2015 - 99th Ronde van Vlaanderen, 254km, Saturday April 4 (1.UWT)

[Jancouver]

Edit: Obviously the race is on Sunday April 5th and the length is to be around 265km!

New route has been announced. Tour de Flanders got two new climbs!

I'm sure Sagan is happy about this change. How about you?

http://www.rondevanvlaanderen.be/en

Climbs of the 2015 Tour of Flanders

1. Tiegemberg (km. 87,3): 5% avg., 9 % max.
2. Oude Kwaremont (km. 112,9 km, first passage): cobbled, 4% avg., 12% max.
3. Kortekeer (km. 123,2): 6% avg., 17% max.
4 .Eikenberg (km. 130,7): cobbled, 5,5% avg., 11% max.
5. Wolvenberg (133,8): 7% avg., 17% max.
6. Molenberg (km. 146,5): cobbled, 7% avg., 14% max.
7. Leberg (km. 167,0): 6% avg., 14% max.
8. Berendries (km. 171,1): 7% avg., 14% max.
9. Valkenberg (km.): 8% avg., 13% max.
10. Kaperij (km. 187,0): cobbled, 5% avg., 8% max.
11. Kanarieberg (km. 197,4): 8% avg., 14% max.
12. Oude Kwaremont (km. 210,3 km, second passage): cobbled, 4% avg., 12% max.
13. Paterberg (km. 213,7 km, first passage): cobbled, 13% avg., 20% max.
14. Koppenberg (km. 220,3): cobbled, 10% avg., 22% max.
15. Steenbeekdries (km. 225,7): 5% avg., 6,5% max.
16. Taaienberg (km. 228,2): cobbled, 6% avg., 18% max.
17. Kruisberg-Hotond (km. 238,4 km, first passage): 5% avg., 9% max.
18. Oude Kwaremont (km. 248,2 km, third passage): cobbled, 4% avg., 12% max.
9. Paterberg (km. 251,7 km, second passage): cobbled, 13% avg., 20% max.

 

[sir fly]

Mushroom's on the road again

 

[Jspear]

Sir Fly if you could, could you please make your pic a little smaller...it makes things a little hard to read.

Lefevere had some things to say about it.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/harder-tour-of-flanders-course-makes-for-boring-racing-says-lefevere

He doesn't think it is good. He says it will make people less likely to attack and animate the race. I think his concern is legitimate. I like the idea if it causes the exact opposite. If the riders who are a little lighter and maybe better at climbing attack.

 

[ILovecycling]

For once I agree with Lefevre, the harder the worse duhh..

 

[Flamin]

Where did you get the 254k distance from? It will be around 265k.

Lefevre definitely has a point in general, but in this case, it's just the Tiegemberg after 90k and the Berendries after 170k. Nothing significant. The final 90k are exactly the same (compared to last year, which was a great race).

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

I agree. Making a race too hard tends to be a mistake.
RvV 2007 also had 18 climbs though, 2003 had 19. (2010 only had 15)
I think it's the finale that's important, more than the build up.$

If you compare the final of those: 2003, 2010 and 2015 all have 8 hills past the 200k mark. Both the old and the new course have 13 km to go after the last hill too.

 

[Echoes]

I can see that GT monomaniacs want less hard classics...

Obviously, Lefevere is mighty wrong. Harder races are obviously much more entertaining but not the kind of entertainment that people usually want to see...


What is not entertaining is harder finale!! But if the route is hard at about 60 to 75% of it, it is epic. That is the case for the Tour of Flanders. Last climb is about 10k from finish. But was of course much better on the previous route, with the hardest climbs first (Koppenberg, Taaienberg,...) and then lesser climbs then (Kapelmuur, Bosberg).

 

[Jspear]

GVA and Vanmarcke like it....

"It's a beautiful route," Van Avermaet said. "In recent years, they have been looking for the right formula and it has now been found. Two years ago we still did laps. Now we rider more point-to-point. There should be no more experiments. Otherwise, it will no longer be the Tour of Flanders."

"This course won't lie," Vanmarcke added. "The strongest will always prevail. After 100km, the hill zone starts and it continues right to the finish. That will create fatigue and stress which characterizes De Ronde."

http://www.cyclingquotes.com/news/merckx_van_avermaet_and_vanmarcke_react_to_new_flanders_course/

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Lol. Taaienberg harder than Kapelmuur?

 

[Flamin]

I can see that GT monomaniacs want less hard classics...

Obviously, Lefevere is mighty wrong. Harder races are obviously much more entertaining but not the kind of entertainment that people usually want to see...


What is not entertaining is harder finale!! But if the route is hard at about 60 to 75% of it, it is epic. That is the case for the Tour of Flanders. Last climb is about 10k from finish. But was of course much better on the previous route, with the hardest climbs first (Koppenberg, Taaienberg,...) and then lesser climbs then (Kapelmuur, Bosberg).

