Did they try too hard to make this Giro special?

[icefire]

Here's a pic:

It's the Crostis? Giau? Bocco? Marmolada? Any other road a "crazy" italian wants o put in a race to play with the riders life?

No, it's the ****ing Aubisque road. And nobody says anything about it and that enormous precipice.

BTW, at the Tour, only 3 climbs would be HC: Piancavallo, Giau and Marmolada. Maybe even only two with Piancavallo or Giau being 1st cat.

La Corniche du Cirque de Litor. Not a place without a history of accidents:

http://www.velopeloton.com/cycling/col-daubisque-east/

 

[Libertine Seguros]

No, they absolutely did not try too hard to make this Giro special. Trying to make the race special is the entire raison d'être of serving up Grand Tours. If we weren't expecting to be entertained, we wouldn't watch. Well, except for those days when I tune in for a flat stage, but we'll leave that for the moment.

The question is not about whether they tried too hard to make it special. It's about whether they struck the right balance between providing the excitement (and novelty - never underestimate the power of novelty in an increasingly formulaic race-organising world - see the Tour's many criminally underused - if used at all - climbs) and considering the safety of the riders (and the team cars - remember Andalucía's team car ending in a river in the Vuelta a Asturias? I would be more scared in a team car than on a bike on the descent of Crostis).

They obviously thought they did; what's overlooked is that the image of the Crostis we've been shown appears to be right near the very top - which is barely a descent at all, more a false flat - and that Zomegnan and RCS have plunged money into resurfacing (and in some cases surfacing full stop) that climb to make it passable and safe for the Giro. They obviously felt it was ready, provided they did everything they could.

A descent like yesterday's is par for the course in cycling. It wasn't an especially hard one, but it wasn't an easy one either. They may choose to reconsider whether the Crostis road is really ready, and wait another couple of years to surface it properly, then race it at a later date, rather like when the weather denied them Kronplatz in 2006. As for those saying about how early it was in the race, well, should we have all flat stages until the end of the first week then? Won't all the riders still be in contention after a week in that case too? What about one-week races or shorter races that contain descents as treacherous if not more than this one?

You can point to Weylandt's death and to Horrillo's terrible accident in 2009 and point your fingers at the Giro, but you could just as easily point at the Tour for Augustyn's potentially dangerous crash in 2008, Pereiro's even scarier one the same year or Voigt's awful fall in 2009. Or the Vuelta for the horrendous pile-up in Liège and Fuglsang hitting that tanker. Or the Tour de Suisse for Urán's disappearing into the forest or Schleck's tumble into the ravine. All of these could have been potentially as bad as yesterday's accident, and would we have pointed fingers at the organisers as much as this? Probably not because Zomegnan is one that likes to push the boat out.

Yesterday's crash was not the product of the Giro being any more dangerous than any other race on the calendar.

However, it may make them reconsider some things that may make it more dangerous than any other race on the calendar.

 

[VeloCity]

No, they absolutely did not try too hard to make this Giro special. Trying to make the race special is the entire raison d'être of serving up Grand Tours. If we weren't expecting to be entertained, we wouldn't watch. Well, except for those days when I tune in for a flat stage, but we'll leave that for the moment.

The question is not about whether they tried too hard to make it special. It's about whether they struck the right balance between providing the excitement (and novelty - never underestimate the power of novelty in an increasingly formulaic race-organising world - see the Tour's many criminally underused - if used at all - climbs) and considering the safety of the riders (and the team cars - remember Andalucía's team car ending in a river in the Vuelta a Asturias? I would be more scared in a team car than on a bike on the descent of Crostis).

They obviously thought they did; what's overlooked is that the image of the Crostis we've been shown appears to be right near the very top - which is barely a descent at all, more a false flat - and that Zomegnan and RCS have plunged money into resurfacing (and in some cases surfacing full stop) that climb to make it passable and safe for the Giro. They obviously felt it was ready, provided they did everything they could.

A descent like yesterday's is par for the course in cycling. It wasn't an especially hard one, but it wasn't an easy one either. They may choose to reconsider whether the Crostis road is really ready, and wait another couple of years to surface it properly, then race it at a later date, rather like when the weather denied them Kronplatz in 2006. As for those saying about how early it was in the race, well, should we have all flat stages until the end of the first week then? Won't all the riders still be in contention after a week in that case too? What about one-week races or shorter races that contain descents as treacherous if not more than this one?

