Amgen Tour of California 2019, May 12-18

[Oldermanish]

Do you really think that the UCI would commission a study that found otherwise? I'm sure if you asked the Richmond World's organization about the weeks impact on the area, you would find nothing but positives. Ask them why there was no backing for a one day UCI race in the years after. My guess is that their answer won't be that people were afraid of so much success again.

No need to post frownie faces if the actual UCI event costs are figured in and they are still greatly positive. Cyclocross would be a major winner in the US.

Tour of California didn't net any major economic benefit to Napa and Sonoma Counties according to locals. Those areas are at near maximum housing capacity for tourists when the race came around and aren't looking for great increases in tourist development. Their land use governance make is difficult to permit a house remodel, let alone major tourist infrastructure. It's taken the 4 Seasons Hotels 6+ years to build a small hotel in Calistoga on the site of an existing condominium. I'm not sure there was any net increase in bed capacity. Sacramento may be a good balance but not much of a tourist destination compared to Napa, Tahoe and most coastal areas (that have fewer hotels than Napa).

The Tour, Giro pass through much tourist territory that boast huge winter tourist capacity. That is vacant income/bed capacity that makes sense in every way for a Tour event. I think the French national government budget covers repaving many of the roads on the Tour route which is a tremendous benefit if true and ASO still gets paid from the towns in some manner. Much easier math.

 

[GVFTA]

No need to post frownie faces if the actual UCI event costs are figured in and they are still greatly positive. Cyclocross would be a major winner in the US.

Tour of California didn't net any major economic benefit to Napa and Sonoma Counties according to locals. Those areas are at near maximum housing capacity for tourists when the race came around and aren't looking for great increases in tourist development. Their land use governance make is difficult to permit a house remodel, let alone major tourist infrastructure. It's taken the 4 Seasons Hotels 6+ years to build a small hotel in Calistoga on the site of an existing condominium. I'm not sure there was any net increase in bed capacity. Sacramento may be a good balance but not much of a tourist destination compared to Napa, Tahoe and most coastal areas (that have fewer hotels than Napa).

The Tour, Giro pass through much tourist territory that boast huge winter tourist capacity. That is vacant income/bed capacity that makes sense in every way for a Tour event. I think the French national government budget covers repaving many of the roads on the Tour route which is a tremendous benefit if true and ASO still gets paid from the towns in some manner. Much easier math.

No argument intended, but I don't understand your first paragraph. Also, how do you see cyclocross as a big winner.

 

[Koronin]

I was a little confused there, thought you were still talking about California.

Sorry for the confusion. Just an example of a reason why a race wants to expand but currently can't. They have a very good excuse.

 

[Leinster]

The last time the ToC came through Napa was 2011. No stage start or finish. Of course the impact was minimal.

Sonoma must have had more, or they wouldn’t have pushed to get the overall race finish a couple years back (2016?) in Santa Rosa. Downtown SR was busy that day, full of race-goers.

I was in South Lake for the last weekend of snow this year, and the place was dead. Hotel rooms for a song, nobody in the gondolas or lifts. The ToC came there a month later. The only way the race didn’t impact tourism there is that the businesses decided it wasn’t worthwhile/big enough to staff back up for one day.

Some parts of California don’t need any more help with Tourism, but some could use a hand-up. And you can’t tell me that San Diego is at full hotel capacity in the middle of May-Grey/June-Gloom season.

 

[GVFTA]

The last time the ToC came through Napa was 2011. No stage start or finish. Of course the impact was minimal.

Sonoma must have had more, or they wouldn’t have pushed to get the overall race finish a couple years back (2016?) in Santa Rosa. Downtown SR was busy that day, full of race-goers.

I was in South Lake for the last weekend of snow this year, and the place was dead. Hotel rooms for a song, nobody in the gondolas or lifts. The ToC came there a month later. The only way the race didn’t impact tourism there is that the businesses decided it wasn’t worthwhile/big enough to staff back up for one day.

Some parts of California don’t need any more help with Tourism, but some could use a hand-up. And you can’t tell me that San Diego is at full hotel capacity in the middle of May-Grey/June-Gloom season.

Santa Rosa is as cycling nuts as Boulder is. I bet they had a huge turnout there. Beautiful area also. Place has unfortunately been ravaged by fire way too often recently.

 

[Oldermanish]

Santa Rosa is as cycling nuts as Boulder is. I bet they had a huge turnout there. Beautiful area also. Place has unfortunately been ravaged by fire way too often recently.

