Make the Vuelta more spectator-friendly?

[55by11]

I've lived in southern Spain for almost 8 years. Watching the Vuelta on TV, it seems a shame to see so few spectators, but it's to do with the stage timings.

The streets of most Spanish towns and villages are virtually deserted between 2.30 and 5.30pm in the summer. Lunch (from 2 to 3pm usually) is the main meal of the day, it's family time and of course siesta time. And only mad dogs and Englishmen (and some poor pros) go out in the midday sun. (Solar noon is around 2.30 here). Unless you are lucky enough to be at the beach, which a lot of folks are in August. So I can forgive the public for not spending a very uncomfortable few hours at a parched, sweltering roadside to see the race when they can see it home in comfort on TV.

It would be a much better fit with the daily Spanish timetable to start the stages at around 3.30 and thus finishing at around 8 or 8.30. This is the time when there is most activity in Spain, streets and parks are bustling and crowds would be better for the race. It would also mean the finale of each stage would be fought in cooler conditions.

I know the pros and the whole race setups spend all year with a fairly fixed timetable of 5pm-ish race finishes, but when in Rome (and Spain....)

What do you guys think? Didn't everyone say how good the Sevilla stage was last year in the late evening?

 

[jsem94]

I wouldn't have a problem with it. That means ppl from northern europe can see the race live on TV instead of having to miss it due to work etc.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The problem is, finishing the stage in the late evening can only feasibly be done in places with adequate lighting in case of poor weather, which may rule out small places like Valdepeñas de Jaén. It is also one thing running a Team Time Trial in limited light, and running entire courses. Running the TTT was fine because they were looping around a big city. But many roads are simply not well lit, and so when sprint trains are being set up in fading light, before they get to the last couple of km in the metropole, it could become pretty dangerous.

 

[55by11]

Sunset is 9pm now, so that's why I was suggesting 8 or 8.30pm finishes, but maybe 7.30 would be ok too. Starting at 3 or 3.30 would mean getting the hottest part of the day out the way early in the race.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Just thinking - in the south of the country that's all well and good and would probably work pretty well, but in places with more unpredictable weather it could be pretty dark by then if the weather isn't ideal - imagine taking the 2002 Angliru stage and putting that at 8pm - insanity.

 

[icefire]

Add to the dscussion a transfer from stage finish to hotel, sometimes at 1 hour drive distance + the usual traffic jam in those circumstances.

 

[indurain666]

Could be a traffic problem too? I love the idea though..

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

The Vuelta should be moved back to the early season.

 

[The Barb]

This sounds like a seriously good idea. I assume the problem would the transfers at the end of the day but yeah, that shouldn't be insurmountable.

 

[dolophonic]

Sounds like people need to drag thier ***'s out to see the race. For the TDF people are camping out for a week.. the Giro people climbed 18kms to the top of the Finestre... in Spain its just not convenient for people to go outside.. i don't think its the timing as much as lack of interest. Hell in Colorado people camped out overnight at 12k feet elevation to see a KOM in the rain.
But if you think moving the start time will make it better why not try.
Its one of the reasons people under-rate the Vuelta. The lack of spectators feels underwhelming.

 

[avanti]

The Vuelta should be moved back to the early season.

I agree - and a lot of snowbirds are taking vacations to spain early in the year.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Sounds like people need to drag thier ***'s out to see the race. For the TDF people are camping out for a week.. the Giro people climbed 18kms to the top of the Finestre... in Spain its just not convenient for people to go outside.. i don't think its the timing as much as lack of interest. Hell in Colorado people camped out overnight at 12k feet elevation to see a KOM in the rain.
But if you think moving the start time will make it better why not try.
Its one of the reasons people under-rate the Vuelta. The lack of spectators feels underwhelming.