You can point to Weylandt's death and to Horrillo's terrible accident in 2009 and point your fingers at the Giro, but you could just as easily point at the Tour for Augustyn's potentially dangerous crash in 2008, Pereiro's even scarier one the same year or Voigt's awful fall in 2009. Or the Vuelta for the horrendous pile-up in Liège and Fuglsang hitting that tanker. Or the Tour de Suisse for Urán's disappearing into the forest or Schleck's tumble into the ravine. All of these could have been potentially as bad as yesterday's accident, and would we have pointed fingers at the organisers as much as this? Probably not because Zomegnan is one that likes to push the boat out.

Yesterday's crash was not the product of the Giro being any more dangerous than any other race on the calendar.

However, it may make them reconsider some things that may make it more dangerous than any other race on the calendar.

I think it's applicable to races in general, the Giro just being the race of the moment so an example of convenience.

Racing has evolved - it's faster, more aggressive, riders take more risks, the peloton is bigger than ever so it's more crowded, etc - and the roads have changed as well - there's more road furniture, roundabouts, bigger crowds, etc. But imo organizers are largely sticking to a traditional approach to route design that doesn't incorporate the changes that have occurred in racing over the years, and that combination automatically increases the risks. Might be time that certain standards were enacted to adapt to such changes. Is it too much for riders to expect that roads be paved, for eg? Or that there's no hairpin turn 200m before a sprint finish? Nothing will ever end crashes, but there's lots of things that can be done (but aren't) to reduce the "external" stress put on riders and thus lower risks.

 

[Benotti69]

I think the geography of Italy is what dictates that there are stages in the first week with decent climbs and therefore fast descents. But it has always been thus.

The TdF has 3 mountain ranges which can take a week to get to as they always start in the North of France or Europe.

 

[rhubroma]

No, they absolutely did not try too hard to make this Giro special. Trying to make the race special is the entire raison d'être of serving up Grand Tours. If we weren't expecting to be entertained, we wouldn't watch. Well, except for those days when I tune in for a flat stage, but we'll leave that for the moment.

The question is not about whether they tried too hard to make it special. It's about whether they struck the right balance between providing the excitement (and novelty - never underestimate the power of novelty in an increasingly formulaic race-organising world - see the Tour's many criminally underused - if used at all - climbs) and considering the safety of the riders (and the team cars - remember Andalucía's team car ending in a river in the Vuelta a Asturias? I would be more scared in a team car than on a bike on the descent of Crostis).

They obviously thought they did; what's overlooked is that the image of the Crostis we've been shown appears to be right near the very top - which is barely a descent at all, more a false flat - and that Zomegnan and RCS have plunged money into resurfacing (and in some cases surfacing full stop) that climb to make it passable and safe for the Giro. They obviously felt it was ready, provided they did everything they could.

A descent like yesterday's is par for the course in cycling. It wasn't an especially hard one, but it wasn't an easy one either. They may choose to reconsider whether the Crostis road is really ready, and wait another couple of years to surface it properly, then race it at a later date, rather like when the weather denied them Kronplatz in 2006. As for those saying about how early it was in the race, well, should we have all flat stages until the end of the first week then? Won't all the riders still be in contention after a week in that case too? What about one-week races or shorter races that contain descents as treacherous if not more than this one?

You can point to Weylandt's death and to Horrillo's terrible accident in 2009 and point your fingers at the Giro, but you could just as easily point at the Tour for Augustyn's potentially dangerous crash in 2008, Pereiro's even scarier one the same year or Voigt's awful fall in 2009. Or the Vuelta for the horrendous pile-up in Liège and Fuglsang hitting that tanker. Or the Tour de Suisse for Urán's disappearing into the forest or Schleck's tumble into the ravine. All of these could have been potentially as bad as yesterday's accident, and would we have pointed fingers at the organisers as much as this? Probably not because Zomegnan is one that likes to push the boat out.

Yesterday's crash was not the product of the Giro being any more dangerous than any other race on the calendar.

However, it may make them reconsider some things that may make it more dangerous than any other race on the calendar.

But his death seems to have been due to a momentary "let the guard down" instant, precisely because one feels in the clear after so much concentration and when the road becomes "easier".

I've raced over terrible surfaces downhill (in Italy), and that kept me all the more attentive.

It's when you think you're out of danger, that's when the tendency to become distracted comes into play. And the consequences can be catastrophic.

