Paris-Roubaix Femmes, 2021 - Oct. 2nd

[King Boonen]

In concerning proportion.

Yeah, I reckon thats covered. Any more goalpost shifts?

 

[sir fly]

Yeah, I reckon thats covered. Any more goalpost shifts?

Not from this side.
At yours?

 

[gregrowlerson]

If the Arenberg isn't included in the male junior's race because of issues concerning lack of physical strength, then it makes sense to not include it in the women's edition.

In terms of pure endurance there seems little (if any) difference between men and women though, so I don't see why women's races aren't longer (that they are slower than the men and would take longer to finish isn't a strong argument imo; you don't necessarily have to televise it all).

 

[King Boonen]

Fair enough, although I disagree. In the men's race there are always ton of accidents on the first sectors, so it seems logical that there also will be in the women's race. So it doesn't sound like the best idea to start with the sector they enter with the highest speed to me.

That’s fine. As I’ve said, there was no need for it to be the first sector, ASO made that decision. I just think if that’s going to be the case, the racers would have been able to manage it. Being fresh could actually be an advantage.

 

[Netserk]

Surely that’s an argument for dropping bunch sprints and mountain descents from GTs too?

That's not how risk works. Novelty is an important factor in how humans perceive risk.

ASO is not a welfare organisation (and it's only if it was that that it would make sense to drop mountain descents from the Tour), it cares about business risk, brand risk. It's easier and less risky to add more than to start off by going too far. La Course will change to a stage race next year, I'm sure the women's Roubaix will grow too.

Some people are apparently only happy with entry barriers that would keep most progress away.

 

[Leinster]

If the Arenberg isn't included in the male junior's race because of issues concerning lack of physical strength, then it makes sense to not include it in the women's edition.

In terms of pure endurance there seems little (if any) difference between men and women though, so I don't see why women's races aren't longer (that they are slower than the men and would take longer to finish isn't a strong argument imo; you don't necessarily have to televise it all).

They don't even have to be exactly the same distance, you can design a women's course so that it lasts 6ish hours, just the same as the men's edition. If that means them riding 200-230 kms instead of 260, then fine.

 

[King Boonen]

That's not how risk works. Novelty is an important factor in how humans perceive risk.

ASO is not a welfare organisation, it cares about business risk, brand risk. It's easier and less risky to add more than to start off by going too far. La Course will change to a stage race next year, I'm sure the women's Roubaix will grow too.

Breaking out the Lefevere language, I’ll end this interaction here.

 

[King Boonen]

They don't even have to be exactly the same distance, you can design a women's course so that it lasts 6ish hours, just the same as the men's edition. If that means them riding 200-230 kms instead of 260, then fine.

They can’t. 160km is the longest distance the UCI allow For women’s one day races.

 

[greyclouds]

Shouldn't this thread by fixed, like Emilia?

 

[Netserk]

Breaking out the Lefevere language, I’ll end this interaction here.

Whatever fallacy you need to justify not thinking about it.

 

[King Boonen]

Shouldn't this thread by fixed, like Emilia?

Morning of the race I think?

Edit: But I’ll pin it to be consistent.

 

[greyclouds]

Morning of the race I think?

Edit: But I’ll pin it to be consistent.

 

[greyclouds]

They think the juniors can't handle it - probably true. They think the grown-up women can't handle it - still to be proven. The juniors are still growing and learning and need to be protected. The women - one could try it before saying/ behaving like they can't handle it.
Personally I would have made the race longer most of all; I find the length more than the leaving out of certain sectors unnecessary and yes, insulting. Then if the race was longer the placing of the sectors probably wouldn't be much of a problem anyway.

I'm not blind towards the huge differences in level in the women's peloton, though. But this is a ridiculous length in my opinion and if you don't have longer and harder races there isn't much of a reason to train for those for the women.

Another aspect is that due to the small amount of climbing in women's pro cycling the percentage of strong rouleurs with a good sprint is higher in the women's peloton. I could definitely name more women specifically suited to P-R than for Lombardia for instance.

It's normal to spare the juniors when compared to the elites in almost every sport. It's just a matter of physical development and built endurance. I guess it could be seen as normal to differentiate mens elite from womens elite, from a anedoctal perspective, but I would like to see some science and testing. What I don't think it's normal, in the case of cycling, is to consistently reduce the womens elite parcours to rolleur type profile (has been said many times), and in events with the same "base" route to strip out them of so much of the most interesting aspects, because "they can't handle" - which, to the lack of better explanations, often seems to be the underlying reason.

 

[Samu Cuenca]

They can’t. 160km is the longest distance the UCI allow For women’s one day races.

