Rate the "epic mediocrity" of the 2011 Vuelta a España route

[Descender]

You can't judge them against each other because they don't use the same mountain ranking system. There are climbs that are uncategorised in the Vuelta that would be a cat.3 or even maybe .2 in the Tour. And if you're making Verbier a cat.1 in the Tour (as it was in '09) then you need to have the HC category because Ventoux compared to Verbier is many times longer, harder and more intense.

In the Vuelta, they've gone for a carbon copy of the Giro's mountains categorisation. Only one climb in the whole race (I presume it will be Angliru) gets the 'special' categorisation; everything else can only be 1, 2 or 3 (though any MTF will get the 'finish' category, like at the Giro). And if climbs like San Lorenzo are cat.1, then climbs that aren't as tough shouldn't get the same rating. Think of how Passo Tonale was a cat.2 in the 2004 Giro, but would be an easy cat.1 in the Tour - because there's somewhere else to go when you do the Gavia and Mortirolo afterwards: cat.HC. The Giro can't give Tonale the same categorisation as Gavia and Mortirolo, so they must lower the other climb's ranking, and award fewer points.

Which is something the Vuelta still has to figure out, since they're giving the same category to these two climbs which is a bit illogical,:

Or another example, same category for this

and this

 

[Descender]

Also, how on earth is this a 2nd cat

 

[Skip Madness]

I find it a disappointing route, although there are quite a few things I like and it does take a few important steps forward for the Vuelta.

The stage to Totana is a really nice way to set up a sprinters versus escape artists showdown early on. The final 25km of the Córdoba stage have the potential to provide an interesting chunk of racing. The stage to San Lorenzo de El Escorial is beautiful, everything you could want in a medium mountain stage, with the big climb of Mijares early on, the nasty shock of the Mediano and then 40 unrelenting final kilometres and a brute of a finishing repecho. The stages to Noja and Bilbao could be better but both have the terrain for some attacks if there's the appetite.

On the other hand, the stage to Valdepeñas de Jaén is basically a 1km race, feeble compared with the excellent stage of last year. It feels to me a bit like the Galibier MTF in this year's Tour - it looks like it's been designed to please fans without giving much consideration to how to maker it work. The Vitoria stage is also not what I want to see on the penultimate day of a grand tour - almost 50 flat kilometres to the line.

As far as the high mountains go, I find the absence of one or two really big, long stages leaves a void. This wouldn't be so bad if there was a bit more variety and the stages were sequenced better, but those two problems compound the issue. I like the Sierra Nevada stage, but the stages of Covatilla and Manzaneda feel bloated and gratuitous with MTFs to come at Farrapona and Angliru. Covatilla is particularly frustrating because it could see the previous stage to San Lorenzo being neutered as the riders have their eye on the final 8km of this stage. Peña Cabarga is another stage where we need not tune in until the last 20 minutes, even if it's better than it was last year.

Angliru is fine as it is, but coming as the last of three consecutive tough days is extremely frustrating as it could cause conservative riding on the two stages which I think are much more interesting. It's great to see a stage like the one to Ponferrada in the Vuelta, but I'd have made it tougher - throw in a more difficult climb early on and ascend Ancares the "proper" way. It's still a tough climb as it is, but the tougher ascent could really have forced some riders' hands with more than 50km to go, and I don't think it would have been excessively difficult. It's still possible it could be an exciting stage but I see it as unlikely to fracture much.

If we'd had a really tough Ancares stage then the stage to Farrapona would be fine, but as it is it looks pretty thin for being the race's purest mountain stage. The San Lorenzo-Farrapona sequence is still a huge improvement on the flat-laden Cotobello stage of last year, but it is still just two climbs. Tough ones, but only two. Just as I said this could be OK as it is if the Ancares stage was tougher, if the Ancares stage stayed as it is then I see no reason not to go over the Cobertoria before San Lorenzo on this stage.

The chrono situation is as lamentable as ever, although we are in the curious situation where the Vuelta offers probably the best ITT prospects of any of the three GTs this year. More flat ITT kilometres than the Giro or Tour, and they've stuck it in before most of the big mountains rather than bone-headedly leaving it 'till after. It's still nowehere near enough, though.

It's the best-balanced of the three GTs this year, but it's still too thin on proper tough stuff, there's a massive over-reliance on MTFs, the chrono is wafer-thin and the stage sequencing is not conducive to good racing, and actually I'd throw in at least another flat stage too. I score it 4 out of 10. Basically, if this had been a Tour or Giro route I'd be very disappointed, and although this route could underscore an improvement in Unipublic's attitude to design and pave the way for great Vueltas to come, this one isn't it.