At any event, any mountain descent is a risk.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I think it's applicable to races in general, the Giro just being the race of the moment so an example of convenience.

Racing has evolved - it's faster, more aggressive, riders take more risks, the peloton is bigger than ever so it's more crowded, etc - and the roads have changed as well - there's more road furniture, roundabouts, bigger crowds, etc. But imo organizers are largely sticking to a traditional approach to route design that doesn't incorporate the changes that have occurred in racing over the years, and that combination automatically increases the risks. Might be time that certain standards were enacted to adapt to such changes. Is it too much for riders to expect that roads be paved, for eg? Or that there's no hairpin turn 200m before a sprint finish? Nothing will ever end crashes, but there's lots of things that can be done (but aren't) to reduce the "external" stress put on riders and thus lower risks.

I think in fact the reverse - certainly some elements to course design such as the hairpin turns in sprints are undesirable. But the thing is, racing has changed, and oftentimes the introduction of narrow, difficult roads or tricky run-ins are a response to the problem of boredom. The fans want to see variety, and this leads the organisers to look for new climbs, new finishes etc. It's just that most of the time these new elements are either sprint finishes (which are reconned extensively by the sprinters' teams, but sprinting is inherently dangerous regardless of course) or mountaintop finishes (Angliru, Zoncolan, Kronplatz, Bola del Mundo, La Pandera and Rifugio Gardeccia are all relatively new introductions to the sport); the challenge is great, but the riders' safety is not at such danger going uphill. Unfortunately because of the route, we are descending Crostis as well as climbing it. The other descents are ones we've done before - Giau? Fedaia? Aprica? Finestre? We've done these descents before. The roads are paved and they aren't bad at all. It's only really Crostis that is questionable - and the photos we've seen are either dated or right near the top where the gradient isn't too bad but the surface is at its poorest. The rest of the descent might be fine for all we know.

The climbs and passes and sprint finishes we had were becoming too easy and racing predictable. The organisers have been trying to throw some curveballs to make it more varied. They may now have to reconsider how they do that and whether throwing in some of the obstacles that they do is really the best approach. The problem is that they've been throwing enough of these odd descents, road furniture-filled stages, unpaved roads and so on without anything going seriously wrong that they, and we, maybe had become a little complacent, and will need to think a bit more. It shouldn't preclude them from including Crostis, but it should perhaps make them think "Crostis should be an MTF and not descended, like Zoncolan" or "we thought it was safe enough, but on reflection maybe it's not quite ready and we need to spend a bit more on making it safe, so we'll put it off for another year or two".

 

[benpounder]

I've raced over terrible surfaces down hill (in Italy), and that kept me all the more attentive.

If people know the road surface stinks, they naturally ride slower. Which is why maybe it isn't such a good idea to lay down pristine asphalt on all these incredible mountain passes.

 

[Angliru]

I think it's applicable to races in general, the Giro just being the race of the moment so an example of convenience.

Racing has evolved - it's faster, more aggressive, riders take more risks, the peloton is bigger than ever so it's more crowded, etc - and the roads have changed as well - there's more road furniture, roundabouts, bigger crowds, etc. But imo organizers are largely sticking to a traditional approach to route design that doesn't incorporate the changes that have occurred in racing over the years, and that combination automatically increases the risks. Might be time that certain standards were enacted to adapt to such changes. Is it too much for riders to expect that roads be paved, for eg? Or that there's no hairpin turn 200m before a sprint finish? Nothing will ever end crashes, but there's lots of things that can be done (but aren't) to reduce the "external" stress put on riders and thus lower risks.

At the same time you had more descents with gravel roads, on bikes with much less advanced technology in terms of tires, riders likely more fatigued than current riders due to extreme length of the stages and the additional problem of sometimes having to deal with 2 stages in one day! Some grand tours lasted more than the 3 weeks that we're accustomed to.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

I think the geography of Italy is what dictates that there are stages in the first week with decent climbs and therefore fast descents. But it has always been thus.

The TdF has 3 mountain ranges which can take a week to get to as they always start in the North of France or Europe.

France has at least 5 mountain ranges.

- Alps
- Pyrenees
- Massif Central

- Jura
- Vosges

^ people always seem to forget about these two, smaller ranges, but there are more decent climbs there than in the Massif Central. Relatively speaking, at least.

 

[The Hitch]

France has at least 5 mountain ranges.

