June 2026

[Zappes Raiders]

---------------------------------------
CALENDAR PLANNER NOTE:

Final PDF
June 2026

Races to be designed:
Tour de Wallonie >>> Zappes
Tour Auvergne - Rhône-Alpes >>> Zappes (started)
Tour de Suisse
NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS

Races to be checked:
Mercan'Tour Classic Alpes-Maritimes >>> Gip
Heistse Pijl >>> Zappes
Brussels Cycling Classic
Circuit Franco-Belge
Dwars door het Hageland
Copenhagen Sprint
Elfstedenronde
GP Gippingen
Andorra Classica
Trofeo Citta di Brescia

Legend
BLUE = Designer found
GREEN = DONE

---------------------------------------

I have designed my first Race. Maybe someone can check
Its Heistse Pijl - I am not sure about the cobbles. I chose ** after checked it on Google Maps. The climb is 1 2
There seem to be no IS/KOM on the way

[Falcor CC]

I have designed my first Race. Maybe someone can check
Its Heistse Pijl - I am not sure about the cobbles. I chose ** after checked it on Google Maps. The climb is 1 2
There seem to be no IS/KOM on the way

My hometown race! Looks great. Last 100ish km are all in Heist-op-den-Berg, the city. I would replace those labels with "Heistse Berg", the name of the actual climb. ** definitely works there, good that it is 2% in that case, cause a 3%** would make it unrealistically hard for the sprinters to hang on.

[Zappes Raiders]

I designed Tour de Wallonie - at least Stage 1 to 4 as it seems Stage 5 is not revealed yet. Will do it as well as soon as there is something available.









I used CAT3/4 instead of 1/2 as it seems to match the real classification better.
As they always use circuits in the final part of the stages the length slightly vary to match the real circuits as good as possible. The climbs are often steep but very short (~500m) so it is difficult to match the real climbs perfectly. I have tried to modiy it slightly in decisive parts to better match a short 11% climb in the final part of a race.

[Zappes Raiders]

I designed Tour de Wallonie - at least Stage 1 to 4 as it seems Stage 5 is not revealed yet. Will do it as well as soon as there is something available.









I used CAT3/4 instead of 1/2 as it seems to match the real classification better.
As they always use circuits in the final part of the stages the length slightly vary to match the real circuits as good as possible. The climbs are often steep but very short (~500m) so it is difficult to match the real climbs perfectly. I have tried to modiy it slightly in decisive parts to better match a short 11% climb in the final part of a race.

Now the final stage was released as well. Adapted Redoute to the profile in previous LBL editions where it was 7 10
The final is 5 -1 -6 2 as it seems the finish line is a view hundred meters behind the bottom of the downhill



P.S.: Also started designing Rhone Auvergne Alps (previous Dauphine)

[flockmastoR]

You are in the wrong topic (ok June topic doesn't exist yet, but still), infor you want to design it is good, but profiles maybe wait for the June one.

[Gipfelstuermer]

I have designed my first Race. Maybe someone can check
Its Heistse Pijl - I am not sure about the cobbles. I chose ** after checked it on Google Maps. The climb is 1 2
There seem to be no IS/KOM on the way

My hometown race! Looks great. Last 100ish km are all in Heist-op-den-Berg, the city. I would replace those labels with "Heistse Berg", the name of the actual climb. ** definitely works there, good that it is 2% in that case, cause a 3%** would make it unrealistically hard for the sprinters to hang on.

Thanks for preparing this, Zappes.

One note, with real one day races, it is always good to compare with previous years, too:
- If the race is identical >>> You can reuse last year's profile
- If there are small changes >>> You can clone and adapt with small changes
- If there are big changes >>> New design needed
So here, six ascents of the Heistse Berg, same run-in, almost identical? But no KOMs this year - maybe there never were KOMs? You could be right.

Then with the Heistse Berg itself. I would be curious to know how you arrived at 1** 2**.

I was lazy and looked at last year's profile:
- Previously we had this as 3* only. Of course OK to change it if it makes sense
- How long is the Berg? Is it 2km or 1km? Have never been there, but I think it's actually around 1km?
- How much elevation gain has it? 32m according to la-flamme-rouge.
--> So to me it would point more to the +3 instead of +1 +2
For the pave:
- How long is the cobble section? According to la-flamme-rouge it's 500m. Correct?
- If that's correct, how rough are the cobbles? You seem to agree ** but if it's only 500m / not 1km, make it * only?

So probably I would keep it 3*
Now question, does it match what happens in real life? Last years' winners Magnier, Kristoff, Kooij. All basically pure sprinters? Now in-game multiple ** probably make it too hard for pure sprinters, especially with the last section shortly before finish. So I would probably keep it 3*. What do you think?

