• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Rate the 2016 Giro route!

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Rate the 2016 Giro route!

  • 1 (Crap)

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • 4

    Votes: 3 3.4%
  • 3

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • 2

    Votes: 1 1.1%
  • 5

    Votes: 8 9.0%
  • 6

    Votes: 14 15.7%
  • 7

    Votes: 39 43.8%
  • 8

    Votes: 10 11.2%
  • 9

    Votes: 11 12.4%
  • 10 (Perfect)

    Votes: 1 1.1%

  • Total voters
    89
Re:

sir fly said:
Does anyone else think the route is good for the double attempt?
Peaking for the second week, using the third as an altitude camp, combined with some cancellations and softer opposition could be doable.
Maybe it would be - if there was an uber dominant GT rider -- I don't see it.

An additional problem with those likely cancellations is that the riders would still have to race in bad, cold weather, as I don't think the stages would be cancelled altogether. That has happened, but is unusual. Plan B stages are much more likely.
 
Re: Re:

42x16ss said:
Red Rick said:
I don't find it coincidence that the worst GT's of the last years all had bad routes.
Agreed. 2009 or 2012 TdF anyone?

Jup, also add the 2012 Giro, extremely backloaded and light on tt's. Nobody dared to attack anywhere.
2014 Giro was also not very good, pretty backloaded, and it was basically about 5 very hard MTF's that would make all the differences. Quintana's solo was more due to the weather than anything else.

The only exception has been the Vuelta, which has been as good as you might have hoped with the parcours, but that had a lot to do with a couple of very equal opponents where one has to take time from the other and Contador being Contador
 
Jun 11, 2014
304
0
0
Visit site
My take: A very solid route - a 7,5 - with riders to be able to take it anywhere between 5 and 10.
In comparison TDF was a 2,5 ending in a 0.......

The nature of the three GT's are. And in the light on this it is a great route!

France: Impossible to avoid 4-6 dull stages in a row to geography, reason why we saw a great 2015 design utilizing wind, cobbles, MUR DE HUY, etc.

Spain: Hills everywhere - hard to make 2-3 panckaes in a row, withour putting a climb, which then not might be steep but an autostrada climb.

Italy: Option to move in and out of the mountains - which truly RCS could do a bit better - they could make a Climb/sprint/climbs/hils/Sprint etc. design for each day...
 
Mar 14, 2009
3,436
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
Jancouver said:
It's pointless to judge the route.
Then why are you bothering with this thread in the first place?

The route does not determine how the race turns out with 100% certainty, but it *is* a factor. It's just silly to deny this.

fix that for you :D

"The route does not determine how the race turns out with 100% certainty, but it *could be* a factor. It's just silly to deny this."
 
Jancouver said:
Tonton said:
Jancouver makes a great point. Riders make the race. For example, the Vuelta's course wasn't great but (conservative) tactics made it super interesting with Dumoulin in the picture and close to punking the favorites. Still, I think it's a 8 course, but obviously tailored for Nibbles. Once again the stereotype of the crafty Italians will make people mad or chuckle when an helicopter blows wind in Nibali's back ;) .

While I have much respect for Dumoulin's riding skills, his fight for the Vuelta's top placing was just a good example of a poorly attended race where most teams send (few exceptions to the rule) their 3rd tier riders and neo-pros to learn.

It is no secret that for many years and for many riders targeting the WC, Vuelta is just a "training" ride and most are not even planning on finishing the "race".

IMO, Vuelta should be the first 2 week GT ... :cool:

Vuelta is a training ride for riders which are irrelevant for the GC,so nobody cares much when their pack their stuff.Vuelta field this year was insane,only Contador missing and usually the roster is always better than in Giro.
 
Re:

Billie said:
2012 Tour de France had a good route. Just unfortunate the 2 best riders rode for the same team. Imagine if Froome and Wiggins would have been riding against each other on different teams that year. Would've been great

Only 4 medium/high mountain stages where it was possible for the GC contenders to gain time. That's just awful. There should be at least 6-7 stages of this type in a GT, preferrebly more. The 2012 edition of the Tour was probably the easiest GT after 2000 along with Giro 2004.
 
Re: Re:

Jancouver said:
hrotha said:
Jancouver said:
It's pointless to judge the route.
Then why are you bothering with this thread in the first place?

The route does not determine how the race turns out with 100% certainty, but it *is* a factor. It's just silly to deny this.

fix that for you :D

"The route does not determine how the race turns out with 100% certainty, but it *could be* a factor. It's just silly to deny this."
There's no *could be*. The route *is* a factor.

Now, whether it's the *dominant* factor, that's another point entirely. But given we don't know the field yet (and can only make educated guesses) but we do know the route, it is the only thing we can judge thus far.

