2012 Tour of California May 18 stage 6: Palmdale - Big Bear 186.3 km

[Bavarianrider]

Sorry, what? Where's "a classic type of stage"? What classic have you ever seen where they climb at 3% for an eternity then have a sprint? The nearest thing to yesterday's stage I can think of is the Gasteiz stage of the Vuelta last year, only then at least the climbs were steep enough to make attacking a possibility, even if they were foolhardy. Urkiola > Big Bear by so much it isn't even funny.

All of the first 4 stages were more or less the same, to varying degrees. Nobody complains when the Tour of Picardie has boring flat stages because with the exception of Laon they don't really have much in the way of non-flat places to finish. California could be so much more. The 2011 edition was a pretty decent race. This year looks like repeating all the mistakes of the terrible 2010 edition, only worse, because in 2010 Bonny Doon was close enough to the finish for people to attack on. Big Bear is far too easy for anybody to make big gaps on, but too hard for people to have the reserves to ping off the front and give us that pinball racing we like. The first four stages gave platforms for attacking, but none that were convincing enough.

It's also a problem of the field they draw - a combination of weak national squads, and WT teams so strong they can pull the bunch together very easily. This race has been little different to the 2009 Tour of Britain, when Columbia pulled every stage together and Boasson Hagen won about five stages in a row.

As jens says, maybe the parcours is good at showing off the scenery of California - there's plenty of that to look at. But something needs to be done about the racing, because at the moment it's a Tourist video interrupted by some people on bikes. Great promotion for California, horrible promotion for cycling.

I don't really understand why they
a) didn't learn from 2010, and insisted on going to Big Bear again, on an easier stage this time; and
b) didn't learn from 2011, and didn't do the Sierra Road climb or the other things that, you know, were GOOD last year.

Despite my reputation, I don't JUST want to see climbing. But I DO want to see racing, and the Tour of California is providing precisely none of that. Part of that is the fault of Radioshack, Garmin and Liquigas, but to say that none of it is the fault of Andrew Messick and his band of merry self-promoters is a blatant revisionist lie.

Big Bear is a brilliant stage if excecuted correctly. Again cycling is not only about climbing HC mountains. Maybe you'll undertsand that sometime.
Anyway, if this is so horrible for you, why do you watch ?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Big Bear is a brilliant stage if excecuted correctly. Again cycling is not only about climbing HC mountains. Maybe you'll undertsand that sometime.
Anyway, if this is so horrible for you, why do you watch ?

Is your only argument "cycling is not only about climbing HC mountains"?

Then why do I enjoy the Ardennes, or the Ronde van Vlaanderen, or País Vasco, or myriad other races that don't have HC mountains? You made this argument with Ruben earlier too. We don't just want to see HC mountains, and have stated this over and over despite your ignoring this and repeating the same argument. We want to see racing.

Big Bear might be a good stage if executed correctly. Putting it after Mount Baldy would have helped. But just because it could be a good stage if used correctly doesn't mean that it wasn't a crappy stage when it was used crappily in a crap route.

 

[Don Johnson]

There are lots of days where the riders sit in and do nothing in the Tour de France too.

Tough course ≠ good course. Big Bear 2010 is living proof of that.

They're in a tough spot in that they can't make it too tough or they risk not attracting the people they want (as those people are in preparation mode, or on the comedown after the Classics), but there's so much good terrain in California it's almost implausible how repetitive and tedious they've made it.

The suggestion of using Mount Baldy BEFORE Big Bear is a great one. You don't even need to change the stages that they've used! Big Bear in this year's race is just a group ride up a gradual climb to test the legs. But put Mount Baldy first, and then there's time to make up, people HAVE to attack. You can't just have the group ride. It wouldn't take that much effort to sort things out. The Santa Cruz stage could have been re-arranged to look more like the older stages to Bonny Doon and make that more decisive, easier to justify attacks and harder for Liquigas to pull it all back together for Sagan. Perhaps one of the repetitive medium-mountain-but-no-mountain-near-enough-the-finish-to-make-anything-but-a-reduced-sprint-likely stages could have been made into a pure flat stage, to give the likes of Kittel something to be here for, and maybe prise a decent flat sprinter or two from the Giro.

Part of the issue is a compromise, having riders of varying abilities. I think Liquigas is a little overpowering also. I don't like the Big Bear course also.

In the USA an omnium type stage race, plus a and be stages would garner more US fans, and make the race more exciting.

Myself, if six day circuit came to US I would attend.
Been to so many bike races myself, standing by the side of the road is not an option.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Is your only argument "cycling is not only about climbing HC mountains"?

Then why do I enjoy the Ardennes, or the Ronde van Vlaanderen, or País Vasco, or myriad other races that don't have HC mountains? You made this argument with Ruben earlier too. We don't just want to see HC mountains, and have stated this over and over despite your ignoring this and repeating the same argument. We want to see racing.