[Falcor CC]

I have designed my first Race. Maybe someone can check
Its Heistse Pijl - I am not sure about the cobbles. I chose ** after checked it on Google Maps. The climb is 1 2
There seem to be no IS/KOM on the way

My hometown race! Looks great. Last 100ish km are all in Heist-op-den-Berg, the city. I would replace those labels with "Heistse Berg", the name of the actual climb. ** definitely works there, good that it is 2% in that case, cause a 3%** would make it unrealistically hard for the sprinters to hang on.

Thanks for preparing this, Zappes.

One note, with real one day races, it is always good to compare with previous years, too:
- If the race is identical >>> You can reuse last year's profile
- If there are small changes >>> You can clone and adapt with small changes
- If there are big changes >>> New design needed
So here, six ascents of the Heistse Berg, same run-in, almost identical? But no KOMs this year - maybe there never were KOMs? You could be right.

Then with the Heistse Berg itself. I would be curious to know how you arrived at 1** 2**.

I was lazy and looked at last year's profile:
- Previously we had this as 3* only. Of course OK to change it if it makes sense
- How long is the Berg? Is it 2km or 1km? Have never been there, but I think it's actually around 1km?
- How much elevation gain has it? 32m according to la-flamme-rouge.
--> So to me it would point more to the +3 instead of +1 +2
For the pave:
- How long is the cobble section? According to la-flamme-rouge it's 500m. Correct?
- If that's correct, how rough are the cobbles? You seem to agree ** but if it's only 500m / not 1km, make it * only?

So probably I would keep it 3*
Now question, does it match what happens in real life? Last years' winners Magnier, Kristoff, Kooij. All basically pure sprinters? Now in-game multiple ** probably make it too hard for pure sprinters, especially with the last section shortly before finish. So I would probably keep it 3*. What do you think?

Notes from my side: Heist-"on-the-mountain" is all uphill (and then downhill ofc). The climb itself isn't that steep gradient wise, so 2% would be fine for that km, 3 as well. I would keep the 1% the km before though, but now that you mention it, no cobbles there. The run up to the climb is definitely false flat, so 1% is fine, but the climb itself (max ~1km from whichever of the 6 sides) is the only place in the city where there's pavé .

In conclusion: 1% first km, then 2/3% next km both fine. No cobbles on the 1%, could be * or ** on the climb km depending on the designer. Agree it's for the sprinters, but the cobbles is definitely the hardest part about the climb, and they're not in good condition.

[Robyklebt]

Wallonnie is only 1-5 (not 1-6)
Ex Dauphine is 7-14 (not 8-14)
Elfstedenronde ist cancelled.
Muur Classic Geraardsbergen ist on the 14th. Parallel to Copenhagen Sprint and Gippingen. Keep Copenhagen alone there makes sense, but IMO then Gippingen and Geraardsbergen both on the 15th better than 15+16

As cat 4 Brussels should be 9 riders

Wallonnie 5 editions for me seems possibly 1 too many, might be just me though. Right after the Giro won't immediately go to the next stage race, maybe others do, don't know. Anyway, would have thought 4 is enough for that.

Trofeo Citta di Brescia should be restricted to D6. Would make sense to restrict those cat 1 races (1.2 UCI) to D6. (Like monuments (and cat 5 one day races) will most likely be limited to 1-5 again with more teams around now. At least that seemed to be what most wanted (in the future) when it came up during monuments 26 discussions (that was before the wave) In offseason we can open those real cat 1 races up, but inseason... D6

[Nomorelulz]

Not sure if for Wallonie 8h AND 10h is a good idea, if we go for 5 tours (which I think with new players make sense), then its best to have the additional edition at the evening. For giro we even had a split at 20h with 3 editions from 18 - 22.

So maybe 9-15-19-21-23? its similar to Dauphinee but I think it makes sense.

Did we ever had 2 morning editions for a tour? I think thats too much.

[Zappes Raiders]

I have designed my first Race. Maybe someone can check
Its Heistse Pijl - I am not sure about the cobbles. I chose ** after checked it on Google Maps. The climb is 1 2
There seem to be no IS/KOM on the way

My hometown race! Looks great. Last 100ish km are all in Heist-op-den-Berg, the city. I would replace those labels with "Heistse Berg", the name of the actual climb. ** definitely works there, good that it is 2% in that case, cause a 3%** would make it unrealistically hard for the sprinters to hang on.

Thanks for preparing this, Zappes.

One note, with real one day races, it is always good to compare with previous years, too:
- If the race is identical >>> You can reuse last year's profile
- If there are small changes >>> You can clone and adapt with small changes
- If there are big changes >>> New design needed
So here, six ascents of the Heistse Berg, same run-in, almost identical? But no KOMs this year - maybe there never were KOMs? You could be right.

