Analysis on the 2013 GTs mountains by PRC

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Ferminal said:
So you like a total of two GT mountain stages this year? :eek:
I dislike mountain stages where only the last 5k matters. Especially if they are ~150km long.

EDIT: I do like more than just 2 (GdI 20, TdF 9, TdF 19) Peyragudes is fine, but because we just saw it in the Tour, and that it is in the Vuelta this year, it isn't more than just fine. I actually like the Ventoux stage a little, because it is difficult to load it with mountains before Ventoux, so instead it is 244km which is fine.

Is there any of the stages that I disliked in the Giro that you like?
 
Netserk said:
Is there any of the stages that I disliked in the Giro that you like?
All of them really. Well I'm just indifferent, they aren't exceptionally good or bad. I do not think there is a perfect model for what every mountain stage needs to aspire to. A variety of short/long stages, uphill/flat starts moderate/steep gradients, one-two/multiple climbs is OK provided on the whole the mountain experience of the GT is acceptable. Not one of those Giro stages I could really improve on, it's not like they've done an ASO and added useless flat or deliberately avoided a good climb. Sure they could be longer but under Acquarone that is impossible. I have bigger issues with some of the medium mountain stages like the ones to Firenze and Pescara.
 
Ferminal said:
All of them really. Well I'm just indifferent, they aren't exceptionally good or bad. I do not think there is a perfect model for what every mountain stage needs to aspire to. A variety of short/long stages, uphill/flat starts moderate/steep gradients, one-two/multiple climbs is OK provided on the whole the mountain experience of the GT is acceptable. Not one of those Giro stages I could really improve on, it's not like they've done an ASO and added useless flat or deliberately avoided a good climb. Sure they could be longer but under Acquarone that is impossible. I have bigger issues with some of the medium mountain stages like the ones to Firenze and Pescara.
I agree that variety is very important (which is something positive about the TdF), but except the last mountain stage all the others are ~150km ending steep.
 
Netserk said:
Off-topic, but just viewed the stages of the Giro one more time..

Stages I like in the Giro:
Stage 3
Stage 7
Stage 8
Stage 9
Stage 16
Stage 20

Stages I dislike in the Giro:
Stage 2
Stage 10
Stage 14
Stage 15
Stage 19
Stage 21
Stage 19 is a day before the queen stage, so it could be disappointing because of that, but I like it as is. The first half is ridiculously hard and the long descents will be "fun" to watch. The Stelvio descent in particular. Anything can happen with teams trying to send riders up the road and GC riders who will be dropped in the descents. Some may already be cooked before they hit the Martello valley

The fact that it's short and ends on a steep ramp doesn't hurt it that much, IMO. It's still miles better than the Peyragudes stage, for instance, which can be controlled much easier, despite the length.
 
Aug 29, 2010
69
0
0
Hi guys:

I'm from PRC and I usually read the forum but scarcely post in it.

I just wanted to say that yesterday we published the analysis with an error: we forgot to put El Cordal in the list of the Vuelta. Sorry. We've got it fixed now.

This doesn't really change the big picture, but the real number of 1ª and HC mountain passes of La Vuelta is 17 (14+3), its highest ever even tough 2 or 3 of them like Monte da Groba, Ezaro or Tenebredo are in the list by the skin of its teeth.
 
Viskovitz said:
Hi guys:

I'm from PRC and I usually read the forum but scarcely post in it.

I just wanted to say that yesterday we published the analysis with an error: we forgot to put El Cordal in the list of the Vuelta. Sorry. We've got it fixed now.

This doesn't really change the big picture, but the real number of 1ª and HC mountain passes of La Vuelta is 17 (14+3), its highest ever even tough 2 or 3 of them like Monte da Groba, Ezaro or Tenebredo are in the list by the skin of its teeth.
thanks for your work :)
 
18-Valve. (pithy) said:
Stage 19 is a day before the queen stage, so it could be disappointing because of that, but I like it as is. The first half is ridiculously hard and the long descents will be "fun" to watch. The Stelvio descent in particular. Anything can happen with teams trying to send riders up the road and GC riders who will be dropped in the descents. Some may already be cooked before they hit the Martello valley

The fact that it's short and ends on a steep ramp doesn't hurt it that much, IMO. It's still miles better than the Peyragudes stage, for instance, which can be controlled much easier, despite the length.
It's also the only stage starting literally on a big climb since umm... Can only recall Luchon 2010 but try to forget it.
 
Some of my problems with the routes are not the design of the stages (as mentioned, short stages do have their uses), but the choice of climbs.

