The worst of race profiles

[RedheadDane]

At least they were probably being honest, rather than trying to turn a speedbump into a HC climb...

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

The Paris-Nice TT.

LOL.

I thought it was almost completely flat until I saw the details of the OP.

 

[bassano]

Re: Re:

The Paris-Nice TT.

LOL.

I thought it was almost completely flat until I saw the details of the OP.

Yeah, but on the other side that profile have quite same scale on axis X as on axis Y so it looks like on real road

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

The Paris-Nice TT.

LOL.

I thought it was almost completely flat until I saw the details of the OP.

Yeah, but on the other side that profile have quite same scale on axis X as on axis Y so it looks like on real road

Well yeah, but we cannot compare length to altitude. 14.5 km in length is nothing compare to that in altitude!

 

[tobydawq]

Tour of Croatia, stage 2, profile of last 3 kilometres. What the hell?

With two kilometres to go there is a little kicker, where the riders apparently ascend 120 metres and descend it again within 100 metres...

Inexplicable... (and I still don't know how to insert pictures)

http://www.tourofcroatia.com/en/stages/stage-2-trogir-biokovo-sveti-jure/8

 

[42x16ss]

Re:

Tour of Croatia, stage 2, profile of last 3 kilometres. What the hell?

With two kilometres to go there is a little kicker, where the riders apparently ascend 120 metres and descend it again within 100 metres...

Inexplicable... (and I still don't know how to insert pictures)

http://www.tourofcroatia.com/en/stages/stage-2-trogir-biokovo-sveti-jure/8

Here it is:

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Presumably a tunnel, of the kind that always skewed out traceurs' profiles until cronoescalada came along and incorporated a function to let you smooth them out.

Anyway! The best of the 2007 Vuelta profiles, with their inconsistent y-axes and making Cerler look like Aprica. Monachil there is way steeper than the descent and includes 7km @ 9% in the middle.

Also, these two are the same MTF, but the 2005 version made by somebody who understands course profiles is included for comparison.

 

[mikii4567]

This year's Tour de Romandie stage 1

That final climb looks like a fine competitor to Zoncolan or Angliru, until you realise that it's actually 11.5km at 5.4%.

 

[fauniera]

Huge climbs in Bretagne:

 

[WheelofGear]

Re:

This year's Tour de Romandie stage 1

That final climb looks like a fine competitor to Zoncolan or Angliru, until you realise that it's actually 11.5km at 5.4%.

Just 58 riders finished together.

 

[Escarabajo]

That 7% section on the Saturday stage of the Tour of Romandie sure looks like is on a descend!!

 

[roundabout]

I thought this thread was about official profiles. The profile of the Pillon is not one of them.

And yeah, seems like a typo there. Should have been 0.7%.

 

[Scarponi]

Re: Re:

Tour of Croatia, stage 2, profile of last 3 kilometres. What the hell?

With two kilometres to go there is a little kicker, where the riders apparently ascend 120 metres and descend it again within 100 metres...

Inexplicable... (and I still don't know how to insert pictures)

http://www.tourofcroatia.com/en/stages/stage-2-trogir-biokovo-sveti-jure/8

Here it is:

im pay pal anyone 100 bucks who gets to that spike and pictures it in this forum !

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

Tour of Croatia, stage 2, profile of last 3 kilometres. What the hell?

With two kilometres to go there is a little kicker, where the riders apparently ascend 120 metres and descend it again within 100 metres...

Inexplicable... (and I still don't know how to insert pictures)

http://www.tourofcroatia.com/en/stages/stage-2-trogir-biokovo-sveti-jure/8

Here it is:

im pay pal anyone 100 bucks who gets to that spike and pictures it in this forum !

11x50 gears...

 

[Squire]

They are at it again!

 

[Ricco']

Well, that is acceptable, at least compared to the one of the second stage, where it looks like it is a killer queen stage but instead is a sprint stage.

 

[Squire]

Re:

Well, that is acceptable, at least compared to the one of the second stage, where it looks like it is a killer queen stage but instead is a sprint stage.

Look at the km markers.

 

[Bye Bye Bicycle]

Today's first stage of the Vuelta al Bidasoa / Bidasoa Itzulia, Spain's most important U23 race:

Some issues with the x axis here...

 

[Gigs_98]

You know, the fascinating thing about these profiles is that at some point there was someone who thought "making the profiles like this is a good idea". There must have been someone who thought "labeling the x axis completely randomly is better than labeling it conventionally". And there must be a guy who wanted to create profiles for the Vuelta a la Comunidad de Madrid who thought "people surely want that their eyes hurt when they look at their profiles"

Maybe this is only fascinating for me but the thing which makes profiles like that so unbelievable is that it would be easier to make a completely normal, decent looking profile than making this. Profiles like that don't exist because someone was lazy but because someone thought they would look good. And I'm not sure if that is funny or sad.

 

[Brullnux]

I think they just didn't care for a couple of them.

 

[therealthing]

High mountain stage with some 90% inclines today in...

Dunkirk.

I know it has the height of the climbs to the left but it's still misleading.

 

[Brullnux]

The cali profiles are also pretty poor. They appear to be going up at well above 100% at times.

 

[SlickMongoose]

Re:

High mountain stage with some 90% inclines today in...

Dunkirk.

I know it has the height of the climbs to the left but it's still misleading.

It looks like they're climbing Alpe d'Huez 18 times. :Neutral:

 

[vedrafjord]

You know, the fascinating thing about these profiles is that at some point there was someone who thought "making the profiles like this is a good idea". There must have been someone who thought "labeling the x axis completely randomly is better than labeling it conventionally".

It happens because Microsoft Excel will do it by default.

 

[dick the quick]

An example (nothing new, just another one) of how the worst race profile are being created.

First two profiles, let's say that they are OK (or OKayish, at least), as they provide for a reasonable scaling plus a proper description of basic climb parameters:

But then comes the profile below, from the same race (a small 2.2. category race in Poland, nevermind):

There is nothing more irritating regarding the stage profiles than using the different Y (height/elevation) axis for each stage.