[B]All Mountain Stages Should End with Mountaintop Finishes[/B]

[syringelessss]

For the sake of the fans, if not for the sake of determining the GC, all mountain stages must end on a mountaintop.

Those of us in the USA stuck with watching the Tour of California saw a waste of time final stage, and a waste of time "Queen" stage 2 days previous, both of which included climbs, but both of which ended with flat road. Obviously, the USA is not a serious cycling country as the Giro is not televized here at all.

Predictably on the 2 "mountain" Tour of California stages, although the sprinters got left far behind, or abandoned, the GC group rode in together, as I knew it would.

What's the point in watching a mountain stage that ends with a descent or a flat stretch when the viewer already knows the GC contenders will re-collect into one group??? Why call it a mountain stage at all, why not a "Sprinter Disappearance Stage" instead?

I find mountaintop finishes to be the most exciting bicycle racing to watch of all, and along with the terribly boring TT stages, the most decisive.

Ending a mountain stage going down or flat reminds me of the endless caution flags in NASCAR wiping out all the hard work of the leaders, or the impossibility of passing in F1, where qualifying largely determines the race finish. What's the point of watching at all????

 

[Barrus]

Ending a mountain stage going down or flat reminds me of the endless caution flags in NASCAR wiping out all the hard work of the leaders, or the impossibility of passing in F1, where qualifying largely determines the race finish. What's the point of watching at all????

Too watch someone do something amazing downhill, such as Salvodelli used to do, or that Nibali did the day before yesterday. I would like it that more often a mountain stage ends directly after the descend, not too often, but more often than is now the case. I do agree however that not too much flat needs to be added after the mountain, either end the stage on the mountain, or at the descent, or just after the descent

Perhaps I should stress that especially the descending is often my favourite part to watch in a mountain stage

 

[HL2037]

Actually I had to go into the kitchen and make coffee when Nibali broke away on the downhill the other day. I can't watch it, it's too terrible to think of what will happen if he slips. Remember Horillo the other year and Voigt last year. I hate it when the etape ends downhill.

 

[BeachBum]

For the sake of the fans, if not for the sake of determining the GC, all mountain stages must end on a mountaintop.

Those of us in the USA stuck with watching the Tour of California saw a waste of time final stage, and a waste of time "Queen" stage 2 days previous, both of which included climbs, but both of which ended with flat road. Obviously, the USA is not a serious cycling country as the Giro is not televized here at all.

Uh, I don't know what part of the USA you live in, but out here in California, I am watching live Giro coverage on Universal HD every morning.

However, I agree that mtn stages should END on a climb. I was at Big Bear and it was pretty anti-climatic when 20 guys are listed at 'ST' behind the winner. That last little 1/4 mile pitch doesn't count towards a mountain finish.

 

[Ashtabula]

Universal Sports is a free sub-channel in many markets, a full list is here:

http://www.universalsports.tv/Universal_Sports_on_TV.html

I love how today's schedule, which I glanced at to find the above link, characterizes their Giro-so-far review today as a "sports non-event."

 

[santacruz]

Yah I mean for the sake of the riders safety it is really horrible to end with a downhill after a mountain... That would be cool if this was car racing, those guys don't mind blowing up in fire and flames but there's nothing cool about seeing Franky go flying off a cliff. To spice up mountain finishes, have a type of cyclocross boot camp in the dirt where you have to carry your bike and run in your road shoes, guaranteeing plenty of slipping and falling and muddy faces, and comedy, but no one really gets hurt.

 

[icefire]

This should be pretty obvious, but it seems it isn't: all mountain stages should have real mountains. If you don't know what that means, have a look at the Monte Grappa stage at the Giro two days ago.

 

[Magnus]

What's the point of watching at all????

Well if you feel that way don't watch it!

