As if this is not happening anyway. The solution => Read my sig, and change to 6-rider teams.LaFlorecita said:
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
cineteq said:
Agree re Radios and power meters, but 6 man teams in the Tour just will not happen.
I have decided to cast my vote after the smoke has cleared. Rechecking the profiles now, it's really not such a bad route. I've given a 6.
I think that a whole lot of the frustration stems from how easily this could have been made into an excellent parcours. Just one or two changes is all it takes.
Stages 1-4 are pretty much a perfect Tour opening. Don't really agree with cobbles two years running, but once they are upon us (the armchair viewers, not the riders) we will all be pretty excited to see that stage unfold.
Stages 5-7 could be pretty dull, but this is the Tour...
Stage 8 and 9 hold some interest for GC.
The Pyrenees are excellent. Think about it. When has the Tour had such a strong set of opening mountain stages? All 3 of these can have some impact on GC. A single climb stage for the first big selection is okay, and it's a tough climb. The stage to Cauterets is outstanding. It is possible that the big guns will soft pedal up the Tourmalet, but chances are good that the pace will be on and this stage will be epic. Whilst overused, the Tourmalet is one of the best climbs in professional cycling (risks being banned!), and the way it is used here is spot on. I like the shallow drag to the finish. By the third and final Pyrenean stage the riders should be getting tired, and 195kms that includes the beast of Plateau De Beille should sort them out. There has been annoyance of how much better this stage could have easily been, and whilst true, should there be a true queen stage in the first set of mountains?
It is the queen stage though, highlighting a weakness in the route.
The transition stages are fine, particularly Mende. Not sure that we needed Gap again though...
The Alps. First stage is perfect. I like having a more medium style mountain stage placed in amongst the six or so main climbing stages (like the first stage in the Alps in '04 where Jan attacked) and this course to Pra-Loup is full of potential, though as is the case with many of the stages, could do with being a little longer.
The stage containing the monster Glandon is, and is a quality design. The top is a long way from the finish, but there's a lot of descending thereafter, with an interesting short and sharp climb about 10-15 kms out. Just how steep is the Montvenier? Looks a great inclusion; a mini Alpe d'Huez. Even more reason to leave the overused favourite out of this parcours.
It's far from the toughest climb in the world, but I don't mind La Toussuire. I think it's typical Tour, and has not been overused, thus far. It can also be used to finish off an epic, queen stage. However, they have failed to do this here.
Too many short mountain stages and abysmally not enough time trial kms. Scrap the current stage 20 for a 55km ITT and extend stage 19 significantly (make it at least 200 kms), though not sure how easily that is achieved given the starting and finishing points?
Another better option would be to have stage 20 as a MTT.
I would prefer the TTT to be an ITT too. I think that the TTT would be better used as a one off every few years, like the cobbles, and when used be much longer, like 60-70kms, so that it has influence and is not just something pretty.
I think that a whole lot of the frustration stems from how easily this could have been made into an excellent parcours. Just one or two changes is all it takes.
Stages 1-4 are pretty much a perfect Tour opening. Don't really agree with cobbles two years running, but once they are upon us (the armchair viewers, not the riders) we will all be pretty excited to see that stage unfold.
Stages 5-7 could be pretty dull, but this is the Tour...
Stage 8 and 9 hold some interest for GC.
The Pyrenees are excellent. Think about it. When has the Tour had such a strong set of opening mountain stages? All 3 of these can have some impact on GC. A single climb stage for the first big selection is okay, and it's a tough climb. The stage to Cauterets is outstanding. It is possible that the big guns will soft pedal up the Tourmalet, but chances are good that the pace will be on and this stage will be epic. Whilst overused, the Tourmalet is one of the best climbs in professional cycling (risks being banned!), and the way it is used here is spot on. I like the shallow drag to the finish. By the third and final Pyrenean stage the riders should be getting tired, and 195kms that includes the beast of Plateau De Beille should sort them out. There has been annoyance of how much better this stage could have easily been, and whilst true, should there be a true queen stage in the first set of mountains?
It is the queen stage though, highlighting a weakness in the route.