I agree with the general consensus of 2011 being Giro > Vuelta > Tour.

 

[who dat]

I'm getting sick of GTs with so few ITTs. To win a GT, you are supposed to have be strong in the mountains as well in the TTs. The trend now is to simply be a very strong climber who can just hold on in the TTs (Contador bucked the trend a little bit). I'm ok with 1 or 2 GTs a year being really a climbers race (like all 3 next year), but we need some balance!

Yeah contador bucked the trend, so did lance armstrong when the tour was continually providing routes that suited him for many years(lots of TT).

Its good to see a change of pace after so many years of the same thing, but don't worry these things go around in roundabouts in a couple of years time GT's will start to provide routes which suit the more allrounded GT riders.

 

[roundabout]

You can't judge them against each other because they don't use the same mountain ranking system. There are climbs that are uncategorised in the Vuelta that would be a cat.3 or even maybe .2 in the Tour. And if you're making Verbier a cat.1 in the Tour (as it was in '09) then you need to have the HC category because Ventoux compared to Verbier is many times longer, harder and more intense.

In the Vuelta, they've gone for a carbon copy of the Giro's mountains categorisation. Only one climb in the whole race (I presume it will be Angliru) gets the 'special' categorisation; everything else can only be 1, 2 or 3 (though any MTF will get the 'finish' category, like at the Giro). And if climbs like San Lorenzo are cat.1, then climbs that aren't as tough shouldn't get the same rating. Think of how Passo Tonale was a cat.2 in the 2004 Giro, but would be an easy cat.1 in the Tour - because there's somewhere else to go when you do the Gavia and Mortirolo afterwards: cat.HC. The Giro can't give Tonale the same categorisation as Gavia and Mortirolo, so they must lower the other climb's ranking, and award fewer points.

So which climbs out of this list wouldn't have been at least cat 1 in the Vuelta given that Alisas and Urkiola are

Hourquette d'Ancizan
Tourmalet
Luz-Ardiden

Core
Agnes
Plateau de Beille

Agnel
Izoard
Galibier

Telegraphe
Galibier
Alpe d'Huez

or do you think that there are cat2 climbs in this Vuelta that would have been cat 1 in the Tour?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Let's go back and look at the 2010 Tour.

In stage 15, if Port de Bales is cat.1 because there's no HC, no way is Col des Ares cat.2. Has to be 3, if classified at all.

In stage 16, you can probably get away with Peyresourde, Aspin and Aubisque all being cat.1 if Tourmalet is the 'Cima Coppi' (which it was last year). If you give the 'Cima Coppi' extra points to the stage 17 MTF there, that means the Tourmalet can only be cat.1, which means Peyresourde and Aspin should drop to cat.2 by comparison.

But, if you're giving the Cima Coppi to the Tourmalet in stage 16, that would mean that it's a bit odd to give cat.1 to Soulor and especially Marie-Blanque in stage 17 (though as the Tourmalet is an MTF, you could probably be okay).

But then, if climbs like Aspin are getting cat.2, then those climbs being ranked cat.2 and 3 in stage 12 ought to be demoted to cat.3 and no points, because there's no way the Suc de Montivernoux is as hard as Aspin.

 

[Descender]

So which climbs out of this list wouldn't have been at least cat 1 in the Vuelta given that Alisas and Urkiola are

Hourquette d'Ancizan
Tourmalet
Luz-Ardiden

Core
Agnes
Plateau de Beille

Agnel
Izoard
Galibier

Telegraphe
Galibier
Alpe d'Huez

or do you think that there are cat2 climbs in this Vuelta that would have been cat 1 in the Tour?

Urkiola is roughly 6km at 9.2%, definitely a 1st cat. Agree about Alisas like I said, it should be 2nd cat with the new classification.

About the new mountain pass, Ancares:

And again, that's the hardest side of the Galibier but not the hardest side of Ancares.

 

[theyoungest]

About the new mountain pass, Ancares:
...

And again, that's the hardest side of the Galibier but not the hardest side of Ancares.

The difference being that the Galibier is 1000 meters higher, which makes it much harder. Also, the Ancares is in the middle of a stage.

 

[roundabout]

Let's go back and look at the 2010 Tour.

In stage 15, if Port de Bales is cat.1 because there's no HC, no way is Col des Ares cat.2. Has to be 3, if classified at all.

