2014 Paris Nice parcours - the verdict

[jaylew]

I'm kinda with Will. Better than I expected but I definitely wouldn't want it to be this way every year. Maybe throw in a similar parcours every few years for variety.

But then, I like change. I wish they'd have a true mtf at worlds every 4-5 years to change it up.

 

[VeloHuman]

I mean JJ Rojas ended 4th FFS.

This alone speaks volumes about the ridiculousness of the course.

They really needed to categorize the climbs with more honesty. Calling today's 4.3 km at 6.7% a Category 1 is an insult to Category 1s.

 

[skidmark]

In the imaginary world of theory, I'm happy they tried this idea. See all comments above re: not having a mini-GT and the same guys fighting out everything all year. I kind of liked that Rojas was mixing it up with some 'real' climbers (and still lost the sprint!); I kind of liked it that even after stage 3 I thought it might be possible for John Degenkolb to win. I don't have a problem with that, as long as it's still selective (like, the editions of the TDU where Greipel was up there for the overall kind of non-selective is not my cup of tea). I don't mind that aspect. It's not like it's betraying the tradition of Paris-Nice - hell, look at who holds the record for most P-N wins. Not really the most pure climber/GT (except the Vuelta when it wasn't hard) guy.

That said, I found the race to be pretty uninteresting. I was hoping for a course that allowed for more small groups and attacking like that. But really, that might be too much to ask from anything other than a cobbled classic these days. I mean, even LBL and Amstel are pretty boring until the very end some years. I had hoped for a crazy stage like in 2009 when Contador cracked and LL Sanchez, Chavanel, Schleck and whoever else just took turns attacking him into the ground after a selective climb. Those were the types of stages I want, all the time. But I don't know if there's really a parcours that would make that happen, it maybe just has to be the right combination of circumstances.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

In the imaginary world of theory, I'm happy they tried this idea. See all comments above re: not having a mini-GT and the same guys fighting out everything all year. I kind of liked that Rojas was mixing it up with some 'real' climbers (and still lost the sprint!); I kind of liked it that even after stage 3 I thought it might be possible for John Degenkolb to win. I don't have a problem with that, as long as it's still selective (like, the editions of the TDU where Greipel was up there for the overall kind of non-selective is not my cup of tea). I don't mind that aspect. It's not like it's betraying the tradition of Paris-Nice - hell, look at who holds the record for most P-N wins. Not really the most pure climber/GT (except the Vuelta when it wasn't hard) guy.

That said, I found the race to be pretty uninteresting. I was hoping for a course that allowed for more small groups and attacking like that. But really, that might be too much to ask from anything other than a cobbled classic these days. I mean, even LBL and Amstel are pretty boring until the very end some years. I had hoped for a crazy stage like in 2009 when Contador cracked and LL Sanchez, Chavanel, Schleck and whoever else just took turns attacking him into the ground after a selective climb. Those were the types of stages I want, all the time. But I don't know if there's really a parcours that would make that happen, it maybe just has to be the right combination of circumstances.

If we take Contador (and perhaps Kreuziger) out of T-A this year, we would end up with a "non seletive" situation imo. Yesterday would have ended with 20-30 riders at the base of the wall and the break would have taken the win.

Consider this: Say Contador and Kreuziger started in P-N on this year's parcours. I'm pretty confident we would have a much more selective race than this year. To rip things apart alien style riders are the trigger.

Back in 2009, many GC riders were operating on a different planet. These guys were able to rip things apart and expose riders with just a little less form.

 

[NUFCrichard]

I liked it, it wasn't a tour or giro light, but it was a good race. An ITT would have killed it, so it was good that they didn't have one. It was too tough for sprinters and too easy for most GC guys, a nice classic-like middle ground.

I think the real shame was that Sagan, Gilbert and alike didn't ride it, as they would have had a great chance to win the overall.

 

[rghysens]

They really needed to categorize the climbs with more honesty. Calling today's 4.3 km at 6.7% a Category 1 is an insult to Category 1s.

Why should the standards of GT's apply to P-N?
I have to say that, like some others, I liked the idea (no mtf's and no tt's) of this race a lot, but its execution was a bit below par. Stage to Fayence should have been a bit more difficult and an early hilly stage (why not a circuit race in the chevreuse valley?) wouldn't be bad either.

 

[Bye Bye Bicycle]

I liked the idea AND the execution. I hope ASO sticks to this formula in the next years. Some smaller hilltop finishes would be great, a return to the Col de la République - but I don't need any MTFs.

 

[Arnout]

I like the idea, but in current form there will be attacks left and right which looks spectacular, but in the end only the last km matters. That's the real issue I think, I know in one or two stages some guys stayed away, but only barely. If they want to do a race like this again, they need to make the 50km before the finale a bit harder.

 

[Christian]

Consider this: Say Contador and Kreuziger started in P-N on this year's parcours. I'm pretty confident we would have a much more selective race than this year. To rip things apart alien style riders are the trigger.

I agree. The absence of the top dogs made for a much more even field, and much less predictable racing

 

[Hugo Koblet]

I kinda liked the route. Or at least the idea, because I think they could definitely improve it.

