Leaked draft 2015 racing calender

[MatParker117]

How in the blue hell did the Tour of Britain & Tour of California miss out?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Screw Tour of Britain and Tour of Cali, I want Volta a Catalunya on the calendar!!!! and Pais Vasco in the 1st division

 

[MatParker117]

Screw Tour of Britain and Tour of Cali, I want Volta a Catalunya on the calendar!!!! and Pais Vasco in the 1st division

Catalunya's a 2nd division race.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Catalunya's a 2nd division race.

Not in 2017

 

[GP Blanco]

Not very shocking, they got rid off the weaker one week stage races apart from Pais Vasco and to a lesser extent Romandie. Catalunya is nowadays only a big name because of the history.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Not quite as insulting as the 2017 mooted one, but close enough.

 

[wirral]

Excellent - Tour of Beijing rightfully lands premier status. Good old UCI

 

[pastronef]

Excellent - Tour of Beijing rightfully lands premier status. Good old UCI

and wait for 2017, when Dubai Qatar Oman get the 1st division too

 

[RownhamHill]

How in the blue hell did the Tour of Britain & Tour of California miss out?

Am I right in thinking there's also a tour of Austria that usually runs for a week during the tour de france, which is a similar status as Cali and ToB (got to admit I don't understand the whole x.y classification of races)? Because that looks like it's also been dropped from this calendar.

Now assuming it has, it's presumably because the UCI want to remove clashes between the Grand Tours and other races, in order to focus attention on the Grand Tours, as well as encouraging more of the 'star' riders to ride the GTs - which would also fit with the move towards smaller WT teams (because if WT are limited to 22 riders, and assuming a couple of riders each year are either injured, sick, or neo-pros not ready for a GT, you're looking at most riders having to ride at least two GTs in any given season just to put out a team).

So the question is, is this a good idea or not? Obvious negatives is that it means the removal of local races which must help build local interest, and it also puts more strain on the riders/reduces their options of racing programmes.

On the other hand it, maybe, will give more coherence to the calendar, maybe allow more focused promotion in the right places, and stop the sport essentially competing with itself at times, and also maybe mean teams have to start managing their rider resources better across the season, rather than focusing wholly on July, and then disappearing.

I don't know if I like it or not, I think I don't, but would be great to get more explanation of this rather than just leaks. . .

 

[hrotha]

All this talk about shrinking the racing calendar to make it more manageable and very little thought going to all the teams that will disappear because they simply won't have enough interesting races to do. Only the top of the sport matters to them. Short-sighted, elitist moves coming.

 

[Leonardus]

I don't understand what they want to accomplish with the new calendar. The number of race days wasn't exactly the problem nor the seize of the teams.

For years they were talking about globalization of cycling but now cycling is getting bigger in the USA and Great Britain they won't upgrade Cali of ToB to gain more attention?
And what about only six day stage races remaining? They ignore the long and rich tradition of races like Switzerland and PN and for what purpose? And in return the GT's will become even more important on the calendar, so they will be even more hectic and chaotic. And when a smaller team misses out on wildcards there will be almost nothing left for them because even more media exposure will be concentrated on the GT's.

Hopefully this is only one of the possibilities they are thinking about and is nothing decided yet. Otherwise I foresee a very bleak future for cycling.

 

[Netserk]

Re: ToB, AToC etc.

Remember that the calender is only for the World Tour. It's basically splitting the WT in to divisions, but 2.HC and 2.1 races will still have the same status (I think).

 

[IndianCyclist]

Have they discussed this plan with all of the stakeholders?

 

[Netserk]

Have they discussed this plan with all of the stakeholders?

I don't think the riders' association was part of it, but many of the different stakeholders have been a part of this.

Inner Ring's post about it:
http://inrng.com/2013/10/pro-cycling-calendar-uci-reform-2015-2020/

 

[janraaskalt]

I don't think the riders' association was part of it, but many of the different stakeholders have been a part of this.

Inner Ring's post about it:
http://inrng.com/2013/10/pro-cycling-calendar-uci-reform-2015-2020/

If you would take the time to read the report, you would see that Bernie Eisel was stakeholder as representative of the UCI Riders Committee.

 

[Descender]

Why are there two Tour de Romandie?

EDIT: Nevermind.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

There aren't, it just crosses month's end so appears in both April and May, because the layout of dates is a bit confusing.

 

[janraaskalt]

Why are there two Tour de Romandie?

'
Look at the dates: the 2 parts are at the end of april and the beginning of may.

 

[avanti]

Pro-tour teams often compete in two races simultaneously so they can still compete in races not shown on this graphic such a California, Colorado, and Austria.

 

[argyllflyer]

As noted already, the omission of non-WT races is a bit irrelevant at this stage. They'll still exist and teams will still be able to race them.

Tour of Britain is aiming to become 2.HC in the near future.

 

[argyllflyer]

Am I right in thinking there's also a tour of Austria that usually runs for a week during the tour de france, which is a similar status as Cali and ToB (got to admit I don't understand the whole x.y classification of races)?

World Tour races are compulsory for WT teams and most have limited wildcards for Pro Continental teams available.

1.HC and 2.HC races are open to all WT and PC teams, as well as Continental (3rd tier) teams from the host nation. The races carry more weight than 1.1/2.1 and as such the organisers tend to get strong fields mainly made up of WT/PC teams.

1.1 and 2.1 races are open to all WT and PC teams, and all Continental teams.

1.2 and 2.2 races are only for Continental teams.

There are slight variations in rules for HC races in Asia and Africa IIRC.

National teams can enter all levels, though it's pretty rare at WT level. I seem to recall a young Aussie team taking part in 2012 TDU. Rohan Dennis won the climbers jersey.

If Tour of Britain was upgraded from 2.1 to 2.HC the main change in entry from present would be the exclusion of Sean Kelly's An Post Chain Reaction as they're Belgian-registered. All the British Continental teams that presently enter would continue to do so. If Tour of California got a WT upgrade from 2.HC, it would be bye bye to all the US-based Continental teams that animate it most days. Janier Acevedo wouldn't have been able to enter this year if it had been WT.

 

[roundabout]

Paris to Nice in 6 days.

Lol. Better follow the TGV line.

 

[Herr Katt]

1.2 and 2.2 is also for club teams

 

[Nilsson]

A lot of poor choices have been made, IMO. Both in how they composed the calendar (where there's so much potential) as in how they want to categorize teams and races. The riders might have pull the short straw, again.

There's no real globalization, except for the continuing expensive hobby in Beijing (why no races that actually are financially healthy, all by themselves, and do attract fans?) and the preparation races in the desert, that have no place in the World Tour.

Also, if you do not allow races of first and second category to be held at the same time (and therefore demote or even make them disappear) be consistent. If you want to make sure races like Paris-Nice and Tirreno can both flourish, why not make them even shorter: five instead of six days. 10 racing days in total, with two rest days in between, might actually be possible and interesting.

 

[argyllflyer]

1.2 and 2.2 is also for club teams

Yeah you're right, I was focusing on top down.