Paris-Nice 2023, March 5-12

[Kaptain Kool]

Of course, riders should be entitled to call for races to be cancelled if they don't like the conditions. They're the ones who are riding.

 

[Danskebjerge]

Of course, riders should be entitled to call for races to be cancelled if they don't like the conditions. They're the ones who are riding.

Yeah, the ones who think the weather is okay should ride, and then the others can stay at their hotels.

 

[Kaptain Kool]

I also like how posters will refer to the ancient days. Riders were more "well rounded" because there were like 15 total quality riders. You just can't compare that to today. A fatty like Eddy Merckx wouldn't be able to compete in the mountains in today's peloton.

 

[Boehmand]

Back in the day, guys Vingegaard's size were 20 minutes down before they even got to the mountains. That's why some of the all time great featherweight climbers don't have the GT palmarès that riders of that type would have nowadays, and targeted the GPM instead. Federico Bahamontes won one Tour. So did Lucien van Impe. Lucho Herrera won one Vuelta, José Manuel Fuente won two. Neither Jiménez, Julio or Chava, won a GT. Vicente Trueba was literally the guy that the GPM was invented for, because he was the best climber in the race but only twice in his career even made a top 10, with a best of 6th.

It wasn't because they had a deficit in the mountains, but because the parcours was more about all-rounders back then.

The problem is that the increased professionalism in the bunch has meant that the racing is far more controlled and those featherweights are better protected now, such that they don't have any reason to think that they're not the main contenders for the win, in a way they would not have been in the past unless they were superstar elite climbers of the kind mentioned above - and even then, they'd probably have to go on regular Chiappucci-to-Sestrières exploits to be able to do so, not as a stylistic choice but because that was their only way to win. Even the really one-dimensional ones like Purito or Miguel Ángel López.

If you can't compete in the crosswinds because you're too light, it's not cycling's fault and something that needs to be warded against because heaven forfend a GC contender lose time. GC contenders are made by the characteristics of the races that they enter, and if the characteristic of that race changes, then the profile of who is or isn't a contender will change accordingly and if that means the balance shifts so that Jonas Vingegaard isn't as much of a contender, the race shouldn't be obliged to neutralise itself to protect his ability to contend. That's asking ASO to make a rider bigger than the sport.

First of all, your whole "featherweights can't hack it without protection" argument makes no sense, when the guy is a top 10 TTer in the world.

Secondly, being brought up in Denmark, wind is where he lives, it's not a particular issue for him, which is evident on most crosswind stages we have ever seen him ride.

Third, when gusts are 100 kph, that is equivalent to storm strength, it doesn't matter if you are Vingegaard or Norsgaard, you get blown off the road on a modern lightweight race bike.

Fourth, and most importantly, Vingegaard had nothing to do with the decision... the ASO and local French authorities made it, while consulting the UCI and teams, mainly because of blown down tree branches all over the roads.

 

[Boehmand]

Of course, riders should be entitled to call for races to be cancelled if they don't like the conditions. They're the ones who are riding.

This.

However it's a moot point, because today was not cancelled due to any "action" taken by the riders... they were not involved at all... so it's odd some posters want to make it about the riders being "chicken".

 

[Red Rick]

Back in the day, guys Vingegaard's size were 20 minutes down before they even got to the mountains. That's why some of the all time great featherweight climbers don't have the GT palmarès that riders of that type would have nowadays, and targeted the GPM instead. Federico Bahamontes won one Tour. So did Lucien van Impe. Lucho Herrera won one Vuelta, José Manuel Fuente won two. Neither Jiménez, Julio or Chava, won a GT. Vicente Trueba was literally the guy that the GPM was invented for, because he was the best climber in the race but only twice in his career even made a top 10, with a best of 6th.

It wasn't because they had a deficit in the mountains, but because the parcours was more about all-rounders back then.

The problem is that the increased professionalism in the bunch has meant that the racing is far more controlled and those featherweights are better protected now, such that they don't have any reason to think that they're not the main contenders for the win, in a way they would not have been in the past unless they were superstar elite climbers of the kind mentioned above - and even then, they'd probably have to go on regular Chiappucci-to-Sestrières exploits to be able to do so, not as a stylistic choice but because that was their only way to win. Even the really one-dimensional ones like Purito or Miguel Ángel López.

If you can't compete in the crosswinds because you're too light, it's not cycling's fault and something that needs to be warded against because heaven forfend a GC contender lose time. GC contenders are made by the characteristics of the races that they enter, and if the characteristic of that race changes, then the profile of who is or isn't a contender will change accordingly and if that means the balance shifts so that Jonas Vingegaard isn't as much of a contender, the race shouldn't be obliged to neutralise itself to protect his ability to contend. That's asking ASO to make a rider bigger than the sport.

