• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Cycling News community!

General News Thread

Page 485 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
On the Italian forum they said the ITT circuit is 18 kms, even worse than the joke distance I initially thought, next step will be having a prologue...

At this point I fear also a sub 200 kms road race like the Euros since back then the UEC president clearly said that the short route was a request from TV providers and UCI wanted to test it to see if it could work for the Worlds.
 
On the Italian forum they said the ITT circuit is 18 kms, even worse than the joke distance I initially thought, next step will be having a prologue...

At this point I fear also a sub 200 kms road race like the Euros since back then the UEC president clearly said that the short route was a request from TV providers and UCI wanted to test it to see if it could work for the Worlds.
Do you have to use the word "joke" every freaking time you are unhappy about race distance, especially when it's only hypothetical as is the case here?

I would really hate to see such a short distance for the RR too (and it's not going to happen) but to me it's more a question about tradition and the build-up of the excitement during the race. It's certainly not because I think it would have any influence on the result of the race whatsoever.
 
Do you have to use the word "joke" every freaking time you are unhappy about race distance, especially when it's only hypothetical as is the case here?

I would really hate to see such a short distance for the RR too (and it's not going to happen) but to me it's more a question about tradition and the build-up of the excitement during the race. It's certainly not because I think it would have any influence on the result of the race whatsoever.
Let me just say Asgreen probably doesn't beat van Aert or Van der Poel in a 180km Ronde van Vlaanderen.
 
Let me just say Asgreen probably doesn't beat van Aert or Van der Poel in a 180km Ronde van Vlaanderen.
You really don't think that?

If the first 80 kilometres are cut off and the race starts close to the first passage of the Oude Kwaremont, you lose the steady phase where very little energy is burnt and where a weak break can establish itself which tends to neuter the will to attack early from better riders in the peloton.

Instead, everybody would be together at the beginning of the fun stuff, and the first hellingen would be ridden much harder than they tend to do now.

I think it's a myth that those early 60-100 kilometres have such a big influence on riders and I don't buy into the magic "200 km barrier". If we were born with four fingers on each hand, our numeral system would consist of only 8 digits, and then 192 kms would be a round number, so in that case that would probably be the "magic barrier". It's just so arbitrary.

But then again, I don't want this, either. I like the more steady phases but I just don't think they play that very important endurance-inducing part the PWU likes to claim they do.
 
And while the ITT circuit is only 18 km, it will be ridden twice, so we're nowhere near prologue territory, but as I also stated a few months back, I do still think it should be longer.
If the route is 36 Ks, does that mean they're not after all having equal distance for the men and women? Or has someone realised that the women's legs probably aren't gonna fall of if they ride for 6 Ks more than the "maximum allowed ITT length"?
 
Interesting distance.

I don't see a full bunch sprint, but with such a circuit I don't see a very aggressive race before the final lap either
An odd course, hardly any undulations, some false flat but the only climbing really is mt keira and mt pleasant and the approach to mt pleasant drags up. The ride down the coast from the start is either flat or downhill mostly. The finish straight is slightly downhill. I guess the French team will keep forcing the pace up mt pleasant hoping to keep thinning out the bunch sprinters.
 
You really don't think that?

If the first 80 kilometres are cut off and the race starts close to the first passage of the Oude Kwaremont, you lose the steady phase where very little energy is burnt and where a weak break can establish itself which tends to neuter the will to attack early from better riders in the peloton.

Instead, everybody would be together at the beginning of the fun stuff, and the first hellingen would be ridden much harder than they tend to do now.

I think it's a myth that those early 60-100 kilometres have such a big influence on riders and I don't buy into the magic "200 km barrier". If we were born with four fingers on each hand, our numeral system would consist of only 8 digits, and then 192 kms would be a round number, so in that case that would probably be the "magic barrier". It's just so arbitrary.

But then again, I don't want this, either. I like the more steady phases but I just don't think they play that very important endurance-inducing part the PWU likes to claim they do.
I don't think there is a magical 200 km mark, but obviously there is a difference between a really, really long race and one of let's say 180 km, I think there are many examples that show that a distance of 250-300 km has a significant effect.
 
If the route is 36 Ks, does that mean they're not after all having equal distance for the men and women? Or has someone realised that the women's legs probably aren't gonna fall of if they ride for 6 Ks more than the "maximum allowed ITT length"?
I suppose so. The rules also state that the men's ITT shall be between 40 and 50 km, so it's actually a double violation.
The women's RR being 174 km long is yet another rule break, and the U23 RR is also a km too short.
 
I don't think there is a magical 200 km mark, but obviously there is a difference between a really, really long race and one of let's say 180 km, I think there are many examples that show that a distance of 250-300 km has a significant effect.
Yes, but that's a comparison with races of 180 kms where the first 100 kms are easy as well.