In particular, these I have a problem with:
1) Galibier. This climb is overused as all hell in the Tour, why do we need it in the Giro too? Sure, we haven't had an MTF from this side before, but what are the odds on a closure due to weather and a Télégraphe MTF instead? Pretty good? Also, the Galibier is overused as all hell in the Tour, why do we need it in the Giro too?
2) Stelvio. One of the most legendary climbs in the history of the sport, but part of its lustre is that it is the Ventoux to Mortirolo's Alpe; it doesn't feature regularly, so it's more special when it does. Featuring it two years running seems like stunt casting, especially coming off the Gavia. What's the weather-based contingency plan here? Tonale-Castrin-(Meltina)-Martell seems like the most likely and would be a real letdown after the promise of Gavia-Stelvio.
3) Peyragudes. While im Prinzip I am happy with this stage - a genuine long multi-mountain stage in the Vuelta - I feel aggrieved that we have to finish with the same finish we saw in Le Tour just last year, and that features one of the most overused passes in the sport. From Balès, would it have killed them to do Superbagnères instead? Because the Vuelta seldom leaves Spain (except to go into Andorra every couple of years), I kind of want it to use its rare treks into France to do things that I don't see every single year in the Tour.
4) Alpe d'Huez. Specifically, the selling of the climbing of this twice as something special. Climbing an overused climb twice has become par for the course in the Tour, and I suppose it was only inevitable that this would happen. The Volta a Portugal is less predictable in its stage design, for Christ's sake. The Tour and the Vuelta are locked in a duel to see who can avoid using a catalogue of great climbs the longest. The Vuelta has done a much better job of finding new climbs in recent years but still seems to lag well behind in legendary climbs.
5) Angliru. Perhaps this is why they keep coming back to the few they have created. After the horrific conditions in 2002 the Asturian monster was left off the agenda for five years, so that when it returned in 2008 - in an otherwise comparatively easy route - there was excitement and anticipation. They're running the risk of saturating us with it. When you find a new climb that has the potential to be legendary, I understand the need to use it a few times in short order to establish its mythos (unless you really don't need to, like with Finestre, where one race was all that was needed). But Angliru has the mythos now, and so we don't need to visit every couple of years anymore. Especially as the Vuelta is developing new climbs' mythos (Bola del Mundo, Ancares, maybe in the future they'll do the same for Cuitu Negru, Haza Llana, and I still hold out for them discovering Haza del Lino or Fumanya-Pradell or Coll de Pal (the latter of which could be linked for a brutal mountain stage) at a far greater rate than Le Tour (the turnover of new climbs for which is about as quick as Andrea Guardini can climb them), is there really a need for Angliru and Lagos de Covadonga every year?
 
Libertine Seguros said:
Some of my problems with the routes are not the design of the stages (as mentioned, short stages do have their uses), but the choice of climbs.

In particular, these I have a problem with:
1) Galibier. This climb is overused as all hell in the Tour, why do we need it in the Giro too? Sure, we haven't had an MTF from this side before, but what are the odds on a closure due to weather and a Télégraphe MTF instead? Pretty good? Also, the Galibier is overused as all hell in the Tour, why do we need it in the Giro too?
2) Stelvio. One of the most legendary climbs in the history of the sport, but part of its lustre is that it is the Ventoux to Mortirolo's Alpe; it doesn't feature regularly, so it's more special when it does. Featuring it two years running seems like stunt casting, especially coming off the Gavia. What's the weather-based contingency plan here? Tonale-Castrin-(Meltina)-Martell seems like the most likely and would be a real letdown after the promise of Gavia-Stelvio.
3) Peyragudes. While im Prinzip I am happy with this stage - a genuine long multi-mountain stage in the Vuelta - I feel aggrieved that we have to finish with the same finish we saw in Le Tour just last year, and that features one of the most overused passes in the sport. From Balès, would it have killed them to do Superbagnères instead? Because the Vuelta seldom leaves Spain (except to go into Andorra every couple of years), I kind of want it to use its rare treks into France to do things that I don't see every single year in the Tour.
4) Alpe d'Huez. Specifically, the selling of the climbing of this twice as something special. Climbing an overused climb twice has become par for the course in the Tour, and I suppose it was only inevitable that this would happen. The Volta a Portugal is less predictable in its stage design, for Christ's sake. The Tour and the Vuelta are locked in a duel to see who can avoid using a catalogue of great climbs the longest. The Vuelta has done a much better job of finding new climbs in recent years but still seems to lag well behind in legendary climbs.
5) Angliru. Perhaps this is why they keep coming back to the few they have created. After the horrific conditions in 2002 the Asturian monster was left off the agenda for five years, so that when it returned in 2008 - in an otherwise comparatively easy route - there was excitement and anticipation. They're running the risk of saturating us with it. When you find a new climb that has the potential to be legendary, I understand the need to use it a few times in short order to establish its mythos (unless you really don't need to, like with Finestre, where one race was all that was needed). But Angliru has the mythos now, and so we don't need to visit every couple of years anymore. Especially as the Vuelta is developing new climbs' mythos (Bola del Mundo, Ancares, maybe in the future they'll do the same for Cuitu Negru, Haza Llana, and I still hold out for them discovering Haza del Lino or Fumanya-Pradell or Coll de Pal (the latter of which could be linked for a brutal mountain stage) at a far greater rate than Le Tour (the turnover of new climbs for which is about as quick as Andrea Guardini can climb them), is there really a need for Angliru and Lagos de Covadonga every year?
Since aquarone decided to have galibier he has to have the stelvio so that the cima coppi is in Italy. weird to see you compare alpe to mortirolo though
 