The transition stages are fine, particularly Mende. Not sure that we needed Gap again though...
The Alps. First stage is perfect. I like having a more medium style mountain stage placed in amongst the six or so main climbing stages (like the first stage in the Alps in '04 where Jan attacked) and this course to Pra-Loup is full of potential, though as is the case with many of the stages, could do with being a little longer.
The stage containing the monster Glandon is, and is a quality design. The top is a long way from the finish, but there's a lot of descending thereafter, with an interesting short and sharp climb about 10-15 kms out. Just how steep is the Montvenier? Looks a great inclusion; a mini Alpe d'Huez. Even more reason to leave the overused favourite out of this parcours.
It's far from the toughest climb in the world, but I don't mind La Toussuire. I think it's typical Tour, and has not been overused, thus far. It can also be used to finish off an epic, queen stage. However, they have failed to do this here.
Too many short mountain stages and abysmally not enough time trial kms. Scrap the current stage 20 for a 55km ITT and extend stage 19 significantly (make it at least 200 kms), though not sure how easily that is achieved given the starting and finishing points?
Another better option would be to have stage 20 as a MTT.
I would prefer the TTT to be an ITT too. I think that the TTT would be better used as a one off every few years, like the cobbles, and when used be much longer, like 60-70kms, so that it has influence and is not just something pretty.
Very good post, Greg. O think you're overly positive on the good points and remarkably forgiving of the travesties in the route. But your case is well made.
gregrowlerson said:
Riders like Purito and other GC contenders on smaller teams already lose pretty big on the shorter TTT's. With a 60-70 km TTT there isn't much point to even enter the race to contend GC unless your on one of the 2 or 3 super rich and stacked GC teams.
I don't really get the hate to be honest. Sure, it's not a great route, but it's not that bad. The worst thing is definitely the only 14 km's of ITT, but other than that it's OK. The first week is, for once, going to be quite entertaining. The mountain stages look decent. OK, they could have made at least one proper 200+ km stage, but the shorter ones are usually pretty decent (remember the last time they did this Alpe d'Huez stage?).
Hugo Koblet said:
For it to be entertaining Alberto would need to believe he no longer has a chance to win. The distance between the top of Galibier and the start of Alpe d'Huez is simply too long. Any early attackers will get caught (just like what happened in 2011, by the way)
Hi, I'm new in this forum. I following the discussion for some months and since I like the nerdie route design discussions I cannot held me back anymore.
As other said before, for me its a poor the route but not as bad as it is made here.
I would like to analyse the most critisized topics:
1. Late TTT. This is really a bad idea, especially after some dangerous stages. It might be entertaining though, and most likely it will be fun to watch, in particular with this last hill. Thus for a single stage its really good, but I don't like that its a kind of a lottery.
2. Only 14 km ITT. I don't like this too, but its not a big issue for me. The main issue is that there are such litte ITT km in the last years (since 2009) and its seem to be the new standard. If there is ONE year with only 14km and the next year has maybe 120km or 150km this would be ok for me. Some variation is always good, and why do not go to extremes, if this is not done too often.
3. Cobbelstones: I real like it, although it is a kind of lottery. But its real fun. And in contrast to the usual montain stage, the action don't start at the last 3km, but at the last 50km or so. I can understand if there different opinions, but for me its great. Ok, it should not happen every year, but two years in a row is no problem.
4. No montain stages that allow early attacks. I fully agree that is a big issue. For me this issue is the main reaon to give a low rating to the 2015 route. In my opinion, this is the main issue of most of the GT routes in the last years. But this is no special issue of the 2015 tour, it was the same in nearly each tour in the last years, in particular also for the 2014 route, that got very good ratings here in this forum.
5. No real hard multi mountain stage. I agree. For me its not an as big issue as topic 4, but I still would prefer to have 1 or 2 those stages. But this is also true for the last 3 tours, especially the 2013 one.
6. Some people stated that the mountain stages are too weak. I cannot see this at all. Three are 5 mountain top finishes, three of them HC. This tour is more or less as hard as the 2013 one and the 2014 one (maybe 2014 was a bit harder but no big difference). And as we have seen it was no problem to create gaps and gain minutes in the mountains of these tours.