Then with the Heistse Berg itself. I would be curious to know how you arrived at 1** 2**.

I was lazy and looked at last year's profile:
- Previously we had this as 3* only. Of course OK to change it if it makes sense
- How long is the Berg? Is it 2km or 1km? Have never been there, but I think it's actually around 1km?
- How much elevation gain has it? 32m according to la-flamme-rouge.
--> So to me it would point more to the +3 instead of +1 +2
For the pave:
- How long is the cobble section? According to la-flamme-rouge it's 500m. Correct?
- If that's correct, how rough are the cobbles? You seem to agree ** but if it's only 500m / not 1km, make it * only?

So probably I would keep it 3*
Now question, does it match what happens in real life? Last years' winners Magnier, Kristoff, Kooij. All basically pure sprinters? Now in-game multiple ** probably make it too hard for pure sprinters, especially with the last section shortly before finish. So I would probably keep it 3*. What do you think?

Notes from my side: Heist-"on-the-mountain" is all uphill (and then downhill ofc). The climb itself isn't that steep gradient wise, so 2% would be fine for that km, 3 as well. I would keep the 1% the km before though, but now that you mention it, no cobbles there. The run up to the climb is definitely false flat, so 1% is fine, but the climb itself (max ~1km from whichever of the 6 sides) is the only place in the city where there's pavé .

In conclusion: 1% first km, then 2/3% next km both fine. No cobbles on the 1%, could be * or ** on the climb km depending on the designer. Agree it's for the sprinters, but the cobbles is definitely the hardest part about the climb, and they're not in good condition.

I have checked the cobbles on google maps before and they seemed to look nasty, so I decided to ** - but I agrre this would probably make it unrealistic hard for sprinters so probably more a * (I will change that)

The difference in gradiant most likely comes from the length of the climb which is something between 1 and 2k in total. I am fine with 1 2 or 3 only. I will go with the 3* as last year.

Side Note: You are right. I havent checked the previous editions for this race. I have done that for other races I designed

[Radunion]

Calendar-wise, everything has already been said. As the two main tours are non-overlapping now, there is little to discuss.

Time-wise, I fear you are overdoing it a bit. We used to have 2+2 in the past. Even if we now have more teams, 5 editions for specialized tours look a bit much. In the Giro, we have this one split at 20 h, but all other times look decent, but could not take two fields. Especially Wallonie with 8-10, I am sceptical. Morning is not so strong in the Giro, and maybe some teams skip the tour immediately after the Giro.

[lennylenny]

Doing a check of all races to be checked: red cancelled, purple no info yet, orange changes, green can be copied from earlier edition
Brussels Cycling Classic - seems it was skipped in game last year, different profile than 2024 and 2023
Circuit Franco-Belge - the final circuit is the same as 2025, also same amount but the bigger circuit early in the race takes a shortcut in the eastern part, 10km shorter
Dwars door het Hageland - no info yet on website
Copenhagen Sprint - a few little shortcuts and a different route into Copenhagen, about 10km shorter
Elfstedenronde -cancelled, see Roby post
GP Gippingen - only circuit info available yet, they added a 10km circuit in addition to the 8km and 20km ones, no info which order and how many times of each circuit yet
Andorra Classica - official presentation June 1st
Trofeo Citta di Brescia - website isn't even online lol

[Nomorelulz]

I designed Tour de Wallonie - at least Stage 1 to 4 as it seems Stage 5 is not revealed yet. Will do it as well as soon as there is something available.









I used CAT3/4 instead of 1/2 as it seems to match the real classification better.
As they always use circuits in the final part of the stages the length slightly vary to match the real circuits as good as possible. The climbs are often steep but very short (~500m) so it is difficult to match the real climbs perfectly. I have tried to modiy it slightly in decisive parts to better match a short 11% climb in the final part of a race.

Thanks for designing this tour, I just had a brief look at the first stage and was wondering how you designed the tour?

For example 1st stage: The end looks different to me if I look at the website to your design (-3 5 1)



--> its more like 4 1 at the end? and the dh part at the km before is a bit difficult (cause whole km would be flat but ofc it has dh inside of it).

and stage 2 you have (1 1 5) while the picture shows 3 0 3? (the last km at maximum is a 3 than a 5) and thats a major difference in c4f.




I think we need to review these stages

[Zappes Raiders]

I designed Tour de Wallonie - at least Stage 1 to 4 as it seems Stage 5 is not revealed yet. Will do it as well as soon as there is something available.