First of all, three sprint stages the first three days is too much. I'd propose 1 sprint stage, then perhaps something a bit more selective (stage 2 this year was OK for that purpose) and then a very hilly stage in which a break away has a chance of staying away. This could get riders into contention for the overall win who might not go for it otherwise and at the same time leave it to the favorites teams to decide who could be dangerous for the overall.

I'd like one stage with a small hilltop finish, say 3 or 4 km's, as well.

 

[ILovecycling]

It was an interesting change,but next year we need at least one really hard stage.

 

[movingtarget]

I liked it. More moderate stages made for better racing. A TT and mountain stage in an 8 day race can take the suspense out of it before the final stage. I think it worked well this year.

 

[veji11]

I think ASO could have traced harder stages, without altering the end of the stages much. Make the last 20kms of a stage too hard, and no one moves an ear before. But if you make the first 150kms of a stage harder, than you can get some action in the end.

Take the friday and saturday stages for example. Friday was a bit of a disappointment, it looked on paper like the having a longish 8Kms penultimate climb than the uphill finish at Fayence would make it the most selective stage, but in the end the riders stayed put.

Paradoxically, saturday although it ended on what looked like a flattish circuit (although it was actually quite hard, lots of little ups and downs) proved about as selective because the beginning of the stage had been harder.

So to me I would have like the same route but with harder stages particularly on wednesday and friday (just do it like the 2009 Fayence stage). Make the stages more painful so that accumulation can play a role, but without changing the last 20 kms much, because otherwise you end up with a Liege Bastogne Liege effect, where everybody waits for the last 2 climbs.

If they could do that and race with teams of 6, this can of route could be great great fun.

 

[Sykhrzon]

I have an idea. No MTF's, no traditional ITT's.

Stage 1: Flat stage with a lot of turns and corners in the last 5 k
Stage 2: 300 km long coastline stage with a lot of crosswinds.
Stage 3: Hilly stage with a category 1 as the penultimate climb followed by a soft category 3 or 2
Stage 4: 9 km cobblestone team time trial.
Stage 5 A hilly stage with at least 10 small climbs which ends on a very steep (20% +) but short hill.
Stage 6: A hilly stage with small tortuous gravel routes and a lot of ramps.
Stage 7: A mini-Vlaanderen with 10 sections of cobblestones in the last half of the stage.
Stage: A stage with a couple of big hills and a descent to the finish.

The ultimative test for the classic specialists.

 

[Hugo87]

I want the classic Paris-Nice back with MTF and individual time trials, didn't liked the idea and the execution itself.

 

[VeloHuman]

As unconventional as the parcours may have been, the race was still won and runnered-up by two guys who excel in conventional stage racing. Sure, JJ Rojas was in the top 10, but the stage racing GC guys Betancur and Costa were always the real contenders, so it's not like the race turned out that differently than it might have had their been a mountaintop finish.

 

[red_flanders]

I think the question is whether Paris-Nice should continue to be a prep race for upcoming races like Milan-San Remo or it should be a race unto itself, where top riders actually vie for the victory.

Not to say it can't be a bit of both. But historically it's been no too hard because it's been a prep race.

 

[William H]

The concept was good, and I hope they continue to avoid mountain top finishes or TTs longer than a short prologue. But they could maybe have toughened up the course a bit.

 

[VeloHuman]

The concept was good, and I hope they continue to avoid mountain top finishes or TTs longer than a short prologue. But they could maybe have toughened up the course a bit.

I also would have liked a short prologue, just to create a little early separation other than playing the bonus second game.

 

[rhubroma]

Whats wrong with that?

So based on your standards every stage of every stage race should end up with a 30% wall so we can all watch the same guys week after week racing for a MTF?

Perhaps we should also stop calling it "cycling" and rename the sport to MounainTopFinishing

Cycling is most spectacular in the mountains, or at least on very selective courses. Cycling without mountains in stage racing leads to verdicts with only relative validity.

As for as 30% walls are concerned, no, but throw one in there and it can make for an electrifying spectacle. Nor was it the same guys, Contador aside, even if the Spaniard's masterpiece was made possible by the Italian course.

The PN course was lacking in having a clearly defining moment. It should have had a MTF and a TT.

 

[BigMac]

Cycling is most spectacular in the mountains, or at least on very selective courses. Cycling without mountains in stage racing leads to verdicts with only relative validity.

As for as 30% walls are concerned, no, but throw one in there and it can make for an electrifying spectacle. Nor was it the same guys, Contador aside, even if the Spaniard's masterpiece was made possible by the Italian course.

The PN course was lacking in having a clearly defining moment. It should have had a MTF and a TT.

So in your opinion a rider who is not a climber or doesn't perform well in time trials shouldn't be allowed to win the GC of a WT stage-race (ignore TDU and Beijing for obvious reasons)?

It made for cyclists like Vichot, Rojas, and to a certain point Stybar, to be able to fight for the win. You'll never see this guys win Suisse, because you can't avoid the high mountains, nor Ctaluña, nor Pais Vasco etc...