Thus according to the mountains its a average tour route. I assume that most people are disappointed, since the stages could have been very good (with little changes), and it looks like that the ASO really worked hard to choose the worst possible option for each stage. This is in fact really disappointing, but it is the same what the used to do for years.
I agree that the 2014 route was better, but more for the overall composition, the mountainstages were not better than the 2015 stages.
Thus we have a tour with standard (bad) mountain stages, a crazy TTT, cobbles and an experiment with very little ITT. It's not good, and should be no standard, but the first week could be fun and the mountains are hard enough to provide a good GC battle. I rate it 4.
As other said before, for me its a poor the route but not as bad as it is made here.
I would like to analyse the most critisized topics:
1. Late TTT. This is really a bad idea, especially after some dangerous stages. It might be entertaining though, and most likely it will be fun to watch, in particular with this last hill. Thus for a single stage its really good, but I don't like that its a kind of a lottery.
2. Only 14 km ITT. I don't like this too, but its not a big issue for me. The main issue is that there are such litte ITT km in the last years (since 2009) and its seem to be the new standard. If there is ONE year with only 14km and the next year has maybe 120km or 150km this would be ok for me. Some variation is always good, and why do not go to extremes, if this is not done too often.
3. Cobbelstones: I real like it, although it is a kind of lottery. But its real fun. And in contrast to the usual montain stage, the action don't start at the last 3km, but at the last 50km or so. I can understand if there different opinions, but for me its great. Ok, it should not happen every year, but two years in a row is no problem.
4. No montain stages that allow early attacks. I fully agree that is a big issue. For me this issue is the main reaon to give a low rating to the 2015 route. In my opinion, this is the main issue of most of the GT routes in the last years. But this is no special issue of the 2015 tour, it was the same in nearly each tour in the last years, in particular also for the 2014 route, that got very good ratings here in this forum.
5. No real hard multi mountain stage. I agree. For me its not an as big issue as topic 4, but I still would prefer to have 1 or 2 those stages. But this is also true for the last 3 tours, especially the 2013 one.
6. Some people stated that the mountain stages are too weak. I cannot see this at all. Three are 5 mountain top finishes, three of them HC. This tour is more or less as hard as the 2013 one and the 2014 one (maybe 2014 was a bit harder but no big difference). And as we have seen it was no problem to create gaps and gain minutes in the mountains of these tours.
Thus according to the mountains its a average tour route. I assume that most people are disappointed, since the stages could have been very good (with little changes), and it looks like that the ASO really worked hard to choose the worst possible option for each stage.
This is in fact really disappointing, but it is the same what the used to do for years. I agree that the 2014 route was better, but more for the overall composition, the mountainstages were not better than the 2015 stages.
Thus we have a tour with standard (bad) mountain stages, a crazy TTT, cobbles and an experiment with very little ITT. It's not good, and should be no standard, but the first week could be fun and the mountains are hard enough to provide a good GC battle. I rate it 4.
The "only 14 km of ITT" bit is HUGE. You can't give a route a decent score with something like that.Hugo Koblet said:
hrotha said:
That's a very conservative way of looking at things. Several other non-mountain stages can provide the same, or bigger gaps. And they likely will next year. The first week is designed so that significant gaps will likely be made before they hit the Pyrenees. Echelon stages are even likely. Cobbles. A stage 9 TTT with an uphill finish. Not much wrong with that, unless you're an ITT fetishist. I like long ITTs but they're not necessary every single year.
lebbegehtweider said:Hi, I'm new in this forum. I following the discussion for some months and since I like the nerdie route design discussions I cannot held me back anymore.
Seems to me that you've been on here for a lot longer than "some months".
The first three stages in the Alps all allow for "earlier" attacks by top-10 contenders. Landis-style early attacks won't happen regardless. Alpe can only work if enough teammates can be sent up the road with enough of an advantage.
Contador mentioned the tactical options in the Alps. He seems to have a clearer perspective on things than the majority of the regular posters here.