After all, while it is true that one of the most exciting GT stages in recent years was completely flat (echelon stage in week 2 of 2013 TDF), even when the riders make the race, the effect of the route they've been given to do it on plays into HOW they make the race. And some parcours are reliant on external factors (the weather being the most common) for something to happen because they're too easy to control.

E.g. if the Fuente Dé stage didn't have those earlier small climbs to enable the move full of Saxo and Movistar riders to get into the break unchecked, those riders wouldn't have been there for Contador to ride across to, and if the stage was flat until Fuente Dé, Contador wouldn't have bothered trying from distance.

Or, to put it another way, many riders tried to make Geelong an interesting Worlds course because preventing it from being a sprint was their only hope of victory. They succeeded even though it was a sprint. By contrast, a year later in København, the parcours prevented any such moves from realistically having any hope of succeeding, and as a result of the parcours as well, many top names not suited to a sprint elected not to turn up or to ride as domestiques only.

If the riders don't want to race, they won't, and the parcours will be neutered. But they can only race on the parcours they're given, in which case race organisers should be looking to maximise the incentives for the riders to race.
 
Mar 14, 2009
3,436
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
Jancouver said:
hrotha said:
Jancouver said:
It's pointless to judge the route.
Then why are you bothering with this thread in the first place?

The route does not determine how the race turns out with 100% certainty, but it *is* a factor. It's just silly to deny this.

fix that for you :D

"The route does not determine how the race turns out with 100% certainty, but it *could be* a factor. It's just silly to deny this."
There's no *could be*. The route *is* a factor.

Now, whether it's the *dominant* factor, that's another point entirely. But given we don't know the field yet (and can only make educated guesses) but we do know the route, it is the only thing we can judge thus far.

After all, while it is true that one of the most exciting GT stages in recent years was completely flat (echelon stage in week 2 of 2013 TDF), even when the riders make the race, the effect of the route they've been given to do it on plays into HOW they make the race. And some parcours are reliant on external factors (the weather being the most common) for something to happen because they're too easy to control.

E.g. if the Fuente Dé stage didn't have those earlier small climbs to enable the move full of Saxo and Movistar riders to get into the break unchecked, those riders wouldn't have been there for Contador to ride across to, and if the stage was flat until Fuente Dé, Contador wouldn't have bothered trying from distance.

Or, to put it another way, many riders tried to make Geelong an interesting Worlds course because preventing it from being a sprint was their only hope of victory. They succeeded even though it was a sprint. By contrast, a year later in København, the parcours prevented any such moves from realistically having any hope of succeeding, and as a result of the parcours as well, many top names not suited to a sprint elected not to turn up or to ride as domestiques only.

If the riders don't want to race, they won't, and the parcours will be neutered. But they can only race on the parcours they're given, in which case race organisers should be looking to maximise the incentives for the riders to race.

I agree. The course is a factor but not very big. Field quality, and how they race is being raced is a much bigger factor.

Field quality 60% factor
Race dynamics 30% factor
Course 10% factor
 
I think that's a difficult split to agree with, given that your 30% for "race dynamic" is directly affected by both the field and the route. The "race dynamic" is a product of the racing to that point, which is in itself affected by the field and the route. Again, if stage 17 of the 2012 Vuelta is a one-climb stage to Fuente Dé, Contador waits until Bola del Mundo. Also, of course, the route directly affects the field. Next to no puncheurs and grimpeurs turned up to the Worlds in København and next to no pure sprinters turned up to Mendrisio. Purito avoids the Tour in 2012 because of the parcours making it utterly pointless him trying it.
 
Mar 14, 2009
3,436
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
I think that's a difficult split to agree with, given that your 30% for "race dynamic" is directly affected by both the field and the route, because the route will also affect the selection of riders and where the moves are made. Again, if stage 17 of the 2012 Vuelta is a one-climb stage to Fuente Dé, Contador waits until Bola del Mundo.

Okay, perhaps this is better split

Field quality 40% factor
Race dynamics 40% factor
Course 20% factor

again, watching the best riders actually "racing" is what we want and just as you said, an even flat stage can be an epic show if they decide to put the hammer down.
 
Re: Re:

Jancouver said:
again, watching the best riders actually "racing" is what we want and just as you said, an even flat stage can be an epic show if they decide to put the hammer down.
It wasn't an epic show because they decided to put the hammer down, though, was it? It needed the weather for that. If there had been no wind that day, it wouldn't have happened. You obviously can't control or predict the weather, but you can maximise your chances of that happening through the medium of course design (eg the stage to Neeltje Jans in this year's Tour or the Middelburg stage of the 2010 Giro).