They did have a good turnout. Then everyone drove home. It also rained a bit during one of the years when they had to descend Trinity so it wasn't as big a draw as could be. I'd love to see races on the San Diego side but shutting any roads down would cause gridlock forever. May is a great time to be there but days are short and a mid-week race would get local traffic like Napa. The Euros don't mind taking their campers up into the Alps for several days before a race passes. Culturally we're not the patient with sports that require that much effort, I'd guess.

 

[Leinster]

Santa Rosa is as cycling nuts as Boulder is. I bet they had a huge turnout there. Beautiful area also. Place has unfortunately been ravaged by fire way too often recently.

Yup. A World Tour bike race through Wine Country would be a big window-to-the-world for this area right now to remind people we’re open for business.

Santa Rosa loves bike racing, there’s always events going on there. And other towns too, I remember reading a San Luis Obispo local paper one year where they were pissed off about being passed over for a stage finish (I think Santa Barbara and Monterey got in ahead of them that year).

 

[fmk_RoI]

Do you really think that the UCI would commission a study that found otherwise? I

Whether you agree with the report or not is irrelevant. You displayed considerable ignorance as to how bike races are organised, that report helps resolve that by demonstrating the promises made to host communities who help finance races. From the Tour de France, the World Championships, races like the Tour de Yorkshire or the Tour of California, all the way down to the Tour of Crapsville, the same promises get made: spend money on this race and it'll generate an economic return. Race to race the scale changes, but the promises remain the same.

Whether the promises are really delivered on, that's a different story. There are many economic impact assessment reports publicly available from other races and, whether you agree with their methodologies or not, the fact is these are the arguments being made as to why money was spent on a bike race. Whether it's a group of local hoteliers getting together to promote a ski resort out of season by bringing a race through, or whether it's a major metropolis pumping money into a race in order to generate TV time for the area that will in turn bring in tourists or conference visitors, this is the economics of organising bike races.

I'm sure if you asked the Richmond World's organization about the weeks impact on the area, you would find nothing but positives. Ask them why there was no backing for a one day UCI race in the years after. My guess is that their answer won't be that people were afraid of so much success again.

Why guess the impact of Richmond? The report is out there. Does the fact that McQuaid &co paid someone to claim this was the economic impact of the event mean there should be backing for a future one day race? Not necessarily. For one, the Worlds was a 10-day event, so the impact is quite different to what you'd get from a one day race. For two, who's actually tried to promote a one day race in Richmond using that argument?

Most importantly, you also have to understand the way in which races are used by host communities. On its own, bringing a bike race to town will have very little impact, the same as on its own sponsoring a cycling team has very little impact without the activation spend. Places like Yorkshire, bodies like the Government of South Australia and the State Government of Victoria, they incorporate their spend on bike races into other activities aimed at generating tourism and conference visitors. If you really want to reap reward from bringing a bike race to town it's not a case of one bike race, it's a case of a programme of initiatives.

 

[fmk_RoI]

A World Tour bike race through Wine Country would be a big window-to-the-world for this area right now to remind people we’re open for business.

Better to have films like Sideways orWine Country for this than a bike race

That said, proper promotion of an area involves all kinds of incentives, from attracting film-makers to attracting bike races...

 

[GVFTA]

Whether you agree with the report or not is irrelevant. You displayed considerable ignorance as to how bike races are organised, that report helps resolve that by demonstrating the promises made to host communities who help finance races. From the Tour de France, the World Championships, races like the Tour de Yorkshire or the Tour of California, all the way down to the Tour of Crapsville, the same promises get made: spend money on this race and it'll generate an economic return. Race to race the scale changes, but the promises remain the same.

Whether the promises are really delivered on, that's a different story. There are many economic impact assessment reports publicly available from other races and, whether you agree with their methodologies or not, the fact is these are the arguments being made as to why money was spent on a bike race. Whether it's a group of local hoteliers getting together to promote a ski resort out of season by bringing a race through, or whether it's a major metropolis pumping money into a race in order to generate TV time for the area that will in turn bring in tourists or conference visitors, this is the economics of organising bike races.Why guess the impact of Richmond? The report is out there. Does the fact that McQuaid &co paid someone to claim this was the economic impact of the event mean there should be backing for a future one day race? Not necessarily. For one, the Worlds was a 10-day event, so the impact is quite different to what you'd get from a one day race. For two, who's actually tried to promote a one day race in Richmond using that argument?