What do you mean by defining moment? A moment when the GC fight fades because the final winner was made obvious?

At the end of the day we had Betancur winning, but we could have had almost anyone (from those who were contending ofc).

So I think the balance is very positive.

 

[Roude Leiw]

I really liked the route a lot. I think they should stay with the concept, but they should introduce after the first stage a hilly stage which creates time gaps in order to calm the peloton down. There was a lot of nervousness in the stages because too many people still thought they had a chance. So 2 stages for sprinters, 1 not obvious for sprinters, the rest as is. Even if i concur with Libertine (?) who said in the race thread that the stage on Col d'Eze was too easy and he was correct, Rojas (and no offence mend to him) still sprinting there clearly showed that it was easy.

I preferred the concept to TA. I will get flak for this , but TA basically is 2 TT in 7 stages, 2 where they go into real mountains, which in early march is a real stretch because of the weather (snow anyone?). It turned out brilliant this year, but 10 degrees less and snowy weather and the stage is an armistice stage with some kind of sprint in the end.

 

[rhubroma]

So in your opinion a rider who is not a climber or doesn't perform well in time trials shouldn't be allowed to win the GC of a WT stage-race (ignore TDU and Beijing for obvious reasons)?

It made for cyclists like Vichot, Rojas, and to a certain point Stybar, to be able to fight for the win. You'll never see this guys win Suisse, because you can't avoid the high mountains, nor Ctaluña, nor Pais Vasco etc...

What do you mean by defining moment? A moment when the GC fight fades because the final winner was made obvious?

At the end of the day we had Betancur winning, but we could have had almost anyone (from those who were contending ofc).

So I think the balance is very positive.

I'm saying that a course like PN, which passes through the Alpes Maritimes, needs a MTF and a TT. I mean it's not the freakin enco tour.

It's a mini Tour in the spring and deserves a harder parcours and, as such, should include what was missing from a purely techincal, even before asthetic, perspective. This isn't to say it should favor a pure climber, but a strong climber and good time trialist should be given the chance to shine with adequite terrain in PN. It's an issue of decorum with respect to the event's justified prestige. Without these elements this year, PN simply wasn't decorous.

 

[Christian]

It's a mini Tour in the spring

Some people in this thread have suggested that it is precisely more than just a one week version of the Tour, and thus doesn't have to follow the same schematic. I tend to agree with them

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I don't think it necessarily needs a mountaintop finish, but it does need a properly selective stage. The stage to Fayence could have been so much more had it been like the stage to Fayence in 2009, or if the penultimate stage had some hills closer to the finish (sorry, Biot fans, Sophia Antipolis is a horrible place for the penultimate Paris-Nice stage to finish). Give us the 2009 Fayence stage, then instead of several climbs early then 60km to the finish on rolling ground, have something like the 2010 Tourettes-sur-Loup stage. Only one key climb, and with 33km still to go plenty of chance for it to be wound back (after all on that day all the big favourites finished together, but we got an epic solo victory and a close chase):

But if instead of the 2014 Fayence stage (which rather resembles this stage in profile) we got something more like the 2009 version:

Then things would be better. This is not a super-hard stage, it has the same Col de Bourigaille - Fayence finish, but with several other climbs that mean legs are more tired approaching the climb and makes it more selective. That way you don't actually need an MTF, because you have two potentially selective stages in a row there (putting 220km in the Vence stage the day after this would make it tough enough).

Here's my version of the final stage, I actually have the full descent from La Turbie to do the full climb of the Col d'Èze rather than just the final, less steep 4,5km or so. There's usually one more tough climb to begin with, such as the Col de Porte in 2010. I went with my personal favourite of the very southern Alpes-Maritimes climbs, the Col de Braus. Then the classic La Turbie-Èze combo.

There you go, 3 selective stages where the climbers CAN make a difference, but with no MTF and not so super tough you must be a climber to win. If they do a good job of the earlier stages (which let's be fair, they at least did a passable job of this year), then you can get a pretty good finale out of those three stages or something similar.

I also desperately want them to have a first stage that finishes in Plaisir, about 2km from Neauphle-le-Château. This town is notorious for having been home to Ayatollah Khomeini at one point, but it has a badass little cobbled climb:

Put in a little something for the rouleurs there, a windy stage, a pure sprinters' stage, a hilly stage around the Lyon area a bit like the Rive-de-Gier stage this year, an ITT of around 15km or a punchy stage into somewhere like Aix-en-Provence like the one Sagan won a few years back, and there you have a route with something for almost everybody imaginable.

(Yes, I had a Paris-Nice almost ready to go for the Race Design Thread before tracks4bikers' software got too obsolete for google's liking, which had quite a few of these characteristics, but instead of the Fayence/Vence stages I had an MTF. For the record, I had a Plaisir/Neauphle-le-Château stage, a long flat stage, an 18km ITT, a mostly flat stage with a couple of late hills, an MTF at Nôtre-Dame de la Salette, an Aix stage, a ripoff of the 2009 Fayence stage into Grasse, and the Nice stage noted above).