I used CAT3/4 instead of 1/2 as it seems to match the real classification better.
As they always use circuits in the final part of the stages the length slightly vary to match the real circuits as good as possible. The climbs are often steep but very short (~500m) so it is difficult to match the real climbs perfectly. I have tried to modiy it slightly in decisive parts to better match a short 11% climb in the final part of a race.

Thanks for designing this tour, I just had a brief look at the first stage and was wondering how you designed the tour?

For example 1st stage: The end looks different to me if I look at the website to your design (-3 5 1)



--> its more like 4 1 at the end? and the dh part at the km before is a bit difficult (cause whole km would be flat but ofc it has dh inside of it).

and stage 2 you have (1 1 5) while the picture shows 3 0 3? (the last km at maximum is a 3 than a 5) and thats a major difference in c4f.




I think we need to review these stages

For stage 2 you are totally right. I am not sure I think the final km profile was not available on the homepage at the time I designed and I made it solely based on the GPX. I will review this and change. 3 0 3 looks pretty accurate to me.

For Stage 1 I would say it is okay from my point of view. I checked it on the GPX and the start of the second last km is on 141m and start of last km is on 186 which means a gradient of 4,5%. Of course we could argue about 4 or 5 - I think when having a look on the total profile -3 5 1 makes sense as the climb of the second last km starts a few meters earlier already. So I think a 5 is more realistic here when we are between 4 and 5 anyways. Same for the -3 before. Of course it is a 0 if we only look at the start and end of the km. But to approximate the real profile I think -3 5 1 is realistic. Maybe someone else also want to review.

I have reviewed all other stage finals as well and I would not change anything as I think the c4f approximates the real profiles as best as possible with very short climbs.

I am happy for review and your opinions about it.

[Nomorelulz]

I designed Tour de Wallonie - at least Stage 1 to 4 as it seems Stage 5 is not revealed yet. Will do it as well as soon as there is something available.









I used CAT3/4 instead of 1/2 as it seems to match the real classification better.
As they always use circuits in the final part of the stages the length slightly vary to match the real circuits as good as possible. The climbs are often steep but very short (~500m) so it is difficult to match the real climbs perfectly. I have tried to modiy it slightly in decisive parts to better match a short 11% climb in the final part of a race.

Thanks for designing this tour, I just had a brief look at the first stage and was wondering how you designed the tour?

For example 1st stage: The end looks different to me if I look at the website to your design (-3 5 1)



--> its more like 4 1 at the end? and the dh part at the km before is a bit difficult (cause whole km would be flat but ofc it has dh inside of it).

and stage 2 you have (1 1 5) while the picture shows 3 0 3? (the last km at maximum is a 3 than a 5) and thats a major difference in c4f.




I think we need to review these stages

For stage 2 you are totally right. I am not sure I think the final km profile was not available on the homepage at the time I designed and I made it solely based on the GPX. I will review this and change. 3 0 3 looks pretty accurate to me.

For Stage 1 I would say it is okay from my point of view. I checked it on the GPX and the start of the second last km is on 141m and start of last km is on 186 which means a gradient of 4,5%. Of course we could argue about 4 or 5 - I think when having a look on the total profile -3 5 1 makes sense as the climb of the second last km starts a few meters earlier already. So I think a 5 is more realistic here when we are between 4 and 5 anyways. Same for the -3 before. Of course it is a 0 if we only look at the start and end of the km. But to approximate the real profile I think -3 5 1 is realistic. Maybe someone else also want to review.

I have reviewed all other stage finals as well and I would not change anything as I think the c4f approximates the real profiles as best as possible with very short climbs.

I am happy for review and your opinions about it.

Ah, you are right, Stage 1 its actually 1 - 5 in the end, you can review the profile quite well on their "view more details"-link to open runner ( https://www.openrunner.com/en/route-det ... mbed_opt_1. -> 184 is 130hm, 185 is 177hm. It was difficult to see on the graph. They do have good information there

Stage 4

From the opennrunner data the end there looks more like to me:
Stage 4 TdWallonie
KM HM %
168 303
169 335 3% maybe 4%
170 280 -5%
171 272 -1%
172 310 4%
7 1%

You have 5 - (-6) - (-2) - 5. When I take their GPX from the page and import it to C4F I also get 4 - (-5) - (-1) - 4. Where did you get the GPX from?


Also the length of the races from you doesnt match the ones from the website (only stage 4 is the same length) (see attached file).

Other more experienced guys pls correct me, but we should use the official data if possible, so please have a look at their website https://ethiastourdewallonie.be/edition/2026/. If you need any help please say something and thanks again for your work! If you are done, let me know and I will check too.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Final PDF

Main Changes:

- Wallonie now 1st-5th June at 9-15-18-20-22
- Heistse Pijl now 11-14-18-20-22
- Muur Classic Geraardsbergen instead of Elfstedenronde