Most importantly, you also have to understand the way in which races are used by host communities. On its own, bringing a bike race to town will have very little impact, the same as on its own sponsoring a cycling team has very little impact without the activation spend. Places like Yorkshire, bodies like the Government of South Australia and the State Government of Victoria, they incorporate their spend on bike races into other activities aimed at generating tourism and conference visitors. If you really want to reap reward from bringing a bike race to town it's not a case of one bike race, it's a case of a programme of initiatives.

Yeah I get it. Me ignorant. You brilliant.

 

[GVFTA]

And by the way fmk. How many races or events do you organize?

 

[GVFTA]

Frowny faces are COOL!

 

[GVFTA]

Are you incapable of answering simple questions when asked?

 

[GVFTA]

Another frowny face. Yeah. No answers to questions though. Imagine that.

 

[nevele neves]

I hope the law wasn’t a major sticking point, because if it was, it’ll just be ammunition for the wingnut anti-progressive “Title 9 killed my son’s football team” types to rally behind.
If it was a problem, though, I hope the organizers come out and say it, and make it clear to those who pushed the law through that it was an overreach whose time had not yet come, and all they’ve done is eliminate one of the races that was actually showing signs of moving in the right direction.

It was to a point where the organizers did not want to deal with the "headaches". Sorta proves the point about laws going over the top to kill things. Which is exactly why you have a knee jerk reaction to broad laws set up by states that have their head up the back sides of each other.

Maybe trump can start up the tour de trump again and make cycling great again.

 

[nevele neves]

Congress, and specifically the House, controls federal money.

None of those fat thieves in the house or senate would ever fund anything cycling.

 

[nevele neves]

Because those issues have nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

News flash. Someone within this thread mentioned that the cali law regarding equal pay etc bring the issues mentioned into the thread.
Make one race for all genders and of course don't forget aliens. (sarcasm alert)

 

[Oldermanish]

Better to have films like Sideways orWine Country for this than a bike race

That said, proper promotion of an area involves all kinds of incentives, from attracting film-makers to attracting bike races...

You're right and it's a shame. The roads around this region are a bike racer's dream and both super technical and beautiful. Not as beautiful as the climb to Lac Emossan dam with Mt Blanc in the background or the Gavia, but pretty nice.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I am gonna miss the wonderful tarmac

 

[Oldermanish]

I am gonna miss the wonderful tarmac

You must be talking about the French version of pavement: Le Grand Bournand or some other pristine tarmac.
The hills around the Wine Country are legendarily absent of any smoothness whatsoever. I was impressed that they actually used some chipseal in the Pope Valley...for about 2 miles. The rest of it will wear out a pair of Armadillo tires in a week it's so rough. Gorgeous scenery and epic climbs/descents.

 

[Leinster]

You must be talking about the French version of pavement: Le Grand Bournand or some other pristine tarmac.
The hills around the Wine Country are legendarily absent of any smoothness whatsoever. I was impressed that they actually used some chipseal in the Pope Valley...for about 2 miles. The rest of it will wear out a pair of Armadillo tires in a week it's so rough. Gorgeous scenery and epic climbs/descents.

They’ve repaved Atlas Peak Road up to about halfway. It’s very nice, apparently. It’d make a great summit finish for a medium-mountain type stage, I’ve always thought. It could approach from Sacramento direction or over from Sonoma/Marin.

I think the assumed view of California is wide smooth sun-kissed boulevards with convertibles racing on them. That’s true-ish in places, but I think one of the great things about the ToC is showing off the variety of terrain and even climate.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You must be talking about the French version of pavement: Le Grand Bournand or some other pristine tarmac.
The hills around the Wine Country are legendarily absent of any smoothness whatsoever. I was impressed that they actually used some chipseal in the Pope Valley...for about 2 miles. The rest of it will wear out a pair of Armadillo tires in a week it's so rough. Gorgeous scenery and epic climbs/descents.