In races like Strade Bianche or the Euros of this year, it is pretty evident that the race doesn't need to be 250 kms long to be damn hard.
 
Do you have to use the word "joke" every freaking time you are unhappy about race distance, especially when it's only hypothetical as is the case here?

I would really hate to see such a short distance for the RR too (and it's not going to happen) but to me it's more a question about tradition and the build-up of the excitement during the race. It's certainly not because I think it would have any influence on the result of the race whatsoever.
Yes, because that's supposed to be an endurance sport and for a big one day race being below 200 kms doesn't involve much endurance and puts into the mix for high placings riders that in a 250+ kms race are nowhere to be seen near the front at the end.
 
And while the ITT circuit is only 18 km, it will be ridden twice, so we're nowhere near prologue territory, but as I also stated a few months back, I do still think it should be longer.
The prologue thing was an hyperbole for the future if the shortening trend continues.
Anyway 36 kms for men elite is still very short, 50 kms should be the bare minimum to take out of contention short/medium length specialists and not have a random Küng fight for the victory. Next year stage 20 of the Tour risks to be the longest ITT of the whole calendar.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Yes, because that's supposed to be an endurance sport and for a big one day race being below 200 kms doesn't involve much endurance and puts into the mix for high placings riders that in a 250+ kms race are nowhere to be seen near the front at the end.
Lol, great answer :rolleyes:

Why is 50 kms "endurance" if you ride alone while 35 is not?

Why is 250 kms "endurance" if you ride with other people while 200 is not?

Why must a cycling event be more than five times as long-lasting as other endurance sports for it to be "endurance" and not "joke"?

PWU at its finest.
 
The prologue thing was an hyperbole for the future if the shortening trend continues.
Anyway 36 kms for men elite is still very short, 50 kms should be the bare minimum to take out of contention short/medium length specialists and not have a random Küng fight for the victory. Next year stage 20 of the Tour risks to be the longest ITT of the whole calendar.
Well at least we'll get the longest RR since 1987.
 
Lol, great answer :rolleyes:

Why is 50 kms "endurance" if you ride alone while 35 is not?

Why is 250 kms "endurance" if you ride with other people while 200 is not?

Why must a cycling event be more than five times as long-lasting as other endurance sports for it to be "endurance" and not "joke"?

PWU at its finest.
If you watch closely races and analize them you can easily see the difference, there are riders that in a short race are always contenders but after 200 kms just disappear and the longer it is the more fades away and that has always happened, that's endurance starting to play a role, limit the length of races around 180 kms and you take that out of the sport levelling the playing field to favour a random Ulissi.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
If you watch closely races and analize them you can easily see the difference, there are riders that in a short race are always contenders but after 200 kms just disappear and the longer it is the more fades away and that has always happened, that's endurance starting to play a role, limit the length of races around 180 kms and you take that out of the sport levelling the playing field to favour a random Ulissi.
No? XCO racing which nowadays is max 1,5h is considered as an endurance sport. In running, everything above 10k is a distance/endurance running, xc skiing with max duration of like 2-3 hrs is an endurance sport.

There are also riders who disappear when the route includes big climbs. So does it mean, that every single road race should be a mountainous one, because otherwise we'd only have random winners?

If a road race lasts 4hrs or 7hrs, in both cases the the main thing it invloves from an thlete is endurance. The selectivity of a road races depends much more on the type of the course and the way it's raced (and you could argue that longer races favour less aggressive racing). The only way a race of 180k length could be leveled is by the riders themselves, if they would ride it easy with no attacks until last 5k, letting some random guy to win in the end.

Saying that, imho, a WCRR should be at least 250km, but no for the reasons of having the most endure cyclist as the winner, but it's just because once in a year I like spending the whole Sunday watching 7hrs race and because of that it has that unique world championship feeling (even watching the whole MSR is not the same). :D
 
Last edited:
If you watch closely races and analize them you can easily see the difference, there are riders that in a short race are always contenders but after 200 kms just disappear and the longer it is the more fades away and that has always happened, that's endurance starting to play a role, limit the length of races around 180 kms and you take that out of the sport levelling the playing field to favour a random Ulissi.
Yes, I know that, but my point is that it's the amount of time where you have to ride hard that matters, not the absolute length of the race. You don't see anybody fluking themselves to a top result in Strade Bianche even if it's only 175 kms long.

And this August, Cosnefroy beat Alaphilippe and Honoré in a 250 km race. Two weeks later, he was dropped by Colbrelli on a climb in a 200 km race. Could it be that the latter race had been harder overall despite the deficit in absolute length, I wonder?

Also, why is Ulissi random? He has won the longest GT stage of the century.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY