Rate the 2011 tour de france route (new thread)

[Descender]

You guys do realise this is a matter of taste, right

Its like saying people are idiots because they think bananas are better than apples.

I like mountains. I Like Mountain top finishes. I like tts but mountains are more important to me. For me this is therefore a good course. But from what you say this makes me stupid.

If we are arguing, for example, who is better at climbing, Andy Schleck or Andre Greipel, and i say Andre Greipel, then you can point to Andy Schlecks mountain wins, and tell me im an idiot.

But if I and others say, that we like a course with 2 HC Mountain top finishes (compared to just the one last year and the year before,) is that really reason enough to question our cycling knowledge?

That's the thing, to me, in this case it is not a matter of taste or opinion.

A course that is balanced, giving chances to win to climbers like A. Schleck or Gesink AND to powerful riders like Menchov and Evans, THAT is a good parcours.

Take this year's Tour. If it had had another long flat ITT after the first week as has always been the case, we would have most probably had three contenders instead of two (maybe even four with Samu Sanchez). Menchov would have taken 2-3 minutes on Schleck and Contador, and these two would have been forced to attack from further away to recover that time.

You say you like mountains and they are more important to you than ITT. But what you fail to understand is that TT and mountains are bound together, inextricably bound together in a GT, where you're fighting for the overall standing.

 

[The Hitch]

http://forodeciclismo.mforos.com/30984-el-salon-ciclismo-de-carretera-masculino-profesional/

Those two places are packed with people with endless knowledge about cycling, real knowledge.

Once again. Your opinion. In my opinion foro de ciclismo does not have more knowledge than this forum.

And you are justi digging a bigger hole for yourself because if people choose to believe that this is a better parcors then previous ones THAT IS THEIR opinion. Especially considering how crap recent tours have been.

You talk about taking into account the history of the Tour. what does this mean? OK, 100 years ago they may have had 400km stages and had to repair their own bikes. If anyone it is you who possesses lack of cycling knowledge if you felt that in the 2011 Tour, Prudehome was going to bring this back

The 2011 Tour is going to, if anything, closer resemble the Tours of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 than 1910, 1930, 1964, 1970, 1989, 1999 dont you think?

The parcors for these recent Tours were crap, so i think some of us are entitled to be happy when we get a few decent mountain stages for 2011, Dont you think?

Anyway as i said, if people like this tour parcors, ITS THEIR OPINION. They are allowed to have an opinion. Deal with it. Dont go round critiscising their lack of cycling knowledge.

 

[Descender]

Once again. Your opinion. In my opinion foro de ciclismo does not have more knowledge than this forum.

And you are justi digging a bigger hole for yourself because if people choose to believe that this is a better parcors then previous ones THAT IS THEIR opinion. Especially considering how crap recent tours have been.

You talk about taking into account the history of the Tour. what does this mean? OK, 100 years ago they may have had 400km stages and had to repair their own bikes. If anyone it is you who possesses lack of cycling knowledge if you felt that in the 2011 Tour, Prudehome was going to bring this back

The 2011 Tour is going to, if anything, closer resemble the Tours of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 than 1910, 1930, 1964, 1970, 1989, 1999 dont you think?

The parcors for these recent Tours were crap, so i think some of us are entitled to be happy when we get a few decent mountain stages for 2011, Dont you think?

Anyway as i said, if people like this tour parcors, ITS THEIR OPINION. They are allowed to have an opinion. Deal with it. Dont go round calling people idiots.

Quote me where I call anyone an idiot here, or don't accuse me of that again.

About the history thing, I have no idea what you're on about. I'll just explain myself further. Traditionally, and I don't mean 1910 but the 70's, 80's and 90's, the Tour was a magnificient race with epic mountain stages, both finishing uphill and downhill (where are the Madeleine, Bales type stages in 2011???) and around 100km of TT, where the winner had to be talented, strong and resistent. These last years the race has turned into a 21-day playground show with everyone riding hand-in-hand until the very last kms.

I'll tell you something though, the first people who are to blame for this are the riders themselves.

 

[The Hitch]

Quote me where I call anyone an idiot here, or don't accuse me of that again.

About the history thing, I have no idea what you're on about. I'll just explain myself further. Traditionally, and I don't mean 1910 but the 70's, 80's and 90's, the Tour was a magnificient race with epic mountain stages, both finishing uphill and downhill (where are the Madeleine, Bales type stages in 2011???) and around 100km of TT, where the winner had to be talented, strong and resistent. These last years the race has turned into a 21-day playground show with everyone riding hand-in-hand until the very last kms.

I'll tell you something though, the first people who are to blame for this are the riders themselves.

Its a pity you replied so early, because i removed the idiot comment almost immediately. No you didnt call anybody an idiot, so i apologise, but you did say some cycling knowledge, and for me, to make such a statement, you need more than their opinion on a parcors.

