General News Thread

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Stef Loos, a rider from Remco Evenepoel's former team Acrog Pauwels Sauzen, died after being hit by a van, when the bunch deviated from the course of the race because there was no signalization at a junction. They left the course and got hit by the minivan. Stef was 19 years old.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Those stages are about as much as you can expect from a Grand Depart. Sure, could have been even better, but you should be careful for what you wish for! Stage 1 looks like one for the durable sprinters and maybe the attackers, but stage 2 is just such a nice stage to have early. A lot of stuff will be up for grabs.

 

[yaco]

Believe that all GT's should have a mountainous/hilly stage at the beginning - It then sets a marker, creates less nervousness in the bunch and should lead to less crashes.

 

[hayneplane]

Re:

Believe that all GT's should have a mountainous/hilly stage at the beginning - It then sets a marker, creates less nervousness in the bunch and should lead to less crashes.

Could not agree more. A little separation on GC does wonders for the calming of nerves in the bunch.

I have been watching for 25 years or so and can't think of many 1st weekend stages this promising especially as a pair. Sheffield 2014 and the one Valverde won on a cat 2 climb in around 2008ish are the only others that really called on the GC men to bring out their climbing legs.

 

[Scarponi]

Re: Re:

Any idea what Wollongong is gonna be like, except for the 2nd best cycling location name?

ATM your guess is as good as ours.

All anyone knows is that it's likely to start in Sydney for publicity, and have a finishing circuit. There are some 5-7 km climbs there that can be used fairly easily, but the cynic in me says it will probably just be rolling hills or even a pan flat sprinters course.

The famous winding road that brings you down into Wollongong would have to be used, decently steep too

 

[Alexandre B.]

Critérium du Dauphiné 2019

1 - Aurillac > Jussac 142 km

2 - Mauriac > Craponne-sur-Arzon 180 km

3 - Le Puy en Velay > Riom 172 km

4 - Roanne > Roanne (CLM) 26 km

5 - Boën-sur-Lignon > Voiron 201 km

6 - Saint-Vulbas > Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne 228 km

7 - Saint-Genix-les-Villages > Pipay (les Sept Laux) 133 km

8 - Cluses > Champéry 113,5 km

 

[Valv.Piti]

Seems like a classic Dauphine route with a bit less mountains. Stage 2 looks like a very nice stage, a medium CLM with a decent hill, then what seems like a Gap-copy (but harder than Manse I assume) and two short, but pretty interesting stages with lots and lots of (new) climbs packed into them. But looking at the last two stages, I think it will be somewhat difficult to create big gaps, so it should favour a good time trialist.

Edit: Pipay (the big MTF) is 19 km and 6,9%. It looked a bit easier on the profile. Thats definitely a serious climb.

 

[Red Rick]

I'm absolutely torn. I feel like I should be saying stage 2 is really nice, the ITT is a good length, but all I want is scream bloody murder at the length of the mountain stages once more.

 

[Robert5091]

My initial reaction was someone watched the last stage, ride around at Paris-Nice, and thought we could do that to on stage 8. Half a thumbs up

 

[Gigs_98]

Agree with red rick, the length of the mountain stages is ridiculous again but aside from that I really like the route. Lots of new climbs, a hilly ITT, generally interestingly designed stages and most importantly it doesn't look like the big tdf advertisment tour again which the Dauphine has become in previous years.

 

[tobydawq]

I like the length of stage 7 and 8.

Perhaps I just have a weird penchant for being entertained rather than not.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

I like the length of stage 7 and 8.

Perhaps I just have a weird penchant for being entertained rather than not.

I'd be fine with one short mountain stage, but simply assuming all short mountain stages lead to more action is nonsense. This way you just take the endurance aspect out of the sport and make sure you don't have a bigger variety of different kinds of mountain stages

 

[Red Rick]

Just taken the extra look at stage 8 and it's hilariously easy. Hardest climb is like 5.5km at 7%.

It's basically the same as PN. A mid length TT and a long HC MTF.

 

[Red Rick]

https://www.telegraaf.nl/sport/3343424/ek-wielrennen-definitief-naar-alkmaar

Alkmaar gets European Championship.

It's either gonna be windy, or it's gonna be really really boring.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Giro di Sicilia confirmed: 3 to 6 April, final stage finishes on Monte Etna

Excellent news!

 

[Valv.Piti]

Thats excellent LF.

Already this year?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re:

Thats excellent LF.

Already this year?

Yep!
Apparently UAE will be the only WT team present, normal of course on such short notice. Kometa boys will be there as well.