Ferminal said:
It's also the only stage starting literally on a big climb since umm... Can only recall Luchon 2010 but try to forget it.
I think each of the three Grand Tours are just one or two steps away from being very good this year.

In the Giro, all they really need to do was make 2 of the puchy mountain stages a bit longer. Like maybe 60-80km longer with at least one more climb in each. And possibly have a decisive last stage....such as a time trial in Milan and lose one of the earlier chronos

In the Tour, they should have had more medium mountain stages. Two of the Corsican stages should have been harder than they are. And the jaunt from the Pyrennees to the Ventoux has too many boring stages. Even one more medium mountain stage or ramp finish would make it more interesting. And finally, the ITT in Le Mont St Michel needs to be 20km longer.

In the Vuelta, there are (as always) too many ramp finishes. Lose two of these, and make one of the stages pan-flat, and one stage either a medium mountain stage or a descent finish after a ramp in the last 10km. And make the stage into Casteldefells have a trickeier finish and be a lot longer. They could easily descend from Port del Rat Penat into the finish.

But all three tours have lots and lots of good stages.
 
barmaher said:
In the Giro, all they really need to do was make 2 of the puchy mountain stages a bit longer. Like maybe 60-80km longer with at least one more climb in each. And possibly have a decisive last stage....such as a time trial in Milan and lose one of the earlier chronos
agreed to all but the bolded. the earlier ITTs are perfect, and I'm not a great fan of the final ITT in Milan. But they should have put a meaningful final stage, yes. And Brescia has plenty of opportunities for that. Really disappointing.
 
barmaher said:
I think each of the three Grand Tours are just one or two steps away from being very good this year.

In the Giro, all they really need to do was make 2 of the puchy mountain stages a bit longer. Like maybe 60-80km longer with at least one more climb in each. And possibly have a decisive last stage....such as a time trial in Milan and lose one of the earlier chronos

In the Tour, they should have had more medium mountain stages. Two of the Corsican stages should have been harder than they are. And the jaunt from the Pyrennees to the Ventoux has too many boring stages. Even one more medium mountain stage or ramp finish would make it more interesting. And finally, the ITT in Le Mont St Michel needs to be 20km longer.

In the Vuelta, there are (as always) too many ramp finishes. Lose two of these, and make one of the stages pan-flat, and one stage either a medium mountain stage or a descent finish after a ramp in the last 10km. And make the stage into Casteldefells have a trickeier finish and be a lot longer. They could easily descend from Port del Rat Penat into the finish.

But all three tours have lots and lots of good stages.
Hmm I'm not so sure about that.
 
Eshnar said:
agreed to all but the bolded. the earlier ITTs are perfect, and I'm not a great fan of the final ITT in Milan. But they should have put a meaningful final stage, yes. And Brescia has plenty of opportunities for that. Really disappointing.
Ascent




Descent + Finish




WIN
 
I think what the giro lacks is a supergiro mountain. from what I recall stelvio is the hardest they got and it's 60k from the finish. even if it was 1 of the new ones like crostis or the one pozzovivo won on in trentino.
 
What i miss most in all the 3 GT's are mountain stages with several consecutive mounitains without any long flat sections in the last part of the stage. There should have been at least 1-2 more of these type of stages in all the GTs.

In the Giro the should have used Solda as a stage finish on the Stelvio stage and added at least a couple of mountains before Gavia.

They should also have replaced the Galibier stage with at 200 km all day mountain stage in Italy. Why go to France when you have so many good mountains in Italy?

In the Tour, they should have had a 200 km stage to Pla d'Adet like in 2005, and 1-2 more medium mountain stages with hilly finishes.
 
OlavEH said:
In the Giro the should have used Solda as a stage finish on the Stelvio stage and added at least a couple of mountains before Gavia.

They should also have replaced the Galibier stage with at 200 km all day mountain stage in Italy. Why go to France when you have so many good mountains in Italy?

It's pretty pointless to complain about stage finishes. They're fixed by deals done. It's the routes chosen that are disappointing.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS