- Oct 30, 2023
- 5,322
- 8,208
- 16,180
He’s better off not riding any one day races. Enough people think he would win there is no need to actually race them
Just another reason to bring back the Muur.https://cyclinguptodate.com/cycling...-2024-tour-of-flanders-due-to-safety-concerns
Kanarieberg and Kortekeer have been removed from the route of the 2024 Tour of Flanders. The organizers hope this will make the competition safer.
When was the last time an attack on the Trouée d'Arenberg was decisive? or the first 250 km of Milan-San Remo? or numerous integral parts of other races?We have analyzed the editions of recent years. We looked at whether someone who attacked on the Kanarieberg or the Kortekeer ever stayed ahead. So no one."
Kapelleberg has not only replaced Kortekeer, but also Eikenberg. It's more of a substitute for the latter, so I think it's fair to say that the former has been removed.What maybe relevant to add is, they haven't just skipped two hills, they replaced them with two others:
"Na feedback van het peloton hebben we de twee hellingen eruit gehaald en vervangen door de Nieuwe Kruisberg en de Kapelleberg."
Might as well not even bother racing PR at all with their type of reasoning.The decisions about removing two hills from the Ronde might be perfectly valid, I have no reason to gripe about them.
But this part of the rationale could be strange if applied to other parts of other races:
When was the last time an attack on the Trouée d'Arenberg was decisive? or the first 250 km of Milan-San Remo? or numerous integral parts of other races?
In this case it was a safety riskThe beauty of the chaos caused by cobbles and other hazards needs to be protected, as long as it’s not an excessive safety risk.
That’s fine for minor sections 100k from the finish, but what about things like Arenberg, Poggio, etc that are known risks? I’d hate to see the same logic used for more meaningful sections of races.In this case it was a safety risk
I agree, but Arenberg is a bad example given it was less than twelve months ago that the winning split emerged there.The decisions about removing two hills from the Ronde might be perfectly valid, I have no reason to gripe about them.
But this part of the rationale could be strange if applied to other parts of other races:
When was the last time an attack on the Trouée d'Arenberg was decisive? or the first 250 km of Milan-San Remo? or numerous integral parts of other races?
OK: it was a genuine question because for all I enjoy watching racing I am hopeless at remembering details.I agree, but Arenberg is a bad example given it was less than twelve months ago that the winning split emerged there.
I didn't though. Laporte punctured and Ganna attacked from the peloton, but the split happened before that.I agree, but Arenberg is a bad example given it was less than twelve months ago that the winning split emerged there.
Ah, my bad. Still, can be considered to have been decisive imoI didn't though. Laporte punctured and Ganna attacked from the peloton, but the split happened before that.
That would be cannibalesque.Time for Pogi to get in the ring, this race needs him now
”But you promised you wouldn’t!Time for Pogi to get in the ring, this race needs him now
Is it not possible that the crash today is actually bad for MvdP's winning chances? I see the opportunity for a much more uncontrollable race, without the iron grip og Visma or tre,k that he often exploits.
Is it not possible that the crash today is actually bad for MvdP's winning chances? I see the opportunity for a much more uncontrollable race, without the iron grip og Visma or tre,k that he often exploits.
It’s going to be like a scene out of Lord of the Rings - infinite riders attacking all around in a frenzy while MVdP slashes them all away on his horse, riding to victory.that's all I want. I want so much mayhem and Alpecin having troubles and someone not being VDP winning. even a wild breakaway like Vansummeren and O'Grady at Roubaix