 

[Descender]

Its a pity you replied so early, because i removed the idiot comment almost immediately. No you didnt call anybody an idiot, so i apologise, but you did say some cycling knowledge, and for me, to make such a statement, you need more than their opinion on a parcors.

I have made that statement after reading this forum for months, not just because of this thread. And I stand by it. You talk about different opinions, well it is my opinion that this forum is lacking in cycling knowledge when compared to other cycling forums. I also demand this opinion of mine to be respected.

 

[roundabout]

I'm usually not the one to say this, but why exactly are you then still posting among us plebs?

 

[Descender]

To educate you, I'm inclined to say.

I like to hear views from cycling fans from different countries. Cycling tradition is so varied depending on one's background.

Risking being banned for racism, I believe the fact that this is an English-speaking forum contributes to what I said, seeing as cycling doesn't have a great tradition in English-speaking countries.

 

[roundabout]

You do realize that some of the people who voted 7 and above come from "traditional" cycling countries?

 

[Descender]

You do realize that some of the people who voted 7 and above come from "traditional" cycling countries?

Yes. And?

I didn't say all the posters in here come from English-speaking countries. Blimey, the whole of Holland seems to be here.

 

[roundabout]

And they handled the contrary opinion about the route without resolving to questioning the knowledge of people who disagree with them.

 

[Descender]

And they handled the contrary opinion about the route without resolving to questioning the knowledge of people who disagree with them.

Hooray for them!

I stand by my opinion that anyone who thinks this is a parcours worthy of the Tour de France has no idea about cycling.

And let me add, I have said why I think that way. But in nine pages I struggle to find proper arguments in support of this parcours, other than "it's cool" or "I like it" and the like.

 

[ferryman]

Hooray for them!

I stand by my opinion that anyone who thinks this is a parcours worthy of the Tour de France has no idea about cycling.

And let me add, I have said why I think that way. But in nine pages I struggle to find proper arguments in support of this parcours, other than "it's cool" or "I like it" and the like.

You mean your idea of misty eyed cycling of yesteryear. It's 2010/2011 deal with it. You are just coming across as mouthy . I know you.

 

[Descender]

You mean your idea of misty eyed cycling of yesteryear. It's 2010/2011 deal with it. You are just coming across as mouthy . I know you.

That's right, TdF parcourses suck these days. Thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[ferryman]

That's right, TdF parcourses suck these days. Thanks for agreeing with me.

I guess I did sort of

 

[Ferminal]

So in otherwords, anyone who doesn't like at least 100km of ITT is clueless?

 

[Descender]

So in otherwords, anyone who doesn't like at least 100km of ITT is clueless?

That's not what I said. It depends on the rest of the parcours. Again, it has to be balanced.

For instance last year's Giro had only 23km of ITT which was a huge mistake, but it was compensated in part by including a stage like Montalcino which favoured powerful riders like Evans or Vino in detriment of pure climbers like Basso, and that Giro also gave opportunities to descenders to have their say (Grappa, Mortirolo to a lesser extent).

This year's tour favours climbers and only climbers, nothing for powerful riders, nothing for skilled descenders. And even then, the mountains stages are poorly designed for the most part. Nice homage to the Alps, with a 109km stage and not climbing the Galibier to the top.

 

[Ferminal]

That's not what I said. It depends on the rest of the parcours. Again, it has to be balanced.

For instance last year's Giro had only 23km of ITT which was a huge mistake, but it was compensated in part by including a stage like Montalcino which favoured powerful riders like Evans or Vino in detriment of pure climbers like Basso, and that Giro also gave opportunities to descenders to have their say (Grappa, Mortirolo to a lesser extent).

This year's tour favours climbers and only climbers, nothing for powerful riders, nothing for skilled descenders. And even then, the mountains stages are poorly designed for the most part. Nice homage to the Alps, with a 109km stage and not climbing the Galibier to the top.

I completely agree.

Why do they pass 100m short of the peak of Galibier on the Alpe d'Huez stage? Short mountain stages aren't necessarily terrible. A shorter stage might encourage a team to put the pressure on right from the start, or the usual suspects like Sastre and Vino going on stupid attacks. Obviously it will not happen here though, the top of Galibier is too far from the base of the Alpe (this always seems to be the case with Alpe d'Huez?).

I don't like three major climbs spread over 200km of a stage, which is why I think the Luz Ardiden stage is one of the best mountain stages (on paper) at the Tour in a while. With the long mountain stages at the Tour they need to either concentrate the climbs at the end of the stage or have 4 or 5 major climbs across the stage.

 

[auscyclefan94]

So in otherwords, anyone who doesn't like at least 100km of ITT is clueless?

No, we can all have preferences but statistically and from an entertainment purpose I think grand tours with 80kms or more of Individual time trialling. Climbers are more attacking to get time on the non-pure climbers who then have to get back the time on them in the itt's. 2007 tdf was a great tour because of the attacking style and the itt coming down to the wire.