I mean give us a '70s style parcours and you still get Pogacar or Vingegaard winning the racing is just extremely, extremely boring.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I also like how posters will refer to the ancient days. Riders were more "well rounded" because there were like 15 total quality riders. You just can't compare that to today. A fatty like Eddy Merckx wouldn't be able to compete in the mountains in today's peloton.

But he could then focus on different races with different characteristics. That's kind of the point. If a rider doesn't want to compete in conditions adverse to their skillset, there are races for them. Sometimes those races change. If you're no good in the cold, don't become a Classics man. If you don't have good recovery or you struggle in the heat, don't try to contest the Tour or Vuelta (also, hello, Simon). A lot of races are built as "Petit Grand-Tours", aping the kind of style of the GTs and focusing on the same kind of rider as their GC contenders, like the Tour de Suisse, the Dauphiné, Catalunya, California, and so on. Paris-Nice has different characteristics to them, though, built out of how it is structured. It's why Frank Vandenbroucke, Davide Rebellin and Luís León Sánchez are all on its winners list when none of them were ever a realistic threat in a GT.

First of all, your whole "featherweights can't hack it without protection" argument makes no sense, when the guy is a top 10 TTer in the world.

Secondly, being brought up in Denmark, wind is where he lives, it's not a particular issue for him, which is evident on most crosswind stages we have ever seen him ride.

Third, when gusts are 100 kph, that is equivalent to storm strength, it doesn't matter if you are Vingegaard or Norsgaard, you get blown off the road on a modern lightweight race bike.

Fourth, and most importantly, Vingegaard had nothing to do with the decision... the ASO and local French authorities made it, while consulting the UCI and teams, mainly because of blown down tree branches all over the roads.

I was responding to a post of Vingegaard talking about competing in the wind and it being hard for him because of his light weight. I know he's a great time trialist, I'm pointing out that this would have been a more important facet of his skillset at a different time, and has historically been a weak point for riders of his build. There's more to being adept in crosswinds than just being heavy. Hell, in 2010 at Paris-Nice there was a stage where echelons were formed and the pace was driven in the crosswinds by that lauded rouleur heavyweight Alejandro Valverde.

 

[Red Rick]

Vingegaard is a far better time-trialist than most, if not all, of the climbers you listed, though. Perhaps he would have struggled in GCs 50 years ago due to his size, but he would have been one of the big guns at, say, the turn of the millennium too, which proved not to be true for the likes of Jiménez. Indeed, ASO is more interested in echelon-baiting now than they were then.

For a large part it's not even a difference in talent, it's just development of bikes that puts emphasis on aero rather than raw power that enables shorter riders to compete.

I think in those days it was basically such that the best rouleurs were by default also decent enough climbers and the routes simply supported that. It's like Ganna doing decent on a 5% climb these days.

 

[Salvarani]

This.

However it's a moot point, because today was not cancelled due to any "action" taken by the riders... they were not involved at all... so it's odd some posters want to make it about the riders being "chicken".

Maybe some people dont have much else going on and this cancellation really ruined their day, so it is a good reason to get outraged about. Tomorrow it will be something else.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I mean give us a '70s style parcours and you still get Pogacar or Vingegaard winning the racing is just extremely, extremely boring.

Sure, but the biggest change there has been the professionalism in the bunch and the much smaller difference between the best and worst rider on a given day, meaning it's a lot easier to maintain a very controlled race than it was in the 70s. I don't agree with some of the ways that modern parcours designers have responded to some of the issues faced, but the parcours trends are significantly different now to just 15-20 years ago, and accordingly the types of riders who compete at the business end are different. There are no Ulles, Lances, Romingers, Olanos realistically now. It's not the case, Wiggins aside, that big TT engines are becoming GT riders by becoming climbers now; it's more that lightweights naturally suited to climbing are becoming GT riders by becoming strong TTers.

Also if you go way back in the day there were lots more sterrato, concrete, cobbled and dirt roads that riders had to negotiate, even in the mountains, so the ability to put the power down and not be thrown all over the place by the road was crucial. The lack of depth in the péloton was probably a crucial safety feature back then, I can only imagine the disaster that it would have been having some of those roads with a 200-strong pro péloton at the speeds they go today.

 

[BR2]

Of course, riders should be entitled to call for races to be cancelled if they don't like the conditions. They're the ones who are riding.

Definitely. But that is only the case if everyone (or seriously almost everyone) agrees. It is different if there are maybe riders who would like to ride.
That's also an issue I have with "races not important enough". There might be lesser known riders for whom this was one of the highlights of their schedule. There may be riders wanting to go in a break/ keep on riding in a break/ try something on that day.
If then someone like Vingegaard/Jumbo leads the pack and says "not worth it for me, rather don't get sick, rather not risk injuries, got bigger fish to fry" a good deal of riders might agree with them, but others may not. And they may not dare to speak out or if they do aren't listened to.