Here the stage profiles and a peek at the leader's jersey

More info on RCS mailing
https://mailchi.mp/rcssport/il-giro-di-sicilia-is-back-after-42-years

 

[Red Rick]

https://www.ad.nl/wielrennen/giro-start-in-2021-op-sicilie~a64c5a34/

Giro to start on Sicily in 2021.

 

[Rollthedice]

Re:

https://www.ad.nl/wielrennen/giro-start-in-2021-op-sicilie~a64c5a34/

Giro to start on Sicily in 2021.

First Trek GT win in years and the last for the local hero is obvious.

 

[Sestriere]

Re: Re:

https://www.ad.nl/wielrennen/giro-start-in-2021-op-sicilie~a64c5a34/

Giro to start on Sicily in 2021.

First Trek GT win in years and the last for the local hero is obvious.

While wearing the rainbow jersey during Grande Partenza. Where's the like button?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re:

I like the length of stage 7 and 8.

Perhaps I just have a weird penchant for being entertained rather than not.

It is reaching the point where it's a self-fulfilling prophecy because either all mountain stages are short, or the long mountain stages are badly designed, so it continues to peddle this line that short mountain stages are automatically good, when in fact it varies based on circumstances, and when they have worked well, it's either been off the back of a harder or longer stage, which has been raced hard because nobody's afraid of the short stage (Alpe d'Huez 2011 after Andy's long distance raid on Galibier, Formigal 2016 after the four-climb Aubisque 200km stage) or off the back of a rest day (Andalo). Badly designed short stages have been just as bad as any other badly designed mountain stage (Oropa 2017, for example). And even then, if the short mountain stages cease to be the change-up and start to be the norm, then the impact of this will weaken up until the point when the action produced is indistinguishable from any other stage, only the long mountain stage will have been killed as an option because the riders have got used to short mountain stages and feel a real brute of an old fashioned long one to be a challenge worth protesting (look at how they justified the go-slow in the Formigal stage because of 'how difficult the race had been' - two days after a day that the péloton took as a day off, coming in half an hour behind the break, and four days after a rest day).

Also, a few years before that we had the Giro and Vuelta experimenting with short mountain stages that failed miserably, such as the 2004 Giro with its successive 120km mountain stages at the end, neither of which were particularly enthralling (the only really good stage in that edition was over 200km), and that era where the Vuelta was finishing with 120-130km mountain stages around the Sierra de Madrid with the race mainly being settled by TTs as a result. It's only in recent years with TT mileage becoming anæmic that the short mountain stages have been able to succeed as part of the whole.

Plus, of course, we use the examples of stages like Alpe d'Huez 2011, Andalo 2016, Formigal 2016 and so on to say "short mountain stages = excitement", but Alpe d'Huez wasn't even the best stage of that Tour - the preceding stage with Andy's long solo was. And that was... wait for it... 200km long. And even that wasn't the best GT stage that year. No, that accolade belonged to the Rifugio Gardeccia stage in the Giro, which was... 230km long. Why is it ok to say that the short stages being exciting means there should be more short mountain stages, but not ok to say that the long stages, done right, are just as exciting, and therefore bewail the fact that nobody is willing - or perhaps able, seeing as some of the route designing committees are either restricted too much by the requirements of the sponsors / hosts etc., or occasionally are just outright lobotomy-level stupid, to put out routes which include a good old fashioned difficult mountain stage of proper length anymore?

 

[gregrowlerson]

Re: Re:

I like the length of stage 7 and 8.

Perhaps I just have a weird penchant for being entertained rather than not.

It is reaching the point where it's a self-fulfilling prophecy because either all mountain stages are short, or the long mountain stages are badly designed, so it continues to peddle this line that short mountain stages are automatically good, when in fact it varies based on circumstances, and when they have worked well, it's either been off the back of a harder or longer stage, which has been raced hard because nobody's afraid of the short stage (Alpe d'Huez 2011 after Andy's long distance raid on Galibier, Formigal 2016 after the four-climb Aubisque 200km stage) or off the back of a rest day (Andalo). Badly designed short stages have been just as bad as any other badly designed mountain stage (Oropa 2017, for example). And even then, if the short mountain stages cease to be the change-up and start to be the norm, then the impact of this will weaken up until the point when the action produced is indistinguishable from any other stage, only the long mountain stage will have been killed as an option because the riders have got used to short mountain stages and feel a real brute of an old fashioned long one to be a challenge worth protesting (look at how they justified the go-slow in the Formigal stage because of 'how difficult the race had been' - two days after a day that the péloton took as a day off, coming in half an hour behind the break, and four days after a rest day).