Again, giving a heavy weighting to "race dynamics" on what happens in a stage compared to course design is a misnomer to me, because the course is a direct part of, and influence on, the race dynamics. Chiapucci didn't attack so far out in '92 because he suddenly realized when waking up that fateful morning "I need to make up time" and launched himself off the front in on that stage regardless of profile. He picked that stage for a reason, and that reason was that he was the better climber and would lose more time to Indurain in the TT, so a multi-climb stage offered him the best opportunity to take maximum time. There's always going to be the odd anomaly (eg Pereiro, although that was due to Landis' weak support squad that he was allowed that much time, or the GC men getting into the Pozzato move in stage 12 in the 2010 Giro) but the race dynamics may affect why a rider makes a move, but the course will determine when and how. And besides, as hrotha says, the organizers can't control who the WT teams bring to their race. And we have no idea who that will be seven months beforehand anyway. They can't control how the riders race (otherwise the 2012 Giro would have been given a swift euthanasia). But they can control the opportunities they give the riders to race, and that's what this thread was about.
 
The Giro route is really good. it has some stages bad for climbers, as the initial ITT, the long ITT, the 2 forst tages in Netherlands with the winds, and others where the flat routes wil do hard the short climbs for the climbers.

By the other hand there is not a lot final climbs, but that is good, there are very important climbs to attack form far and the stages are well designed.

No mind how much a good climber has lost, if he had a good day in Giau, Agnello or Bonnette with a good strategy he can recover a lot.

There is sterrato as well and the medium mountain is good, so I rate an 8, nothing bad to say, maybe an 8,5 would suit more my opinion..
 
Route is a factor, but everything depends in the circysntances.

if the leader is not a pure climber or iof the leader doesnt have an strong team, and there are climbers very strong who need to recover time, with a decent team at least, the race is going to be good in the mountain for sure, but if you put something like this route with that situation is perfect, At least one day will be great.

if Nibali (to say one) go there, get the pink at the firs, he show he is the best in the ITT, in the mountains, with an strong team... the race will be a crap, although Nibali would deserve it and is another way to enjoy a race to admire a champion to dominate.

if you have the situation of la Vuelta, the equivalent rider to Dumoulin will need 20 minutes before dolomites. (if Dumpulin go there now will be stronger anyway and with a better team) and maybe he win but it woyld be funny.

If Landa go there, lost one minute in the first ITT, 5 minutes in the wind, 2 minutes more in other more or less flat stages, and 4 minutes in the, so 12 minutes.. with a rider like Dumoulin, and if he is there with people as Nieve, Koning,... he can recover those minutes, so will be an historic Giro

If he lose 8 minutes with Nibali or Valverde, he can recover that as well, ort at least try it, so would be really funny as well.

It is more the circunstances, a dominant team is maybe something proud and nice to see, but no funny.
 
Re:

Billie said:
2012 Tour de France had a good route. Just unfortunate the 2 best riders rode for the same team. Imagine if Froome and Wiggins would have been riding against each other on different teams that year. Would've been great
No, it was a terrible route. Minimal MTF's, none of them HC, the medium mountains were woeful, there were no interesting flat stages with coastline or other factors to create echelons from crosswinds, the mountain stages were dull and uninspired with little technical descending and too little climbing to offset the ITT so a dull, boring race was the result.
 
Tour_2012_stage_16_Pau-Bagneres-de-Luchon.jpg


Stage_17_profile.jpg


Tour_2012_stage_8_Belfort-Porrentruy.jpg


2012_tour_de_france_stage11_profile.gif


There was definatly enough hard climbing stages on the route in 2012.

also some medium mountain stages that were not bad:

2012_tour_de_france_stage14_profile_live_tv.png

2012_tour_de_france_stage10_profile_live_tv.png

2012_tour_de_france_stage7_profile_live_tv.png
 
The 2012 Tour route was a necessary gamble, I think. Someone had to try to force the climbers to attack from afar, but it didn't work because Wiggins and Froome were both the best time-trialists and the best climbers, and had the best team in the race. But on paper there were enough opportunities to take back time.
 
That route is good, but with the dominance of team SKY that year and the 2 stronger riders for that route in the same team, it is one of the worst possible routes.

If you put a rioute as some timesla Vuelta with a lot of final climb, usually stepclimb, you are goint to see for sure ssome good minutes several days,.even in a team dominance, but youa re not going to see a true epic battle if the race situation is good.
 
TdF 2012 had some well designed stages but the route had other problems:
- extremely bad placements of some good stages (Bellegarde sur Valserine, Porrentruy)
- It has THE most stupid extra lap ever (Limoux-Foix) which will never get old as an example for stupid race designing
- Besides the stages listed here almost everything was crap. Only three more hilly stags, of which one had a disastrous design, 3 TT's and I think 8 sprint stages, which is way too much considering that the uphill finishes of the hilly stages were so easy that they ended in bunch sprints too

Its a little bit like the giro 2012 which even had some of the best gt stages of the last decade (stage 17, 19) and some more great stages (6, 12, 15) but the combination was just extremely bad.

I hope that the giro 2016 wont have the same problem, but we all have to agree that the placements of the stages are anything but perfect. However there are so many good stages that I don't think this can be as bad as 2012
 

TRENDING THREADS