- Alps
- Pyrenees
- Massif Central

- Jura
- Vosges

^ people always seem to forget about these two, smaller ranges, but there are more decent climbs there than in the Massif Central. Relatively speaking, at least.

THe other 3 are nothing compared to the Alpes and pyranees though right?

 

[Havetts]

Massif Central has Super Besse and the Mont Ventoux though. Jura is shorter and steeper, dont know much about the Vosges' mountains.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Don't think Mont Ventoux counts as Massif Central, otherwise it wouldn't be in the Dauphiné. The Massif Central does have Montée Laurent Jalabert and Puy de Dôme though.

Vosges has the likes of the Col du Platzerwasel, Collet de Linge, Col Amic and numerous others. You could have a couple of pretty reasonable mountain stages in the Vosges. Plus, the other side of the border you have a number of German climbs that are seldom used, in fact not at all anymore.

 

[benpounder]

Massif Central has Super Besse and the Mont Ventoux though. Jura is shorter and steeper, dont know much about the Vosges' mountains.

Even though Ventoux is geographically in the Alps, it really a stand alone peak. It is certainly not part of Massif Central.

 

[roundabout]

THe other 3 are nothing compared to the Alpes and pyranees though right?

That's true, however due to what I believe are financial reasons a Vosges stage for example would end in Colmar which means that bigger climbs of the area would be less decisive.

 

[lukinox]

I've just got a quick consideretion to make, the Tour is hard because it's got all the world best riders competing in it but not the hardest route.
The Giro might not have always the best riders competing, but in my opinion it's got always the hardest climbs and route, that's the beauty of it.
It's true that this year is particularly hard, but last year was hard too and what a race it was ! Let's hope this year is gonna be the same even though something horrible just happened, but that's just been a real unfortunate accident.

 

[gttim!]

The Giro might not have always the best riders competing, but in my opinion it's got always the hardest climbs and route, that's the beauty of it.

+1

That is the beauty of the Giro. The climbs are steeper and tougher than the Tour. The roads are sometimes not pavement. They are narrow. I find the Tour incredibly boring. I love the Giro. I think the Vuelta is a better race than the Tour because of the climbing.

The tour always seems to have a bunch of climbing that don't change the outcome of a race, other than to remove some of the sprinters. 2 category 1's and a category 2, but then a 40 k flat run to the finish line. The climbs are not as steep as the other GT climbs. The leaders do not contest the climbs and all ride safely. At the Giro they go for it. You can't much about on many of those climbs.

 

[benpounder]

I've just got a quick consideretion to make, the Tour is hard because it's got all the world best riders competing in it but not the hardest route.
The Giro might not have always the best riders competing, but in my opinion it's got always the hardest climbs and route, that's the beauty of it.

I dont think many here would argue that.

To keep things on thread, some are wondering if Zomegnan is being 'too cute by half', trying to make it such a spectacle that it ignores basic rider safety. Personally, I dont think so; I really like the length variations thrown in with the profile difficulties, and lack thereof on occasion.

To wander off thread...
I think stage 14 will be pivotal, not the behemoth 15th. If you are familiar with the site climbbybike.com, you know they have a climb difficulty rating system. It is not fully adequate in taking into consideration all aspects of a climb, but in total, I haven't seen any better. Anyway, of the climbs (both occasionally and regularly) used by the Grand Tours (GT), Colle delle Finestre is the toughest, rated 224. Third and fourth in the rankings are Crostis (never used) and Zoncolan (3rd or 4th time). According to the equation, Crostis is marginally harder @208 than the finishing suffer-fest up Zoncolan @207. (Stelvio is second at 211.)

Four of the five climbs the following day rate as cat.1. Their difficulty ratings are as follows: Piancavallo - 149, Fedaia - 140, Giau - 122, Val di Fassa - 117. To put this into perspective vis-a-vis the Tour, Galibier from the north @189, Tourmalet from the west @164, Alpe d'Huez @141, Izoard from the south @119, and Morzine-Avoriaz @97.

And to respond to your slightly off topic observation, why is it that even though the Giro is the best race, all the best riders target the Tour? While the answer is obvious, I suspect two underlying reasons, and both related to when the Giro falls on the Calendar. One, to win a TdF, you need a strong and capable team. Teams use the Giro not only to gain strength, but to test strength. Two, teams do not have the time to fully scout the routes (many are still buried in snow and it is the heart of the classics season). Tis a pity, I would have loved to have seen a Giro battle with Armstrong, Beloki, Pantani Ullrich all at their strongest (either all doped or all not). That would have been epic.