If you want to stand by the side of the road for hours to see the péloton roll by in 40º heat, be my guest. Remember at last year's Vuelta the fans were out in force for the finales, but for much of the stages in the south it was quiet. Cycling is more popular in the north and it's cooler, so we may well see much more fans in the stages in Asturias, and of course the Basque country. The Vuelta al País Vasco is NEVER short of fans.

 

[Nielsa]

Yep, that's it. I've lived in Spain for a year. Staying outside for hours in the day with the temperatures in these stages? No way, and I'm normally one of those people who make an effort to get tanned. A parasol keeps the sun away, sure, but the temperature still gets to you.

 

[Thomsena]

What do you guys think?

logistics, mate. logistics.

 

[jsem94]

The Vuelta should be moved back to the early season.

In a way I agree, it might dilute the field for spring races etc.. some people might even quite the Vuelta, but we already have that problem with the worlds.

Sucks for the Vuelta that it can't be placed anywhere in the season reasonably.

 

[Euskaltel!]

Surely La Vuelta should start in the north, where it is cooler, and then gradually make it's way south for the finale. Otherwise you get ridiculously hot temperatures for some part... Although admittedly, it'll still be pretty hot in september in Andalucía!

 

[richtea]

Just thinking - in the south of the country that's all well and good and would probably work pretty well, but in places with more unpredictable weather it could be pretty dark by then if the weather isn't ideal - imagine taking the 2002 Angliru stage and putting that at 8pm - insanity.

You wouldn't need apply the times slavishly throughout the route, however. Where transfers are straightforward and the risks of poor light and weather are minimal, it would bring many advantages - as mentioned, bigger crowds to give the race more life, and for those of us elsewhere who aren't able take the whole of August off - a rare opportunity to watch some live racing after work. I find the idea quite compelling.

Vaughters is right in many respects, the organisers of these races often don't apply sufficient creativity to extract the maximum value for both fans and the races themselves.

 

[auscyclefan94]

The Vuelta should be moved back to the early season.

Where are you going to put it. Too many races at the start of the season and not enough near the end if that happened.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Surely La Vuelta should start in the north, where it is cooler, and then gradually make it's way south for the finale. Otherwise you get ridiculously hot temperatures for some part... Although admittedly, it'll still be pretty hot in september in Andalucía!

The problem is you then have the worry of churning out routes like 2007 and 2009 - in the former they put Lagos de Covadonga on stage 4 when the field wasn't sufficiently tired to tear everything apart, then wasted the great climbs of the north of the country, leading to a relatively tame edition, and in the latter the mountains of the north were bypassed entirely.

A lot of the Vuelta's toughest signature climbs - for better or for worse - like Anglirú, San Lorenzo, Lagos de Covadonga and newcomers like Farrapona and Cotobello, are all in the north of the country. I think it's good that the direction of the Vuelta keeps changing, because it allows different regions to be the focal point each time. We'll always have the likes of Navacerrada and Monte Abantos near the end (unless they're doing something specific like the País Vasco finales this year), but this year it's the Asturian climbs as the centrepiece; next year the Canaries? The year before you had the Asturians again in the other direction, then 2009 was the Andalucían ones. The Pyrenées have been lightly used in the last 3 routes - maybe they're due a comeback, hopefully using climbs like the Coll de Pal rather than playing it simple with yet another Andorra finish.

 

[55by11]

I agree moving to earlier in the season would make sense, but as pointed out there's the problem of overlap with other events in the crowded calendar. And yes the later finishes don't have to apply to all stages, although there is so much going on behind the scenes the "roadies" etc need time between stages to get it all done.

North to south in late August/early September makes a lot of sense, and believe me there are LOADS of hard climbs in the south. The Alto de Velefique (Stage 12, 2009, I was there on my bike!) was a very memorable one - a spectacular "grandstand" finish with an Alpe d'Huez flavour just next to Europe's only desert (where many a spaghetti western was shot).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I'm not saying there aren't hard climbs in the South. But they shouldn't ALWAYS be the week 3 focus, because that would inevitably entail starting in Galicia or Catalunya and either wasting a whole bunch of great climbs in the north, or throwing a whole bunch of mountain stages in the first four days. So this year the Asturian and Galician climbs are the focal point and the South is the entrée - maybe next time around they start in the north, those climbs are the entrée and we get a climactic final week with Sierra Nevada, Haza del Lino, Sierra de la Pandera, Pico de los Reales and the like. Then the time after that it will be all about the Canaries, or the Pyrenées, or so on. Spain isn't France, where the majority of the climbs (especially as long as they fail miserably to use the Massif Central or Jura properly) are in two distinct ranges and so the only question is whether clockwise or anticlockwise. There are massive amounts of places with great climbs dotted in multiple locations around the country; too many to visit and make a big deal of all in one year. If you guarantee that one range will always have the climactic stages, then some areas either have to be neutered or missed out entirely, over and over again. Heck, in 2008, it was the south - they did flat stages there, then a 40km ITT before moving to the north to put all the mountains in the Pyrenees and Asturian ranges.

If it's always north to south the route will get predictable very quickly, and formulaic. Much better to keep the present variety and live with the fact that when they start the race in the south, they may have to deal with a couple of stages in Andalucía where there aren't too many fans until the last kilometres. It's not a heavy price to pay if the later finishes are well-attended.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Libertine, do you think the time slot is right for la vuelta?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Libertine, do you think the time slot is right for la vuelta?

This year it's a bit too early. I don't know if the Worlds were brought forward for weather concerns or what, but September is the right time for it for me; I'm too young to remember it in April.

 

[ultimobici]

Where are you going to put it. Too many races at the start of the season and not enough near the end if that happened.

Back where it was up until 1995. Then the Worlds can go back to it's old slot, thus making it a true World Championship with a proper field packed with all the stars not just the odd one or two.

The season opened on the Riviera in February, Paris Nice or Tirenno, Het Volk etc - gradually building up to the Classics in late March & early April. Then the Vuelta followed by the Giro and then the Tour. Criterium time was August with the action resuming later on that month with San Sebastian, Zurich & the Worlds. Finally you had Paris tours & Lombardia in October. Funny thing is it worked.

This idiotic obsession with globalisation is a waste of time. If I am a fan of American Football or Baseball it isn't the real thing if they play at Wembley. Nor is it the real thing if Man U play in New York. It's a facsimile of the real deal. The only reason for globalisation is making Fat Pat's pockets fatter. It does SFA to benefit Pro Cycling, if anything it undermines the true season.

if you want to watch Professional Cycling in the flesh, get on a plane & come and experience the real mccoy in France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain & Italy.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Back where it was up until 1995. Then the Worlds can go back to it's old slot, thus making it a true World Championship with a proper field packed with all the stars not just the odd one or two.

The season opened on the Riviera in February, Paris Nice or Tirenno, Het Volk etc - gradually building up to the Classics in late March & early April. Then the Vuelta followed by the Giro and then the Tour. Criterium time was August with the action resuming later on that month with San Sebastian, Zurich & the Worlds. Finally you had Paris tours & Lombardia in October. Funny thing is it worked.

This idiotic obsession with globalisation is a waste of time. If I am a fan of American Football or Baseball it isn't the real thing if they play at Wembley. Nor is it the real thing if Man U play in New York. It's a facsimile of the real deal. The only reason for globalisation is making Fat Pat's pockets fatter. It does SFA to benefit Pro Cycling, if anything it undermines the true season.

if you want to watch Professional Cycling in the flesh, get on a plane & come and experience the real mccoy in France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain & Italy.

So you don't think bringing Cycling to a wider audience is a good thing? You can't have your cake and eat it all as well. I don't see how it really worked. The Vuelta would been on around the classics just before the giro. Better to space it out so riders can do compete in more different races. Bringin the sport toa wider international where more people can enjoy it can only be a good thing. Who sayss it should just stay in Europe?