And please remember that mtf is no guarantee for exciting racing and that non-mtf can be very exciting.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I like a good mtf. But sometimes a good descent can be just as good if not better. The 2008 stage 16 of the Tour, over the Col de la Bonette-Restefond to Jausiers, was a perfect example. You had Arroyo, Casar and a couple of others in the fight for the stage win (after Augustyn's tumble anyway). You had a second group of breakaways, including Hincapie and all-day lone breakaway Stefan Schumacher - would they catch the front four? Would they be caught by the heads of state group? Then you had the heads of state group. Fränk Schleck was leading the descent, but Samuel Sánchez attacked. How much time, if any, could he gain? Could the others catch the Asturian? Also, Denis Menchov was dropping off the back on the descent. How much time would he lose? Alejandro Valverde was dropped just before the top of the climb and was descending like billy-o to make it back across - would he make it?

That's a lot of intertwining stories we'd have been denied if an MTF was enforced. Obviously some stages HAVE to be an MTF because the road up is a cul-de-sac - eg Tre Cime di Lavaredo, Alpe d'Huez, Angliru, Bormio 2000, Risoul. But a range of finish types are necessary to break racing up and make it less predictable. There shouldn't be TOO MUCH flat after the mountains (like stage 9 of the 2009 Tour, stage 16 of the 2010 Tour) - but if there's only a few km then that means an attack on the descent by somebody who's really good (Nibali, either of the two Sánchezes) can be decisive (see stage 7 of the 2009 Paris-Nice for a good example of this, as well as Nibali on Saturday), or it may even be feasible for somebody who attacks on the climb to hold on until the end (see stage 9 of the 2008 Tour).

 

[benpounder]

For the sake of the fans, if not for the sake of determining the GC, all mountain stages must end on a mountaintop.

Merely your opinion.

Obviously, the USA is not a serious cycling country as the Giro is not televized here at all.

No, obviously you lack the werewithall to find it broadcast. Besides Universal, I can watch the Giro with my morning coffee via the internet - and there are numerous websites available. Frankly, I suspect many of my fellow countrymen split time between Eurosport (broadcasting in english) or the official gazzetta web broadcast (in Italian naturally, which is the site I prefer.)

Ending a mountain stage going down or flat reminds me of the endless caution flags in NASCAR wiping out all the hard work of the leaders, or the impossibility of passing in F1, where qualifying largely determines the race finish. What's the point of watching at all????

Interesting that you know so much about sports that you ostensibly find so boring. In all, your post reveals much more about you than anything else.

 

[offbyone]

Well of course they should, but the fact of the matter is that all this big racing revolves around money and politics. While sponsorship dollars are obvious, you can't forget the politics. These stage races demand massive road closures and all kinds of local and sometimes not so local govt cooperation. That cooperation is garnered a lot easier when they know an economical benefit is coming to a location in their district, preferably a city center. Generally, there aren't many big cities at the top of mountains, so hence race promoters opt out of these finishes because they lose valuable dollars or support.

It sucks, it is unfortunate, but it is a fact of life.
It was particularly frustrating during the TOC. Even a little change such as not circumnavigating big bear lake probably would have induced a GC shake up. Obviously in the previous years, they couldn't do mountain top finishes in february, but I would guess that we will see more challenging stages in the future as they ease into this new time of year. My guess is that while they were going through the initial transition from feb to may it was easier to keep the race very similar to retain sponsors. I expect to see a much more serious queen stage next year and maybe even an additional mountain stage. There are innumerable climbing options in california that could easily be compared to anything they can offer at the giro, tdf or anywhere really. Hopefully they step it up.

 

[Von Mises]

Toc´s problem was not missing MTF or stage profiles in general. Paris-Nice, Catalunya, many others etc have every year stages where MTFs are "neutralized", but every year these stages still generete interesting attacking riding by contenders, attacks, time gaps, sometimes even decisive. Big Bear Lake stage could have been in simialr vein. But it wasnt.
Problem was simpler - lots of riders did not care. Only few teams and few cyclist were contesting GC positions and most of them were defensive wheel-sucking types. For instance, if I watched Big Bear Lake stage, I thought that Horner and Martin were strongest, if allowed, theyd attack and rode away. Instead of this they were sheparding teamleaders.

 

[9000ft]

I'll guess that if all mtn stages where MTF, you'd not have a lot of options for stages. It takes a place that has some degree of infrastructure to host the finish of a major stage race. The top of every pass does not have all the accoutrement's required. not to mention, a lot of towns at the other end of those climbs put a lot of time, effort, and money into getting selected as a host for the finish a stage. You can't get around the politics and business end of the sport.