Big Bear might be a good stage if executed correctly. Putting it after Mount Baldy would have helped. But just because it could be a good stage if used correctly doesn't mean that it wasn't a crappy stage when it was used crappily in a crap route.

So every stage which can't open great gaps or a pure climber can't win is always a crap stage?

 

[hrotha]

So every stage which can't open great gaps or a pure climber can't win is always a crap stage?

Are you even reading Libertine's posts

 

[theyoungest]

So every stage which can't open great gaps or a pure climber can't win is always a crap stage?

The point is, the stage to Big Bear Lake has about the same altitude meters as a pretty decent mountain stage in the Giro. But if you arrive at the finish with a group of 40 guys, when a bunch of teams have been riding full gas in the final, that means that it's a perfect waste of a hard stage.

You might as well have a flat stage with a little bump near the finish, same result, less suffering.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So every stage which can't open great gaps or a pure climber can't win is always a crap stage?

Straw Man.

When was the last time a pure climber won the Ronde van Vlaanderen? That's a great race.

That your cheerleading has been reduced to comments on the quality of the TV image and the tarmac should tell you something. This has not been a good race, period.

It could be a great race. But it isn't. And that's partly because of the timid nature of the racing, and partly because the course doesn't offer enough reward for attacking cycling to make it worthwhile trying. So it's partly the riders' fault for not attacking, and partly the organisers' fault for giving them every excuse for not attacking.

 

[Bavarianrider]

The point is, the stage to Big Bear Lake has about the same altitude meters as a pretty decent mountain stage in the Giro. But if you arrive at the finish with a group of 40 guys, when a bunch of teams have been riding full gas in the final, that means that it's a perfect waste of a hard stage.

You might as well have a flat stage with a little bump near the finish, same result, less suffering.

What does the altittute have to do with this? Altitute says nothing about the difficulty of a stage. Just because it's 2000m you can't automatically excpect a true mountain stage. The thing is, riders yesterday chose not to suffer. That's why it was lame. If more riders actually tried something and went for the stage win, it could have been great.
But that's a general problem of bike riders these day. There seems to be nothing more to fear for riders than a failed attack.

 

[hrotha]

What does the altittute have to do with this? Altitute says nothing about the difficulty of a stage. Just because it's 2000m you can't automatically excpect a true mountain stage. The thing is, riders yesterday chose not to suffer. That's why it was lame. If more riders actually tried something and went for the stage win, it could have been great.
But that's a general problem of bike riders these day. There seems to be nothing more to fear for riders than a failed attack.

Well that attitude isn't going away any time soon, so if the race organizers fail to take it into account when designing a course that's their fault.

 

[Bavarianrider]

Straw Man.

When was the last time a pure climber won the Ronde van Vlaanderen? That's a great race.

That your cheerleading has been reduced to comments on the quality of the TV image and the tarmac should tell you something. This has not been a good race, period.

It could be a great race. But it isn't. And that's partly because of the timid nature of the racing, and partly because the course doesn't offer enough reward for attacking cycling to make it worthwhile trying. So it's partly the riders' fault for not attacking, and partly the organisers' fault for giving them every excuse for not attacking.

Again, it's an 8 day stage race which offers plenty of opportunities for all kind of riders. There's a tough mountain finish today. That's enough for a race like this. It's not like we saw 5 sprint royal so far.
If they would make the race harder, than hardly any European team would be interested. They have to create a balnced route.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Again, it's an 8 day stage race which offers plenty of opportunities for all kind of riders. There's a tough mountain finish today. That's enough for a race like this. It's not like we saw 5 sprint royal so far.
If they would make the race harder, than hardly any European team would be interested. They have to create a balnced route.

And 4 (maybe 5 if you count Big Bear) "sprint from a reduced bunch" stages is a "balanced" route? That's half the race!

Yesterday's stage might actually have been better if it was a flat stage with a bump 20km out, you know. More riders would have been fresh enough to attack. There are ways to make a more balanced parcours without making it so boring that its defenders have to resort to praising the quality of tarmac.

 

[boomcie]

That was hilarious! The whole podium presentation was great.

Love this picture:

 

[boomcie]

This one as well:



Probably a mix of being totally exhausted and knowing how to play an American crowd.

 

[El Pistolero]

This one as well:



Probably a mix of being totally exhausted and knowing how to play an American crowd.

Georges: look at that beautiful Californian tarmac!

 

[Mellow Velo]

So every stage which can't open great gaps or a pure climber can't win is always a crap stage?

Take out the "fluke" breakaway win and look what you are left with?
The results speak for themselves.
Get that tarmac dust out of your eyes and admit that the route is seriously flawed.
As Brian Smith said: California's bubble has burst. European riders don't want or need a hard, but ultimately fruitless race.
The Sagan show has saved it from becoming a complete sprint shambles.
What happens when Liquigas send him to the Giro and the rest can no longer be bothered?

Imo: Complacent/naive route compilation is the major threat to the race's future.