Also, a few years before that we had the Giro and Vuelta experimenting with short mountain stages that failed miserably, such as the 2004 Giro with its successive 120km mountain stages at the end, neither of which were particularly enthralling (the only really good stage in that edition was over 200km), and that era where the Vuelta was finishing with 120-130km mountain stages around the Sierra de Madrid with the race mainly being settled by TTs as a result. It's only in recent years with TT mileage becoming anæmic that the short mountain stages have been able to succeed as part of the whole.

Plus, of course, we use the examples of stages like Alpe d'Huez 2011, Andalo 2016, Formigal 2016 and so on to say "short mountain stages = excitement", but Alpe d'Huez wasn't even the best stage of that Tour - the preceding stage with Andy's long solo was. And that was... wait for it... 200km long. And even that wasn't the best GT stage that year. No, that accolade belonged to the Rifugio Gardeccia stage in the Giro, which was... 230km long. Why is it ok to say that the short stages being exciting means there should be more short mountain stages, but not ok to say that the long stages, done right, are just as exciting, and therefore bewail the fact that nobody is willing - or perhaps able, seeing as some of the route designing committees are either restricted too much by the requirements of the sponsors / hosts etc., or occasionally are just outright lobotomy-level stupid, to put out routes which include a good old fashioned difficult mountain stage of proper length anymore?

We have stage 16 of this years Giro to save us. 226 kms of pure cycling porn.

And a nice shorter (but not too short) stage immediately afterwards.

Actually this Giro route is good, apart from the atrocity of stages 10 & 11.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: Re:

I like the length of stage 7 and 8.

Perhaps I just have a weird penchant for being entertained rather than not.

It is reaching the point where it's a self-fulfilling prophecy because either all mountain stages are short, or the long mountain stages are badly designed, so it continues to peddle this line that short mountain stages are automatically good, when in fact it varies based on circumstances, and when they have worked well, it's either been off the back of a harder or longer stage, which has been raced hard because nobody's afraid of the short stage (Alpe d'Huez 2011 after Andy's long distance raid on Galibier, Formigal 2016 after the four-climb Aubisque 200km stage) or off the back of a rest day (Andalo). Badly designed short stages have been just as bad as any other badly designed mountain stage (Oropa 2017, for example). And even then, if the short mountain stages cease to be the change-up and start to be the norm, then the impact of this will weaken up until the point when the action produced is indistinguishable from any other stage, only the long mountain stage will have been killed as an option because the riders have got used to short mountain stages and feel a real brute of an old fashioned long one to be a challenge worth protesting (look at how they justified the go-slow in the Formigal stage because of 'how difficult the race had been' - two days after a day that the péloton took as a day off, coming in half an hour behind the break, and four days after a rest day).

Also, a few years before that we had the Giro and Vuelta experimenting with short mountain stages that failed miserably, such as the 2004 Giro with its successive 120km mountain stages at the end, neither of which were particularly enthralling (the only really good stage in that edition was over 200km), and that era where the Vuelta was finishing with 120-130km mountain stages around the Sierra de Madrid with the race mainly being settled by TTs as a result. It's only in recent years with TT mileage becoming anæmic that the short mountain stages have been able to succeed as part of the whole.

Plus, of course, we use the examples of stages like Alpe d'Huez 2011, Andalo 2016, Formigal 2016 and so on to say "short mountain stages = excitement", but Alpe d'Huez wasn't even the best stage of that Tour - the preceding stage with Andy's long solo was. And that was... wait for it... 200km long. And even that wasn't the best GT stage that year. No, that accolade belonged to the Rifugio Gardeccia stage in the Giro, which was... 230km long. Why is it ok to say that the short stages being exciting means there should be more short mountain stages, but not ok to say that the long stages, done right, are just as exciting, and therefore bewail the fact that nobody is willing - or perhaps able, seeing as some of the route designing committees are either restricted too much by the requirements of the sponsors / hosts etc., or occasionally are just outright lobotomy-level stupid, to put out routes which include a good old fashioned difficult mountain stage of proper length anymore?

We have stage 16 of this years Giro to save us. 226 kms of pure cycling porn.

And a nice shorter (but not too short) stage immediately afterwards.

Actually this Giro route is good, apart from the atrocity of stages 10 & 11.

Mark my words, there is gonna be a big ambush that day and the stage will be epic.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

How can you be certain, do you have prior arrangements that day?

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

I'm absolutely torn. I feel like I should be saying stage 2 is really nice, the ITT is a good length, but all I want is scream bloody murder at the length of the mountain stages once more.

I don't think this is classic Dauphine. Not at all. The mountain stages are short. But the main thing is that it is not Dauphine to add these weak mountain stages. This is OK for a race in March. But absolutely not right for a race in France in June. Paris-Nice has its identity as well as the Dauphine. We don't want one to resemble the other.
Not good!