Giro is a different race with different riders.

btw, average rating is 6.85 out of 10.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Descender thanks for those links. Obviously they have much more knowledge than here, as there are pages upon pages on the Giro route and virtually nothing on the Tour!

In amongst all the personal stuff, some pertinent points have been made that highlight my own concerns over the Tour course.
I would argue that the descenders have the Pinerelo stage, to replace the "Chaingate" stage and that prior to this year, all the downhillers had was stuff like into Briancon, off the Galibier, or the very occasional visit to Loudenvielle.

Maybe the big boys can make hay into Cap Fréhel. Hopefully the wind will blow....

 

[Libertine Seguros]

How about Jausiers in 2008? That was quite a long descent finish. I recall Valverde being dropped then chasing back on, Menchov dropping back to the group that originally had Valverde and Kirchen in it, and Samuel Sánchez having a go off the front. The descent was probably not technical enough, however, as Sánchez couldn't make it stick and even Fränk Schleck - only a month after his Suisse crash - could hold on.

 

[Frosty]

How about Jausiers in 2008? That was quite a long descent finish. I recall Valverde being dropped then chasing back on, Menchov dropping back to the group that originally had Valverde and Kirchen in it, and Samuel Sánchez having a go off the front. The descent was probably not technical enough, however, as Sánchez couldn't make it stick and even Fränk Schleck - only a month after his Suisse crash - could hold on.

Think van de velde crashed attempting to get back onto the leaders after being dropped for about 30 seconds on the climb. Luckily he had Hesjedal with him so didnt lose too much time.

 

[Frosty]

I completely agree.

Why do they pass 100m short of the peak of Galibier on the Alpe d'Huez stage? Short mountain stages aren't necessarily terrible. A shorter stage might encourage a team to put the pressure on right from the start, or the usual suspects like Sastre and Vino going on stupid attacks. Obviously it will not happen here though, the top of Galibier is too far from the base of the Alpe (this always seems to be the case with Alpe d'Huez?).

After the Alpe stage there is only the time trial and the parade around Paris. The Alpe stage therefore represents the last chance for someone with a strong team to really have the team make a difference or for someone with a weak team to be isolated. Its possible that they could go mental from the bottom of the Telegraphe to make sure the time gaps are big by the top of the Galibier and that it doesnt end up with a group of 60 at the foot of the Alpe but rather a series of small groups. Not saying this will happen though, perhaps more likely that there is a lot of early attacking followed by a general regrouping with one team trying to put a decent pace up front to make it a hard race. Its a long way away yet though

I don't like three major climbs spread over 200km of a stage, which is why I think the Luz Ardiden stage is one of the best mountain stages (on paper) at the Tour in a while. With the long mountain stages at the Tour they need to either concentrate the climbs at the end of the stage or have 4 or 5 major climbs across the stage.

Yes, have just looked through them and thats the one for me that stands out this year. The Aspin, Tourmalet and Luz Ardiden combination was used in both 2001 and 2003 although this year the Aspin has been replaced. On both those occasions though the stage was one of the last mountain stages whereas here it is the first.

 

[ak-zaaf]

No, we can all have preferences but statistically and from an entertainment purpose I think grand tours with 80kms or more of Individual time trialling. Climbers are more attacking to get time on the non-pure climbers who then have to get back the time on them in the itt's. 2007 tdf was a great tour because of the attacking style and the itt coming down to the wire.


Giro is a different race with different riders.

btw, average rating is 6.85 out of 10.

It depends on where you put the long ITT. Having a 50km+ ITT the day before Paris just encourages the stronger TT-ers to hang on in the mountains, have there team do a USPS to avoid attacks knowing they can lose up to 2 minutes or even more because of the final TT. Now I know that sounds like a proper GT, but last year it took all suspense out of Tourmalet. Schleck didn't just need to drop Contador, he needed to get minutes (at least, that's what we all thought before the TT).

Climbers don't get minutes anymore, TT-ers still do. I think it's good Pescheux recognized that and favored the climbers this year.

 

[auscyclefan94]

It depends on where you put the long ITT. Having a 50km+ ITT the day before Paris just encourages the stronger TT-ers to hang on in the mountains, have there team do a USPS to avoid attacks knowing they can lose up to 2 minutes or even more because of the final TT. Now I know that sounds like a proper GT, but last year it took all suspense out of Tourmalet. Schleck didn't just need to drop Contador, he needed to get minutes (at least, that's what we all thought before the TT).

Climbers don't get minutes anymore, TT-ers still do. I think it's good Pescheux recognized that and favored the climbers this year.

I disagree, but I am kinda over aruguing about the itt km's. I know i am right!

 

[The Hitch]

Descender thanks for those links. Obviously they have much more knowledge than here, as there are pages upon pages on the Giro route and virtually nothing on the Tour!

If your talking about Foro de ciclismo, they have a 500 post limit on threads, so their Tour thread on the front page with 222 posts, is actually the extension of a previous thread which already reached its 500 post limit. The Giro 293 post thread on the other hand is on its first life.