They would probably be able to get permission to go a bit above it if they wanted to. In a WWT stage race you aren't allowed to have an average of more than 140 km per road stage, but in the Tour of Norway all the stages were a few kilometers longer than that.

 

[King Boonen]

They would probably be able to get permission to go a bit above it if they wanted to. In a WWT stage race you aren't allowed to have an average of more than 140 km per road stage, but in the Tour of Norway all the stages were a few kilometers longer than that.

Of course, but the post I was replying to was suggesting 40-70km more, not just a few. I’m hoping these distances are adjusted by the UCI soon, but as it stands I’d only blame ASO for not fully utilising the allowable distance.

 

[jaylew]

The no-Arenberg argument makes sense on its surface but would they need to start near there if the race was a decent distance?

I understand why women raced much shorter courses initially but it makes increasingly less sense as the participation and overall level grows. Honestly, it's one thing about gravel racing that I like - women and men racing together doing the same distance. The fact that it may generally take pro women longer to complete a distance is immaterial and any comparing of their speeds to men of any age group makes no sense.

Don't get me started on tennis.

 

[Leinster]

They can’t. 160km is the longest distance the UCI allow For women’s one day races.

That’s as dumb a rule as any part of jthe rest of this argument.

 

[BlueRoads]

For me there's also a feeling of "they are all hyped because they're doing Paris-Roubaix - but actually they are not really doing Paris-Roubaix".
I don't think safety should be any kind of issue here, there will be crashes, but so will it be at the men's. I don't think anything serious will happen, there might be one or two broken bones but no serious head injuries or something like that. I also find it a bit weird how so many are hoping for a wet and chaotic Paris-Roubaix - which basically means crashes - while thinking the women should be protected from that.
The only real issue is that the women's peloton is so divided in terms of strength, so that the selection might be too early for the weaker riders which might feel they lose the race very soon. The viewers are not really affected though, as we only get to see the later stage anyway and there should already be a bigger selection at that point anyway.
Seriously, P-R, 116km... those are pro-endurance athletes and many of them can handle way more, even with tough cobbles, I'm sure.
No, sorry, I can't be hyped.

 

[Netserk]

For me there's also a feeling of "they are all hyped because they're doing Paris-Roubaix - but actually they are not really doing Paris-Roubaix".
I don't think safety should be any kind of issue here, there will be crashes, but so will it be at the men's. I don't think anything serious will happen, there might be one or two broken bones but no serious head injuries or something like that. I also find it a bit weird how so many are hoping for a wet and chaotic Paris-Roubaix - which basically means crashes - while thinking the women should be protected from that.
The only real issue is that the women's peloton is so divided in terms of strength, so that the selection might be too early for the weaker riders which might feel they lose the race very soon. The viewers are not really affected though, as we only get to see the later stage anyway and there should already be a bigger selection at that point anyway.
Seriously, P-R, 116km... those are pro-endurance athletes and many of them can handle way more, even with tough cobbles, I'm sure.
No, sorry, I can't be hyped.

Well, neither are the men then. It's not Paris-Roubaix unless they start in Paris.

And there's a difference between what one hopes for and what one thinks is the reasoning of the organiser.

 

[Red Rick]

Well, neither are the men then. It's not Paris-Roubaix unless they start in Paris.

And there's a difference between what one hopes for and what one thinks is the reasoning of the organiser.

The men don't even start in Paris anymore thb.

I think that while there's obviously a good argument that womens races could and probably should be longer, especially monuments, this race in particular isn't that bad. For me it does capture the essence of Paris Roubaix by including more than half of the cobbled sectors than mens use, including all the ones that are usually most decisive.

Womens race length is for me a seperate discussion. I don't think races strictly need to be as long as the men or race the exact same routes, while at the same time I think it's stupid races are this watered down for length, and within womens cycling itself many of the most important races aren't even long either due to the stupid 160km cap on races.

I also don't wanna complain too hard cause the UCI will probably just shorten the mens races to create more parity

 

[King Boonen]

Men’s race length is decided by the PCC so the UCI can’t just reduce it without consent from stakeholders.

 

[gerundium]

Interview with NOS, AvV said she experts the race to blow up quickly as they will be hitting crosswinds after 25 km already. Sadly we won't be able to see it live.

 

[Orbit501]

The race is underway and conditions so far are dry.

So excited!

 

[42x16ss]

Any video stream yet? If not that's unacceptable when everything is already in place ready to go...

Edit: And they streamed the sign on and roll out!

 

[42x16ss]

guys..there is a race on...

so who is going to be in contention...chantal blaak..ellen van dijk..elisa longo borghini
..audrey cordon ragot..marianne vos...lorena wiebes..sarah roy..lotte kopecky

...and many more...

Mark L

Emma Norsgaard and Chloe Hosking to both show well IMO, along with the names you mentioned above