Not that I don't understand the OP point, but for me a stage race should require a variety of skill to win, not just who is the best climber which IMO is what would happen if all Mtn stages were MTF.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Toc´s problem was not missing MTF or stage profiles in general. Paris-Nice, Catalunya, many others etc have every year stages where MTFs are "neutralized", but every year these stages still generete interesting attacking riding by contenders, attacks, time gaps, sometimes even decisive. Big Bear Lake stage could have been in simialr vein. But it wasnt.
Problem was simpler - lots of riders did not care. Only few teams and few cyclist were contesting GC positions and most of them were defensive wheel-sucking types. For instance, if I watched Big Bear Lake stage, I thought that Horner and Martin were strongest, if allowed, theyd attack and rode away. Instead of this they were sheparding teamleaders.

This is then a problem with the types of riders the systems create. I'm not a fan of many of the Anglophone riders because most of the Anglophone countries beget cyclists from a track or time trial background. This means very few have genuine strong mountain kicks; all of the major riders in the AToC have traditionally manufactured good GC positions by good time trials and hanging on in the mountains. With Big Bear preceding the ITT (and with 17k or so of flat after the climb, which is quite a lot of effort solo) they could be forgiven for deciding to not bother, and just back themselves in the time trial. Contrast that with the Volta a Catalunya; with only a short ITT, a rider like Joaquím Rodríguez still felt it necessary to attack over 50km from the stripe on a relatively neutralised mountain stage, because he wouldn't have many chances to gain that time back. With Tondó and Pereiro in tow, he had some strong allies, and with Milram pacing the péloton they knew they could likely build up a gap before the stronger teams like Caisse decided it was too far and they'd have to shut it down.

 

[Ferminal]

I very much enjoyed the Monte Grappa stage, a MTF would have subtracted from the spectacle.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

Not all mountain stages should end with mountaintop finishes!
This would result in a peloton waiting for the last 5 km to fully explode.
40%-50% is a good number, i think...

 

[montel]

2011 Mountain Top Suggestions

I agree with the original poster - We need a real Mountain Top Finish for the 2011 Tour of California.

With that in mind - does anyone have ideas. It needs to be close enough to a city or town to attract large amounts of spectators. Plus it could even be a climb that is completed twice - much like they often do in the Giro. And I think based on the infrastructure setup that the TOC has it would need to be a climb with some services or large parking space at the top and/or another way down from the top (e.g. not a dead end). Also, how about a Mountain top time-trial

I live in Northern California - so I will offer my ideas from up here...

TT up Sierra Road?

I would think that Mt. Tam could be a possibility - but it is a dead end.

Mt. Hamilton - however it is pretty remote (Quimby Road could work)

Bonny Doon (ridden twice) so Santa Cruz could still be part of the circuit.

Saratoga side of Hwy 9.

Climbs around Tahoe and Markleville.

Finish in Mammoth Lakes - Yosemite to Mammoth!!!

 

[Inner Peace]

Only read the title of the thread but I completely disagree.

When a stage finishes at the bottom of the mountain they are very often more attacking that a MTF.

Reason. to gain time on a descent finish you have to attack earlier than on a MTF.

Look at 2007 Tour de France. the descent finish stages were some of the best in an interesting tour, i think.

Obviously, Tourmalet stage 2009 tour was stupid, but I think if you have 6 mountain stages, only 3 need to be MTF with the other 3 having the stage finish possibly within 20km of the peak.

More importantly, MTF are stupid when there are no mountains before it. It just becomes a time trial (Verbier). Mountainous stages with descent finishes are so often the best for viewers, i think.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

More importantly, MTF are stupid when there are no mountains before it. It just becomes a time trial (Verbier). Mountainous stages with descent finishes are so often the best for viewers, i think.

Ventoux was the same. Lagos de Covadonga will be the same in this year's Vuelta. I hate that, flat stage, flat flat flat flat flat, MTF.

The great thing about mountain stages is that you get the big selections. Quite often some of the big stars will see their team shredded before you get to the climb. Going for the 'one climb at the end of a flat stage' totally takes endurance climbers like Sastre and Mosquera out of the equation.