 

[Benotti69]

France has at least 5 mountain ranges.

- Alps
- Pyrenees
- Massif Central

- Jura
- Vosges

^ people always seem to forget about these two, smaller ranges, but there are more decent climbs there than in the Massif Central. Relatively speaking, at least.

The TdF has traditionally only used 3 ranges over 3 weeks.

 

[ultimobici]

I think the geography of Italy is what dictates that there are stages in the first week with decent climbs and therefore fast descents. But it has always been thus.

The TdF has 3 mountain ranges which can take a week to get to as they always start in the North of France or Europe.

This.

Italy has far more mountainous terrain as a proportion of its overall area. As a consequence it is almost impossible to avoid climbing and descending.

With regard to the comments about the courses getting more and more demanding I disagree. Many of the roads used now were also used in the days of Merckx, Anquetil & Coppi. One that I have ridden which comes to mind is the Passo Pordoi, which was part of the famous 1949 Giro stage to Pinerolo. In those days, not only were many of the roads in the Dolomites still unpaved but the bikes they used were heavier with brakes we today would find terrifying to rely on.

This is the Croix de Fer in 1947

The crash that claimed Wouter Weylandt's life could have happened anywhere. It had absolutely nothing to do with the design of the route, IMO, as did Vorganov's crash the day before. Sadly it was a case of bad luck or a lapse of concentration at the worst possible moment.

RIP Wouter.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Descents are dangerous. Cycling can be dangerous. Cycling on a straight road on a descent says how easily these things could happpen. They rarely do in pro bike races on far more dangerous descents. Some of the descending down the Galibier is quite dangerous.

 

[just some guy]

I have to ask why is everyone getting so involved in these type of discussions ?

right before you beat me down with a long stick hear me out.

WW was a professional who as I have read died doing what he loved in a very unforgeable way on TV, but in the end of the day WW was a human.

How many cyclists die daily on the roads of the world ? Ive no idea but in you include Asia I would guess 10 or more.

Does the Giro push the boundaries - they have for 97 years, do people ride on more dangerous roads for transport and pleasure everyday Yes.

I do believe everyone needs to take a deep breath here, it was and still is horrible what happened - but if it didn´t most would be looking forward to next year event to see what crazy stages were on the cards.

Just a thought

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

The TdF has traditionally only used 3 ranges over 3 weeks.

Often, but not always. The TdF used 4 ranges in 2005 and 2010 for example. And sometimes only the Alps and Pyrenees. It depends.

THe other 3 are nothing compared to the Alpes and pyranees though right?

Yeah, but the high Vosges are jam packed with relatively steep 2nd and 1st category climbs. The Jura Mountains have some very steep 1st category climbs.

... which the TdF organisation conveniently ignores. When the Tour does visit these ranges the courses are often less than stellar. It's a choice, really. And sure, money is a factor.

 

[Granville57]

the scene of the accident

Since the same questions have come up repeatedly in both this and the "tough situation for the Giro" thread, regarding the road conditions of Wouter Weylandt's tragic crash...

Velonews has a short series of photos that shows the location of that horrible event. These were taking the following day and include pics of flowers left by the family at the scene. They are sobering but quite respectful. There is nothing graphic or gruesome in these photos. For historical reasons I think it's important to be accurate in our assessment of the events.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/05/gallery/photos-of-wouter-weylandt-crash-scene-and-memorial_172282/attachment/2011-giro-d-italia-stage-4-7

Much of what happened has been misrepresented it seems.
These pics show the slight deviation in the line of the road that most likely caused the initial contact with the short wall. The actual crash occurred further up the road. I don't know if it's been determined if there was any contact with the rock wall or if only the road itself.

I'm not passing judgement on the merits of safety one way or the other, but we should at least be clear on the facts.

R.I.P.
Wouter Weylandt

 

[greenedge]

RIP WW. it's a pity but don't blame the giro. Remember Jon lee Augystyn's trapise down a cliff??? Sometimes bad things happen to good people.

 

[Eshnar]

The actual crash occurred further up the road. I don't know if it's been determined if there was any contact with the rock wall or if only the road itself.

He touched the rock wall with a pedal, throwing himself 15 metres further. on the wall there's the sign of the contact and the pedal is completely destroyed.