This is a forum in-joke going back to when the race was Andrew Messick's personal hype project in the time when Lance was still active. The race attracted a lot of derision for its absurdly grandiose claims of its position in the calendar (describing itself as the fourth Grand Tour, people like Bob Stapleton and Levi Leipheimer pushing it as one of the most important races of the season, talk in the press of building it up to two weeks and the Giro and Vuelta being shortened to make room for it as a Grand Tour and so on), which to tell the truth it probably never fully recovered from in a PR perspective, even though it did eventually settle into a pretty decent niche, as once it stopped pretending to be something it wasn't and people could just enjoy the race for what it was, it seemed to do OK for itself. But back in those days, we had a few posters who would push the California line hard, either because of parroting the agenda that big name American cyclists and team owners were pushing, because they genuinely wanted to believe, or because they had something against the Giro or, more commonly, the Vuelta, and one of these was Bavarianrider. Bavarianrider pushed the Tour of California hard, defended it tirelessly against criticism in the build-up and hyped the race as hard as they could before it took place. The 2010 Tour of California, however, was a rocky start to its new role, with an embarrassingly bad queen stage, one stage being cut from TV before the finish to go to pre-game baseball, some of the biggest names in the race treating it as a training ride, and going up head-to-head with arguably the best GT of the last 20 years, and overall a big damp squib after all the build-up. While Bavarianrider continued to argue their side, by the end of the race they were reduced to talking about how the race showed off how developed California was, and how the roads had such pristine and beautiful tarmac that other races should aspire to (notwithstanding that one of the best received stages of the Giro it was being judged against was one which had several decisive sections without any tarmac at all).

 

[Oldermanish]

They’ve repaved Atlas Peak Road up to about halfway. It’s very nice, apparently. It’d make a great summit finish for a medium-mountain type stage, I’ve always thought. It could approach from Sacramento direction or over from Sonoma/Marin.

I think the assumed view of California is wide smooth sun-kissed boulevards with convertibles racing on them. That’s true-ish in places, but I think one of the great things about the ToC is showing off the variety of terrain and even climate.

Don't get me wrong; I love those gnarly climbs and descents. Our little team training camps eventually led a teammate to introduce it to his pro squad when he made the bigger time. Levi L had never been there until our guy showed him the climbs out of Guerenville, Casdero, Coleman Valley, etc. All epic and demanding you pay attention. Returning into Casdero we almost lost a major pro sprinter to 1,000lbs of bovine splendor in the middle of a 20% switchback. Amazing places there but too small to race in many places. That's why it is still as-is and epic.

 

[Oldermanish]

This is a forum in-joke going back to when the race was Andrew Messick's personal hype project in the time when Lance was still active. The race attracted a lot of derision for its absurdly grandiose claims of its position in the calendar (describing itself as the fourth Grand Tour, people like Bob Stapleton and Levi Leipheimer pushing it as one of the most important races of the season, talk in the press of building it up to two weeks and the Giro and Vuelta being shortened to make room for it as a Grand Tour and so on), which to tell the truth it probably never fully recovered from in a PR perspective, even though it did eventually settle into a pretty decent niche, as once it stopped pretending to be something it wasn't and people could just enjoy the race for what it was, it seemed to do OK for itself. But back in those days, we had a few posters who would push the California line hard, either because of parroting the agenda that big name American cyclists and team owners were pushing, because they genuinely wanted to believe, or because they had something against the Giro or, more commonly, the Vuelta, and one of these was Bavarianrider. Bavarianrider pushed the Tour of California hard, defended it tirelessly against criticism in the build-up and hyped the race as hard as they could before it took place. The 2010 Tour of California, however, was a rocky start to its new role, with an embarrassingly bad queen stage, one stage being cut from TV before the finish to go to pre-game baseball, some of the biggest names in the race treating it as a training ride, and going up head-to-head with arguably the best GT of the last 20 years, and overall a big damp squib after all the build-up. While Bavarianrider continued to argue their side, by the end of the race they were reduced to talking about how the race showed off how developed California was, and how the roads had such pristine and beautiful tarmac that other races should aspire to (notwithstanding that one of the best received stages of the Giro it was being judged against was one which had several decisive sections without any tarmac at all).

I think I witnessed that wet edition. Mark Cavendish was way-dropped on the backside Howell Mountain with the harder climbs to come. Cancellera and a few other hit the deck coming down Trinity and cursed the promoters for that stage. Can't say I'd blame them.

 

[Mayomaniac]

In hindsight one of the big mistakes was the fact that US-cycling wasn't able to establish a big stage race durning the Lance era.
They could have uses him as the main attraction. Back then most of the big names had the Tour as their main focus, only Spanish and Italian cyclists had their respective gts as their main goals, so they could have attracted a lot of big names durning the Giro or after the Tour/durning the Vuelta.
The Tour of Georgia only lasted a few years, but I still think that the early 2000s were the best moment to establish an important US stage race in recent history.