Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2021 stage 11: Perugia – Montalcino 162 km

[Logic-is-your-friend]

But they always were, Logic, even a famous chrono-man like Anquetil was competitive on the mountains, otherwise he wouldn't have won.
In 1910 they rode over Peyresourde, Aspin, Tourmalet and Aubisque - on single speed, steel bikes and probably unpaved roads in a 326 km stage. I think that favoured a climber too.

I'm not saying they are more so now than in the past or vice versa. I'm simply saying they are, period. And in the past there were definitely more ITTkms, which balanced them more than they are now. In 1934 there was ONE 90k ITT.

 

[Bonimenier]

Looks like it's not going to rain. Only 10% chance according my weather app.

 

[ppanther92]

Bettiol also said it's much harder than Strade Bianche.

I don't know of I agree about the harder. We had Strade editions with just a bit more than 30 riders finishing and gaps in the minutes even for the top 10. Bit its certainly more skewed towards climbing than Strade.

 

[ppanther92]

The break doesn't look exciting, however.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

Well that deescalated quickly.
Bernal to drop/gap/distance/finish 5-10 seconds before Evenepoel.

I'm hoping for a Battaglin win now.

 

[DJ Sprtsch]

Taco, second stage win coming up. Venga venga!!!

 

[Volderke]

They all look very happy in the peloton: nice weather, no rain, and sipping some good wine in Montalcino this evening!

 

[spalco]

The break doesn't look exciting, however.

Not especially, no.

 

[SafeBet]

Good to see Covi in the break. His first half of the year has been very unlucky, but he's a talent.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Which teams (if any) will chase this break for the win ? That 4 km section to the finish after final Cat 3 complicates things quite a lot

 

[Earns1985]

The break:

1		16	NAESEN Lawrence	+1:39:04
2		22	DE BONDT Dries	+1:30:15
3		62	BATTAGLIN Enrico	+1:08:21
4		116	GAVAZZI Francesco	+33:09
5		124	GUGLIELMI Simon	+1:05:16
6		138	VAN DER HOORN Taco	+1:26:04
7		165	KLUGE Roger	+2:01:56
8		168	VANHOUCKE Harm	+1:03:15
9		204	LINDEMAN Bert-Jan	+1:40:24
10		206	SCHMID Mauro	+1:24:00
11		223	COVI Alessandro	+48:16

So Formolo and Valter the only GC riders who have a rider in the break..

 

[dercuforever]

Looks like it's not going to rain. Only 10% chance according my weather app.

All ours tears after realising this stage will go to a unkown rider will make up for the lack of rain.

 

[Mayomaniac]

Formolo and Bardet have a teammate in the breakaway, that sounds promising.

 

[Earns1985]

Formolo and Bardet have a teammate in the breakaway, that sounds promising.

Bardet is not riding for AG2R anymore...

 

[Rollthedice]

In about two hours time the action should start?

 

[Mayomaniac]

Bardet is not riding for AG2R anymore...

Yeah, I hd a brainfart, I'm so used to him riding for them that I made that mistake.

 

[topcat]

In about two hours time the action should start?

Maybe time for a run and to polish up the other thread.

 

[danielovichdk2]

Nibali is on the move today. I talked to him this morning and he told me he will go for it on the ascent on Angelo. Strap in.

 

[limak_]

Why? Why should a guy who is only good at climbing get the most prestigious races tailored to his skills, while the guy who is good at everything but climbing has literally 0 chances? Because the other guy can win classics? So can the climber. He can win Lombardia, Liège, San Sebastian. There are also enough 1 week stage races where they can shine. They can also go for stagewins. Why should a limited rider even be in contention to win a GT?

Again, and to be clear, i like mountain stages. I love them. But you can't pretend GT's aren't skewed in favor of climbers, because they are. And by a huge margin. Why is a guy like Gaudu even to be considered as a possible GT winner? He can't do anything that isn't climbing. The fact that you and many others can't even see it anymore is most telling of all. Van Aert, who is basically top 5 in the world in everything he does but ONLY top 50 at climbing has -as it stands- zero chances at winning a GT, unless he loses further weight. But Gaudu, who doesn't make top 200 at most things except climbing, where he might be top 10, should have a shot.

