Le Tour 2022

[Robyklebt]

Yep, that triggered me Stage 5, no official ASO info on sectors, so I trust Roby's research result / judgement.

0 research. Copied what la flamme rouge claims, which might be completely wrong. Research there!!! That's where research was needed!

Stage 1: Schloss Amalienburg, roughly at km8, could be * pavé .https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6845906 ... 312!8i6656

First question of course is if you got the parcours right. Famously you didn't during the Giro and have failed to acknowledge that until now, even after they failed to take the 47 corners 80 cm wide "street" you claimed they would.
Second though, yeah, how many meters? 20? 100? 200? 400? 800? No info, I assume way under 500 then, so 0

Stage 3: Sonderborg, roughly 10km before the finish, could be **, cobbles are roughly 500m.
https://www.google.com/maps/@54.9099809 ... 384!8i8192

It could also be a 17% climb. Ok ** pavé is more realistic, but barely. Just put up a picture of some actual ** pavé up as your screensaver... It's * pavé. Nothing else, and at 500 meters, so adjusted for length, for me that's a happy 0. Or do you want to design unrealistically by ignoring all the asphalt parts?

Stage 7: Planche des Belles Filles. Last km is gravel, isn't it? Should be * then. Because of the KOM, could also be the KM before (otherwise bug).
https://www.quickstep-alphavinylteam.co ... 879456.jpg

Yes, thought so too, looked for it, couldn't find anything in a 1' search,, so thought I check again later which of course I didn't do, but yes, still gravel as far as I know. Now with google street found it too. Long enough, so *. But you realize by having pavé when it's gravel, by having it in the wrong km, and by having it have basically the opposite effect that it has in reality, we're not really simulating it all that well?


On Megeve I have no clue, and yes, the TdF info seems highly weird in many places. But seems I followed that one here, since la flamme rouge isn't always perfect either.

Paris, not only the last lap really, all laps since it's the same.
But I followed precedent, only checked last year though.

[Robyklebt]

Anyway, Tour will be on in a few minutes. Well finally found the correct tool, but now looking for stage 19 that some idiot didn't save properly somehow....Hopefully saved somewhere..

Changed the pavé stage to the Bear-sytem: Not ***-* if one adjusted for lenghtm but *-***

Added the gravel to stage 7

Should be on soon

[RS Coesitz]

Stage 5: Don´t really understand why there are not even 20km pavé in reality but 25km of pavé here on rsf. Not balanced in my eyes.

Stage 7: Don´t see any pavé here: https://img.aso.fr/core_app/img-cycling ... 0-90/20276

[Bear]

Read my explanation. If you have another idea, post it here. Maybe your idea is better… ?

But I think that some hundred meters of cobbles have some impact…
When we have easier pave to start the sector it even suits more the weaker pave riders.

[RS Coesitz]

Read my explanation. If you have another idea, post it here. Maybe your idea is better… ?

But I think that some hundred meters of cobbles have some impact…
When we have easier pave to start the sector it even suits more the weaker pave riders.

I read it. But I don´t understand the idea. 2,1 stays like it is, from 2,2 we move upwards on 3. For me this does not fit and having 5km more Pavé in the end than in reality is strange. Two simple ideas: 1st) 2,4 =2, 2,6 =3. Quite easy 2nd) offsetting it. I would prefer the 1st.

[Bear]

Not good imo. 400m of pavé has to be a factor if it's diffcult pavé. It's for hills the same by the way. If we have 400m of 10% we dont have 0% in c4f. Crazy idea to have 0% with 400m of 10% and with 600m we have 6/7/8%.

[Robyklebt]

Actually what Coesitz says would be another possibility too. 1400= 1 km, 1600=2 km. But then the 2 km would both be the full pavé.

Now the 2 first sectors are *-*** and **-***
That would be one ***. and ***-***
IMO that could work too.

[Gipfelstuermer]

Now the 2 first sectors are *-*** and **-***
That would be one ***. and ***-***

Clearly the first option (described by Bear) is the best representation of the difficulty of those two pavé section. In the second option (described by Coesitz), the first sector would be too easy and the second sector would be too hard.

Imagine, 499m of **** pavé would just be ignored but 500m of **** pavé would be a **** km? We can do much better than that with Bear's approach, where both such sectors would be **.

100% for Bear's approach.