luckyboy said:Yeah what Lupi and Arnout said.
Tour is always worse than the Giro and in recent years I have found the Vuelta has been more entertaining than either.
In the past 3 years, Tour > Giro imo.
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
luckyboy said:Yeah what Lupi and Arnout said.
Tour is always worse than the Giro and in recent years I have found the Vuelta has been more entertaining than either.
jens_attacks said:so does anyone know what was in movistar brains at the beginning of zoncolan?40 kmph, dropped even nairo?!
PirazziAttacksVino said:It's not about putting minutes into the others everyday. I didn't expect him to attack on Rif. Panarotta for instance. But today he could have gone for a win on Zoncolan. He was by far the strongest climber, it would have been the easiest chance of winning on Zoncolan he could have got.
Pentacycle said:Even in 2012?
Arnout said:Also a problem of the Zoncolan. It's too steep to attack versus equals so as long as noone cracks, this is gonna happen.
Pentacycle said:Even in 2012?
Ryder Hesjedal @ryder_hesjedal
Truly grateful for @ACardoso84 staying with me today. I believe he could have gone in the break and won this stage. Thanks @Ride_Argyle crew
Flamin said:In the past 3 years, Tour > Giro imo.
Mellow Velo said:In that case, you must have found the Giro about as enjoyable as toothache.
UlleGigo said:Exactly mate. It's hilarious. As though Quintana owes it to a few peons on this forum to put minutes into people everyday. Or that the challengers owe everyone equally to attack until they either get away or die on the side of the road trying.
It's the same after almost every race. Now they'll stand around congratulating each other on recognising that this Giro was in fact the worst ever and they said it would be back in 2010 because they know so much about cycling and how much it sucks.
I for one really enjoyed the race like I enjoy every race.
The Hitch said:Too steep to attack?
What does that mean?
look at previous editions of this or Anrgy Lu and the time differences that have happened amongst gc contenders.
Today sucked because everyone was happy with their gc. In fact I would say it actually shows the power of Zoncolan since if this was any other climb you probably would have had about 25 riders come over together like sometimes happens on opening mtfs (Terminillo, Sierra Nevada)
Organizers took a risk that gc would come down to final stage
But Nairo declared for Giro and that was that.
Best place for Zonc imo though is second Saturday followed by the queen dolomite stage the day after.
That way gt hasn't yet had enough gc stages for overall to be decided, but is close enough to finish that they ride both mountain stages.
Or alternatively as a downhill finishe - see Mortirolo.
Arnout said:It's funny how Monfort can be high in GC but when he is in a break there will always be a few guys that climb a lot better even if they are hours down.
Arnout said:Isn't Angliru a lot more inconsistent? Which would mean riders have the chance to change up on some less steep parts. On the Zoncolan everyone is pretty much lowest gear for 5km.
Libertine Seguros said:
Cueña de los Cabres is the toughest part of either climb (just), but the super brutal part of Zoncolan is 8km or so, as opposed to 6,5% on Angliru, and the first 2 steep kilometres of Zoncolan are very close to Cueña and a lot longer.
The Hitch said:Too steep to attack?
What does that mean?
look at previous editions of this or Anrgy Lu and the time differences that have happened amongst gc contenders.
chiocciolis_calves said:I have. Watched them, too. In the first two editions, 2003 and 2007, the time differences were under a minute between the main GC contenders, even in 2003, when Simoni was stomping the field. I believe he ended up about 30 seconds up on Garzelli and about 40 on Casagrande and Pantani. It was about 30 seconds on Di Luca and Cunego in 2007, with Schleck only like 15 seconds behind him. 2010 was the one edition in which there were significant time differences between the stage winner and the other contenders, with Basso getting about 1:20 on Evans. In 2011, Anton won by 30 seconds over Contador, but Nibali was right behind Contador, and the other GC contenders were all bunched together, with insignificant time losses/differentials. Numerous riders and ex-riders have commented on how climbs like Zoncolan are self-limiting because everyone is spinning their smallest gears. A telling piece of evidence is the time down of the gruppetto on Zoncolan stages versus stages with less sever gradients. It's simply harder to attack and build up as sizable time gaps. I used to savor these types of climbs in the GTs, but I've come to see that the pros are correct about them. They usually turn into duds where the protagonists can't build much of an advantage, regardless how dominant they've been up to that point.
The Hitch said:No, on Angliru everyone is lowest gear for 5km. On Zoncolan its 10km. That's the difference between the 2 - Zoncolan's steep sections go on for longer (basically the whole climb)
Angliru is 2 halves. The second half is exactly like Zoncolan - all steep kilometers. The first half is more like an average hc climb gradient. Which is why its average gradient % is lower than Zoncs. Then at km 6 it ramps up and basically becomes Zoncolan the rest of the way.
Its inconsistent if you consider going from 12% to 22% to 15% to be inconsistent.
But Zoncolan has that as well.