Maybe it's time people see "the climbers" (by which i mean guys who are good at climbing, but suck at most other things, because as Blueroads said, those other guys aren't considered to be climbers anymore but "all-rounders") are basically one-trick ponies with limited capabilities who shouldn't be able to win a GT. Pogacar isn't a "climber" because he's also a good ITT'er, well then why should a guy is not even a better climber, or only just, be favored in route design? If they want to win a GT, they need to get better overall riders.

Is there something like an official, general agreement in cycling that GTs should only be won by "all-rounders" or is it just like your own opinion, wishful thinking, one of hundreds of different visions of cycling that you identify most with? Cause from your statments it seems like it's the first one.

For me, mountains and climbs are the essence of cycling, something that defines cycling itself, the most beautiful while most challenging part of it, also the terrain when you can gain or lose the most. Also Grand Tours are kind of iconic cycling races with Tour being most recognizable race worldwide. Then if I think about a GT winner I have a CLIMBER in front of my eyes, who drops his rivals on the long mountainous switchbacks. The only way that imho GTs should be won is by face-to-face clashes on the most brutal mountain passes. I can't imagine GTs being defined by time trials to the same extent - with riders looking like f1 bolids, passing in front of you in regular time intervals.

I'm not saying TTs should be completely removed. In my opinion a perfect GT winner is a climber who doesn't sucks that much in TT. Not the case like these two skills being equally imoprtant - just for the reasons above.

Apart from that, time trialing has become (especially in last few years) a very specialised discipline with a technical component playing a much bigger role than in "ordinary" cycling. Then it becomes really dependent on which team you ride in, what equipment you use, if you have a regular access to wind tunnel and so on (why Ineos and TJV excel at TTs that much?). So it's really not like time trial is the most fair ground for racing a bike, actuallly not being the clearest indicator of who's the strongest cyclist as it seems to be.

I know my point of view being a little bit romantic or whatsoever. But that's excatly how I see cycling with its romantic, sentimental ingredient making it unique amongst other sports. And I think many people could associate with me.

 

[Laplaz]

They all look very happy in the peloton: nice weather, no rain, and sipping some good wine in Montalcino this evening!

That sounds great!

 

[wheresmybrakes]

All this blocking the road so the break can get away and stop others from joining. Surely there's nothing stopping other riders from attacking to form a second breakaway once the blocking team chill out. They just need to have some balls and attack when there's a chance to do so. It's up to the blocking/leading team then to try and control it. They will soon start getting pissed off when they are constantly trying to stop various breaks getting away.

 

[topcat]

Looks like I spoke too soon. There's a whole thread devoted to off topic:

Stage 11-Balanced GT stage, Dropped

You know who you are. Knock yourselves out guys. No digression allowed. Stage Profile: there's a bunch of sterrato sectors (gravel has been transported from all over Italy for the stage). There's a few tarmac climbs, a few descents and some flat. Perfect terrain for dropping riders. It's going...

forum.cyclingnews.com

 

[Eshnar]

Is there something like an official, general agreement in cycling that GTs should only be won by "all-rounders" or is it just like your own opinion, wishful thinking, one of hundreds of different visions of cycling that you identify most with? Cause from your statments it seems like it's the first one.

Technically, there is a reason why there is a "king of the mountains" classification.
It wasn't meant to be a carbon-copy of the GC.
Now it should be renamed as "king of the breakaways"

 

[SafeBet]

9 minutes already.
Also, neither Marengo nor his secret brother are in the break

 

[Carrick-On-Seine]

Is there something like an official, general agreement in cycling that GTs should only be won by "all-rounders" or is it just like your own opinion, wishful thinking, one of hundreds of different visions of cycling that you identify most with? Cause from your statments it seems like it's the first one.

For me, mountains and climbs are the essence of cycling, something that defines cycling itself, the most beautiful while most challenging part of it, also the terrain when you can gain or lose the most. Also Grand Tours are kind of iconic cycling races with Tour being most recognizable race worldwide. Then if I think about a GT winner I have a CLIMBER in front of my eyes, who drops his rivals on the long mountainous switchbacks. The only way that imho GTs should be won is by face-to-face clashes on the most brutal mountain passes. I can't imagine GTs being defined equally by time trials - with riders looking like f1 bolids passing in front of you in regular time intervals.

Give me echelons. Loads of echelons.
And some cobbles.