[flockmastoR]

Even if I might regret saying so: Let them ride the classics.

(Favorites will love that trick)

[schappy]

I am still against Div6 races, if we have splits, its nothing bad in my opinion, so so have div 6 races witthout making div 6 races, and classics should be available, most of them looks really interested in Cycling. So if a Amstel Gold race in RL is on a day and they can not ride them, it will be not the best for them.

[Falcor CC]

I am still against Div6 races, if we have splits, its nothing bad in my opinion, so so have div 6 races witthout making div 6 races, and classics should be available, most of them looks really interested in Cycling. So if a Amstel Gold race in RL is on a day and they can not ride them, it will be not the best for them.

Completely agree. Besides, as of now the rookies with the most points will end up in field 1, which is fine, at least they have 3-4 races under their belt already and gained the most points of all new teams. The other D6 teams seems to get a split anyway, and I think they rather have a fun fight with a chance to win a classic in a field 2 than to ride a parallel race...

[Robyklebt]

My preference would be separated editions for cat 5 and 6 one-day races and Giro (if that question is still relevant in two weeks)

Short term, meaning till the end of April, I would agree with that for classics. Long term I lean towards "earn your spot" (if a sizeable number stays, divisions will be bigger when the next ones come)
Separate because of the split issue that could send some few veterans to group 2, where they would have much less fun than in a normal group 2 race. But it's not an enormously strong preference, just seems a bit harsh to potentially now send teams to a clearly less worthy group 2. (especially after the discussion on how we don't want splits if possible for the classics, now these group 2 would be way more frustrating than a MSR-Flanders-Roubaix group 2)But can live with both, not that strong preference.
How many? With more newcomers than veterans around... at least 3, but maybe even the same number as for veterans, time choices.

For the Flèche I would wait and see how many ride Alps a bit, before adding the D6 editions though.

Besides, as of now the rookies with the most points will end up in field 1, which is fine, at least they have 3-4 races under their belt already and gained the most points of all new teams.

Except that is not what will automatically happen. There's a fair chance that no newcomer ends up in group 1. But instead some veterans in group 2 with mostly rookies. That is the problem I see. Let's just take the Roubaix numbers. 25 teams for Roubaix at 21, let's assume it stay the same. Add any number of newcomers and you always have at least 3 teams in group 2. Add let's say 30 teams, 55, 19-18-18 split 7 veterans in group 2, not that bad, still a race. At 18 with 15, 45, 3 groups at 15, perfect split. Afternoon, 17, 47, 16-16-15, worst case scenario, one veteran ends up in group 2 (ok, that was a D6 team... so works out somehow, pure luck) Morning Roubaix works out at 45 as well, so works. D6 teams in group 1=no problem. Small amount of veterans in group 2=frustrating. That's why I would say separate.

But just saw that some teams are already inscribed for Amstel... so to keep it easy, probably no separated editions seems better?

For the Giro I have no opinion yet.

2.) Classics are usually very specialized (long races / difficult profiles). So offer some easy fantasy races (short / less difficult profile) for those newcomers who might prefer such race. (I.e. There is IMO no point in offering Brabant or Amstel as Div6 only. Instead, offer additional fantasy races.)

Sensible point about some maybe preferring another race, even if they come from an account about real cycling, so probably like LBL. (Hopefully not Amstel, it's a shit race I say) But still would go for separate D1-5 and D6 for cat5+, but adding a shorter fantasy race, restricted to D6, not only D6 classics sounds like a good idea.

[Robyklebt]

Stage 2: This is the conflicting information I am talking about. I saw the final 3km picture, but also the stuff below that says something different. Because I was not sure which info to trust here. Because of that I decided to go with the option that looks true to what I get from the gpx
Image

With the last 500 meters, which are our sprint, being flat, or even -2 meters, which makes it -0.4%, I would say a 0 would work too. If it was a flat race I would even say 0 is better, this not being one can understand both decisions (could in a flat race too, just that there I would tend to favor the pure sprint skill since that's what will count in this flat sprint)

[Falcor CC]

Besides, as of now the rookies with the most points will end up in field 1, which is fine, at least they have 3-4 races under their belt already and gained the most points of all new teams.

Except that is not what will automatically happen. There's a fair chance that no newcomer ends up in group 1. But instead some veterans in group 2 with mostly rookies. That is the problem I see. Let's just take the Roubaix numbers. 25 teams for Roubaix at 21, let's assume it stay the same. Add any number of newcomers and you always have at least 3 teams in group 2. Add let's say 30 teams, 55, 19-18-18 split 7 veterans in group 2, not that bad, still a race. At 18 with 15, 45, 3 groups at 15, perfect split. Afternoon, 17, 47, 16-16-15, worst case scenario, one veteran ends up in group 2 (ok, that was a D6 team... so works out somehow, pure luck) Morning Roubaix works out at 45 as well, so works. D6 teams in group 1=no problem. Small amount of veterans in group 2=frustrating. That's why I would say separate.

But just saw that some teams are already inscribed for Amstel... so to keep it easy, probably no separated editions seems better?

Actually look at it from a different angle. Now, in a 25-team field, 12 "experienced" teams end up in field 2. Against other experienced team yes, but already not the "best" teams in the game, being the top division teams. So already lower level competition on paper for 12 teams in field 2.

Add 10 new teams to that, 35 teams total --> 18/17 split, with only 7 experienced team falling to field 2, compared to 12 in the original scenario. So actually the more teams participate, the more experienced teams get to ride in field 1. Ok, the remaining 7 get 10 rookies added to their field in this scenario, but they would have been field 2 anyway and now the even get a bigger field with it, with better chances to win.

[Nomorelulz]

Stage 2: This is the conflicting information I am talking about. I saw the final 3km picture, but also the stuff below that says something different. Because I was not sure which info to trust here. Because of that I decided to go with the option that looks true to what I get from the gpx
Image

With the last 500 meters, which are our sprint, being flat, or even -2 meters, which makes it -0.4%, I would say a 0 would work too. If it was a flat race I would even say 0 is better, this not being one can understand both decisions (could in a flat race too, just that there I would tend to favor the pure sprint skill since that's what will count in this flat sprint)

Always in favour of a 0 finish because I have a feeling -1 ones are bugged.. So if there are arguments for it, Im all for 0 finish.