I also think it is quite arrogant of me as a spectator sitting at home demanding other people risk their health for my pleasure if they don't want to. But the problem is that these kind of decisions are getting more frequent and we do get the impression that sometimes the conditions are not really dangerous, rather very uncomfortable. That makes us question the decision to cancel even in cases where it was most likely the correct one.
It just needs to be ensured that these decisions in general are made as soon as possible, from people who have no horse in the game, made transparent to the public, and are actually because of danger. Then, when stages/ races are cancelled, there will be a lot more sympathy and less questioning.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I DEMAND TRANSPARENCY!

 

[Red Rick]

I DEMAND TRANSPARENCY!

New leaders jersey for least televised top 10 rider?

 

[Boehmand]

But he could then focus on different races with different characteristics. That's kind of the point. If a rider doesn't want to compete in conditions adverse to their skillset, there are races for them. Sometimes those races change. If you're no good in the cold, don't become a Classics man. If you don't have good recovery or you struggle in the heat, don't try to contest the Tour or Vuelta (also, hello, Simon). A lot of races are built as "Petit Grand-Tours", aping the kind of style of the GTs and focusing on the same kind of rider as their GC contenders, like the Tour de Suisse, the Dauphiné, Catalunya, California, and so on. Paris-Nice has different characteristics to them, though, built out of how it is structured. It's why Frank Vandenbroucke, Davide Rebellin and Luís León Sánchez are all on its winners list when none of them were ever a realistic threat in a GT.


I was responding to a post of Vingegaard talking about competing in the wind and it being hard for him because of his light weight. I know he's a great time trialist, I'm pointing out that this would have been a more important facet of his skillset at a different time, and has historically been a weak point for riders of his build. There's more to being adept in crosswinds than just being heavy. Hell, in 2010 at Paris-Nice there was a stage where echelons were formed and the pace was driven in the crosswinds by that lauded rouleur heavyweight Alejandro Valverde.

It would appear you have made up in your head, that Vingegaard does not like wind, when he has said nothing of the sort, and when it is simply not true.

All he said was, that nobody can ride safely in 100 kph gusts... which is a fact, irrespective of "rider type".

You trying to paint it as some sort of particular dislike of wind, or inability to ride in windy conditions, is just weird.

 

[Boehmand]

Maybe some people dont have much else going on and this cancellation really ruined their day, so it is a good reason to get outraged about. Tomorrow it will be something else.

They dive headfirst into cancel-culture... because of a cancellation

 

[Boehmand]

I DEMAND TRANSPARENCY!

Polish your windows

 

[Nick2413]

They dive headfirst into cancel-culture... because of a cancellation

Being opposed to races being cancelled unnecessarily is the exact opposite of cancel culture

 

[Boehmand]

Being opposed to races being cancelled unnecessarily is the exact opposite of cancel culture

"Unnecessarily"

 

[theyoungest]

Being opposed to races being cancelled unnecessarily is the exact opposite of cancel culture

Journalist who happened to be in the area: the cancellation was completely justified.

Mark Uytterhoeven toont met filmpje hoe hard het waait in Parijs-Nice: "Terechte beslissing" | sporza

Door felle windstoten (tot 130 km/u) werd de 6e etappe in Parijs-Nice vandaag afgelast. Meer dan terecht, zo blijkt uit een video van Mark Uytterhoeven, die verblijft in de buurt van het parcours.

sporza.be

Which evidence do you have to the contrary?

 

[Nick2413]

"Unnecessarily"

Dubiously. And I stated in my original post that I’m not opposed to today’s cancellation. This is about the direction the sport is heading in general.

 

[Boehmand]

Dubiously. And I stated in my original post that I’m not opposed to today’s cancellation. This is about the direction the sport is heading in general.

100 kph gusts and fallen branches all over the roads, is neither an "unnecessary" nor "dubious" cancellation.

It's a logical and obvious choice, unless we want riders blowing off the open road or hitting fallen branches @ 90 kph while decending.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I’m not opposed to today’s cancellation. This is about the direction the sport is heading in general.

So you agree they did the right thing in France. And I'm sure you'll agree with the decision to cancel Drentse Acht van Westerveld. And the decision to curtail Tierreno. All transparently the correct decisions in the circumstances. So what is this "direction the sport is heading in" bit really mean?

 

[Nick2413]

So you agree they did the right thing in France. And I'm sure you'll agree with the decision to cancel Drentse Acht van Westerveld. And the decision to curtail Tierreno. All transparently the correct decisions in the circumstances. So what is this "direction the sport is heading in" bit really mean?

You’re very conveniently leaving out situations like the Giro last year. I don’t have a photographic memory but I’m sure you’ve ignored more examples that would support my point than I’m even aware of. Again, I don’t mind cancellations for legit reasons. But it’s silly to say it’s only ever happened for completely necessary reasons.

 

[fmk_RoI]

I’m sure you’ve ignored more examples that would support my point than I’m even aware of.

LOL

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Bring back Jürgen Roelandts, I say. He'd have tried a 90km solo break