LaFlorecita said:
Gaps will likely be significantly bigger than usual when they hit the mountains. And that's with perfect weather.
This year's TDF didn't even have an ITT until the very end, nor a TTT.
18-Valve. (pithy) said:
He also called it the hardest route in years. I usually just ignore anything he says about GT routes because it's always BS. But good that he's looking at tactical options, he'll need them to make up 5 minutes lost in the first week.
hrotha said:
It is huge, I agree. I definitely think that the route should include a 50-60 km ITT, but on the other hand you've got to give ASO a little credit trying out new things. Isn't the conservative and unimaginative approach by ASO what they're always criticized for?
80 years ago, when the first ITT was included in the TDF, I'm sure forumites all over the internet were yelling and screaming, saying that you can't give a route a decent score with something like that.
Even if the cobbles and the wind open up enough gaps, there's also the issue that a GT contender should be an all-rounder at least to a certain extent, and that includes time-trialing.
Hugo, to what extent is this really trying out new things, when they've been playtesting it at the Vuelta for years? We know what they're looking for: artificially small gaps and "suspense" as all the contenders have a shot at the yellow jersey going into the final stages. And we know that's dull more often than not.
Hugo, to what extent is this really trying out new things, when they've been playtesting it at the Vuelta for years? We know what they're looking for: artificially small gaps and "suspense" as all the contenders have a shot at the yellow jersey going into the final stages. And we know that's dull more often than not.
hrotha said:
2014: 44.2 km
2013: 38.8 km
2012: 39.4 km
2011: 47 km
2010: 46 km
I fail to see how that is testing the same as 13,7 km?
The Vuelta ITTs have been designed to minimize gaps for years. They tend to be hilly and technical, so that they suit the same kind of riders the rest of the route suits. Their length doesn't tell the whole story.
LaFlorecita said:
He was right about both next year's Tour and Giro routes, IMO. The Tour will likely be harder in terms of race action than the previous ones IMO. I don't remember what he said about other GT routes.
Hugo Koblet said:
Quality post. And what about when the first high mountains were included? I can hear Cancellara's great great grandfather calling for a neutralization from here
18-Valve. (pithy) said:That's a very conservative way of looking at things. Several other non-mountain stages can provide the same, or bigger gaps. And they likely will next year. The first week is designed so that significant gaps will likely be made before they hit the Pyrenees. Echelon stages are even likely. Cobbles. A stage 9 TTT with an uphill finish. Not much wrong with that, unless you're an ITT fetishist. I like long ITTs but they're not necessary every single year.
Seems to me that you've been on here for a lot longer than "some months".
The first three stages in the Alps all allow for "earlier" attacks by top-10 contenders. Landis-style early attacks won't happen regardless. Alpe can only work if enough teammates can be sent up the road with enough of an advantage.
Contador mentioned the tactical options in the Alps. He seems to have a clearer perspective on things than the majority of the regular posters here.
Gaps will likely be significantly bigger than usual when they hit the mountains. And that's with perfect weather.
This year's TDF didn't even have an ITT until the very end, nor a TTT.
Great post.
I voted a 4 right after I saw the route for the first time, but the more I've been looking at it, the more I think it's not so bad at all.
18-Valve. (pithy) said:
For Top-10 Contenders this is right, but I don't think its very likely that a contender for the win will do an early attack.
The best stage in that view might be the Pra Loup stage, although it isn't very likely, since the Allos isn't that hard. And I cannot see someone attacking on the Glandon or Croix de Fer. (Except for desperate attacks like Landis 2006 or Schleck 2011.)
lebbegehtweider said:
Call it "desperation," but I think Contador or Nibali will try, if they have the form and the waiting for the final climb approach is almost certain to fail. They'd need to lose quite a bit of time in the first week for that to happen though.
Of course it isn't very likely, but more likely than usual, I'd say.
Conservative or not but ITT and mountains have always been the most essntial parts of the Tour. When one these parts are missing, it is like watching football without the ball.18-Valve. (pithy) said:
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Started by Logic-is-your-friend
- Replies: 503
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram