O Gran Camiño 2024, Spain, February 22-25

[Brullnux]

So if it doesn't count for GC, are they obliged to ride it? If so, to what purpose?
Will there be a cut-off time?

It would just be for whoever wants the UCI points/a nice win.

I don't get the clamour–it's just a compromise to allow the stage to occur in some form or shape (saving money and creating an admittedly very low level of drama) while also giving riders chance to soft pedal it and stay safe. There's quite clearly no good solution to this situation, it's just a case of least had option.

 

[Netserk]

To be clear, I think the cancellation was a farce last year, but I'll have to see them on the road here before I'll pass judgement.

 

[Rob5091]

So if it doesn't count for GC, are they obliged to ride it? If so, to what purpose?
Will there be a cut-off time?

40% of winners time according to the road book - but ... 3,000 Euros for the winner so who feels poor?

 

[Jungle Cycle]

they are off

https://twitter.com/x/status/1760662568878653892

View: https://twitter.com/ograncamino_igt/status/1760662568878653892

 

[Salvarani]

There's 90-100kmh gusts, the organisers are just trying to work out anyway to let the stage go ahead (for obvious reasons). This level of wind for a seafront TT is obviously very dangerous lol

LOL, thats incorrect.

Why are they allowing the riders to ride, if it is so "dangerous"?

Cancel the stage then, this solution that they went for is an absolute farce.

 

[Brullnux]

To be clear, I think the cancellation was a farce last year, but I'll have to see them on the road here before I'll pass judgement.

The wind might die down but early morning videos made it look as if it was knocking down anything and everything, so even if cyclists don't fall there is a risk of objects flying at them.

 

[Brullnux]

LOL, thats incorrect.

Why are they allowing the riders to ride, if it is so "dangerous"?

Cancel the stage then, this solution that they went for is an absolute farce.

Because they are balancing danger with economic liability of a cancelled stage, hope this helps.

Re, 90kmh-100kmh gusts, that came from the tweet posted earlier:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1760616675886420136

View: https://twitter.com/vocescoruna/status/1760616675886420136
.

May be less now, but this morning seemed to have reached 98kmh

 

[Rob5091]

Last 300m are uphill on cobbles so could be fun in the wet.

 

[Netserk]

The wind might die down but early morning videos made it look as if it was knocking down anything and everything, so even if cyclists don't fall there is a risk of objects flying at them.

Yeah, but they knew it wouldn't blow as much from now on as earlier in the day.

 

[Salvarani]

Because they are balancing danger with economic liability of a cancelled stage, hope this helps.

You started off the argument, because it was about safety.

Now it is about the ecomomics.

Make up your mind.

Farce.

 

[Brullnux]

You started off the argument, because it was about safety.

Now it is about the ecomomics.

Make up your mind.

Farce.

I don't get your point – it is obviously about both, as I said in the first post re organisers trying to find any way to let the stage go ahead. In other words, balancing rider safety with the danger posed by wind. That's just... the role of an organiser, especially of a smaller race with more losses on the line if a stage is cancelled in its entirety. I don't understand what is so hard to understand?

The solution is poor, but no solution would really work in this scenario. To me, it sounds like you're annoyed/angry for the sake of it. It's a bad situation caused by extreme weather (given the fact it is a seafront TT). They've still tried to make the race go ahead, letting riders have freedom to choose level of danger they expose themselves to. It is not a pretty solution, but at least there is a race of some kind, which is better than no race.

 

[Salvarani]

I don't get your point – it is obviously about both, as I said in the first post re organisers trying to find any way to let the stage go ahead. In other words, balancing rider safety with the danger posed by wind. That's just... the role of an organiser, especially of a smaller race with more losses on the line if a stage is cancelled in its entirety. I don't understand what is so hard to understand?

The solution is poor, but no solution would really work in this scenario.

Cancel the stage rather than letting this farce go on.

However how you want to twist it, it is a farce.

 

[Brullnux]

Why would cancelling the stage not also be a farce? Why are you so angry about it? They're legit just trying to find a way around a bad situation, it's not some monumental *** up as with some other races in the past with randomly neutralised descents.

 

[ingsve]

So how many riders will actually go all out to try and win the stage? 5 maybe 10 who think they have a shot?

 

[Brullnux]

Yeah, but they knew it wouldn't blow as much from now on as earlier in the day.

That's fair, but the fact it's spread over three hours or so might lead to some odd discrepancies re first batch trying to just stay on a bike and last 30 going hard bc it's completely fine. I guess that's just cycling though.

Obviously though, this whole discussion is very much based on IF the winds are as strong as has been made oht. If they are not, then could have run anyway. If they are, then yeah, just unfortunate.

 

[Salvarani]

So how many riders will actually go all out to try and win the stage? 5 maybe 10 who think they have a shot?

Hope not, they might die.

Really irresponsible to let them out there.

 

[Netserk]

It's all down to the facts on the ground. If conditions are dicey enough, I think this is the best solution.

 

[Salvarani]

It's all down to the facts on the ground. If conditions are dicey enough, I think this is the best solution.

They should cancel PR, next time it rains.

They can go out there, but nobody will win or get the trophy. It wont count.

 

[Red Rick]

Why would cancelling the stage not also be a farce? Why are you so angry about it? They're legit just trying to find a way around a bad situation, it's not some monumental *** up as with some other races in the past with randomly neutralised descents.

If it's unsafe to race, they shouldn't be out there. If they can be out there and everyone has to complete the parcours, GC times should count. In fact, all you need to do is cut the time limit and you keep the race as it should be with the same safety precaution

It's absolutely not difficult at all.

 

[Netserk]

I don't think the safety of race conditions is binary. That's just too crude when you have more than two options in response.

 

[Brullnux]

If it's unsafe to race, they shouldn't be out there. If they can be out there and everyone has to complete the parcours, GC times should count. In fact, all you need to do is cut the time limit and you keep the race as it should be with the same safety precaution

It's absolutely not difficult at all.

This is not really true, though – there do exist situations which sit on the edge of objectively too dangerous to race, but dangerous enough that some cyclists justifiably feel uncomfortable to race hard. In those situations, why not allow some freedom to the cyclists in question to judge how hard they want to go for a stage win? Not all cyclists will feel safe in the same situations; situations can change over several hours (relevant in a TT); and conditions sometimes cannot be objectively assessed.

 

[Salvarani]

The sport is really dead.

 

[Red Rick]

This is not really true, though – there do exist situations which sit on the edge of objectively too dangerous to race, but where not all cyclists feel comfortable to race hard. In those situations, why not allow some freedom to the cyclists in question to judge how hard they want to go for a stage win?

Riders are free to take all the risks they're comfortable with. Counting GC times doesn't change that.

By this logic we can neutralize every descent.

 

[Brullnux]

Riders are free to take all the risks they're comfortable with. Counting GC times doesn't change that.

By this logic we can neutralize every descent.

That is not the same logic, you've taken it to an absurd end for the purposes of avoiding all nuance. This is with regards to an extremely specific situation, not 'every descent'.

What do you do in extreme weather conditions which fall on that boundary? Creating a binary of if it's not too dangerous to cancel it is safe enough to race or cancel is not a serious suggestion, it's just the opinion of a cranky viewer.

 

[Ricco']

Why did the team managers had the right to vote to nullify or not GC times? Isn't that the job of UCI commissaires, to evaluate the situation and take the necessary measures to minimize risks?