I think he means the general tendency 'put more hills/mountains in a race = better racing' that seems to be going on in the last years , Pompeiana in MSR and the countless uphill finishes in la Vuelta as prime examples. I don't see how he's wrong there.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Oh man give me GvA as winner next year please. Solo somehow.
'14 was a great edition of the race. Don't think adding a or two hill in the middle will change much, as long as we get a fairly long flat run in.

 

[Jancouver]

Where did you get the 254k distance from? It will be around 265k.

Lefevre definitely has a point in general, but in this case, it's just the Tiegemberg after 90k and the Berendries after 170k. Nothing significant. The final 90k are exactly the same (compared to last year, which was a great race).

Sorry, same as the wrong date it was by error copied from the info for the public fondo ride

 

[GoodTimes]

RVV was maybe the best race of 2014. I'm starting to look forward to the next one already!

When I lived in Mexico, there were some real tough cobbled roads and cobbled climbs. I wonder how these compare to RVV or PR. For me, it was a bit ridiculous to consider going faster than about 10 kph on these roads.

 

[Echoes]

Lol. Taaienberg harder than Kapelmuur?

oh, desist please.

Taaienberg > Bosberg
Koppenberg >>>>>>>> Kapelmuur Capito?

I think he means the general tendency 'put more hills/mountains in a race = better racing' that seems to be going on in the last years , Pompeiana in MSR and the countless uphill finishes in la Vuelta as prime examples. I don't see how he's wrong there.

With all respect you are proving my point. Hard climbs in the finale kills the entertaining element because leaders are waiting for it but not if the course is reinforced at its 2/3rd or 3/4th.

I bought a book about Liège-Bastogne ("Liège-Bastogne-Liège : une doyenne vénérable et vénérée" by Didier Malempré - Céfal 2014) last spring and read an interview of Jef Pescheux in it. It seems that he wants to remove St-Nicolas and admits it was a mistake.

I've translated it ]"We wished to toughen the last kilometers and this new climb also fitted with the new finish line. [the Liège has finished in Ans since 1992] I think we were spot at that time... At least that was what we thought... For today, the finale has become too hard. That is also why we no longer see the long breakaways that we could have lived in the history of the "Elder". At a certain time, you only had 3 or 4 guys who were able to win. Today you almost have one favourite in each team and each of them has interest in bringing their favourite at the foot of the last obstacle. [...]

Present-day cycling lacks history because riders no longer set their trail on races. If tomorrow, Froome starts winning classics, that might resurrect the latter's interest. And if Sagan starts dominating all the classics... But between Hinault and today, you no longer really have history. I personally love that, remaking the histories of the races. After Hinault, you probably had Criquielion and then Argentin. Even though he won here four times, when you ask people in the street, many don't know who he is. In my opinion you no longer have a guy that is capable of making history and to do it on the classics. [...]

We had a lot of debates on this. Very personally, I'd remove Saint-Nicolas and remake the finish in Liège. If only to just see. [...] I'd love the rider to say in hindsight that if they want to win, they have to attack. [...] I think that had we had the St-Nicolas in at Merckx's or Hinault's era they would still be packed together before it. So I think the route influences the riders. Of course you need to do the experiment. If they arrive with 40 guys, I'd take it on the chin. But let's try, let us remake the finale of old with the Mont Theux and the Côte des Forges. But who will take the risk to do it? Yet it still is possible to attack with 30km to go and win. If Sagan someday comes to win in Liège, his Cannondale team would block the race. So would Quick Step... The top fifteen teams have interest in a packed bunch on the approach of St-Nicolas. What should we do? If you place the last climb 30km from finish, the Liège history is no longer the same. Today we no longer have one dropped rider in the Redoute. When I'm saying this, I'm considered a defeatist... The present-day constraint is that we are forced to suggest a "show" sport. Television plays a big part in it too.[...]

I went in prospection, with a lot of trust toward Arsène. He absolutely wished to toughen the race, which I did not want. My own objective was to find the best suited route possible for a real race. I'd rather it blew up on the Haute-Levée. The trend among promoters is to toughen every race and the riders actually complain about it... I don't like that, it does not please me. [...]

[The author of the book notes that Pescheux's reasoning also applies to the Walloon Arrow...]

[...] which has become a climb race. If only we'd place the Mur 20k's from finish. Perhaps I'm too old but I'm still convinced that my successors in twenty years, when they look back on history, they'd stop at Bernard Hinault. [/QUOTE]

 

[veji11]

funny thing is that Pescheux in this extract only talks about the route. Yet I think we have been focusing to much on routes. Other aspects need to be looked at : weaken teams by having teams of 6 on all the classics, it will leave the leaders exposed earlier.