In stage 16, you can probably get away with Peyresourde, Aspin and Aubisque all being cat.1 if Tourmalet is the 'Cima Coppi' (which it was last year). If you give the 'Cima Coppi' extra points to the stage 17 MTF there, that means the Tourmalet can only be cat.1, which means Peyresourde and Aspin should drop to cat.2 by comparison.

But, if you're giving the Cima Coppi to the Tourmalet in stage 16, that would mean that it's a bit odd to give cat.1 to Soulor and especially Marie-Blanque in stage 17 (though as the Tourmalet is an MTF, you could probably be okay).

But then, if climbs like Aspin are getting cat.2, then those climbs being ranked cat.2 and 3 in stage 12 ought to be demoted to cat.3 and no points, because there's no way the Suc de Montivernoux is as hard as Aspin.

To be honest, i'm not exactly sure of the point you're making. But if i understand your line of reasoning correctly, i would still struggle to come up with category 1 climbs in the 2011 Vuelta that were demoted to category 2 because of the scoring system.

 

[Descender]

The difference being that the Galibier is 1000 meters higher, which makes it much harder. Also, the Ancares is in the middle of a stage.

It adds a point of difficulty, but it does not make it "much harder". I've ridden in that altitude in the Pyrenees and the difference isn't that big. Especially in summer, the drop in temperature at altitude can even be a positive factor.

And of course, I wasn't talking about the position of Ancares. Still if riders are up for it, that stage has the potential to be epic... in any case, a stage like that has never been seen before in the Vuelta. It's an encouraging sign.

I say it again, this Vuelta has many deficiencies, but overall it's the hardest Vuelta ever.

 

[theyoungest]

It adds a point of difficulty, but it does not make it "much harder". I've ridden in that altitude in the Pyrenees and the difference isn't that big. Especially in summer, the drop in temperature at altitude can even be a positive factor.

There aren't any cols in the Pyrenees that go up to that altitude. The Galibier starts at the highest point of the Tourmalet, more or less.

 

[roundabout]

There's one at border between Andorra and France which is about 250m lower than the Galibier

But personally 1600 meters is a bit different to 2400

 

[Descender]

There aren't any cols in the Pyrenees that go up to that altitude. The Galibier starts at the highest point of the Tourmalet, more or less.

I didn't say it was in France... not as high as the top of the Galibier granted, but Envalira in Andorra reaches 2421m for instance. A very long climb with beautiful views that has been sadly forgotten.

 

[theyoungest]

I didn't say it was in France... not as high as the top of the Galibier granted, but Envalira in Andorra reaches 2421m for instance. A very long climb with beautiful views that has been sadly forgotten.

That's the highest one, I think. Generally the Pyrenees are significantly lower than the Alps.

 

[Descender]

That's the highest one, I think. Generally the Pyrenees are significantly lower than the Alps.

Certainly.

 

[Matthijs]

boring racing is for the tour. the vuelta has a tradition in less TT k's then le tour. So when the tour drops, they have to drop too
I think it's a wonderfull stage race once again. A lot of spectacular stages:
-MTF's
-uphill finishes for punchers or strong sprinters
-flat sprints after medium mountains (so no easy domination, maybe sprints in 25-50 groups with other guys having their changes)
-some TT (not too much, most of the spanish climbers can't TT so it's not fun to watch those climbers tt'ing anyway)
-Angliru
-short TT: spectacular, not that much influence on GC

I wonder, since most GT's dropping their TT k's, if this is going to stay? Considering the fact that in the past (not so long a go) the Tour had more then 100k ITT every year, sometimes even TTT of 80k with that, GT's has changed a lot. maybe the number of spectators on mountains are increasings?
I have the idea the organisators are dropping ITT's because their boring for the unknowing audience. Sprint stages seem boring, but are spectacular for the majority of people who only see the highlights during weekdays. The weekends are mostly mountain stages. They drop TT's because the people want it, I think. And what the people want, they get, so maybe it stays this way with just short TTs?

 

[Skip Madness]

I have the idea the organisators are dropping ITT's because their boring for the unknowing audience. Sprint stages seem boring, but are spectacular for the majority of people who only see the highlights during weekdays. The weekends are mostly mountain stages. They drop TT's because the people want it, I think. And what the people want, they get, so maybe it stays this way with just short TTs?

That could be the case - but even if that were the logic behind it, if they only put in one ITT it could still be 70-80km long rather than 40km or shorter.

 

[The Hitch]

That might explain lack of tts at Vuelta and Giro. But the TOur is all about the big names and having them face eachother individualy is part of the thrill. IMO annency was the best stage of the 2009 Tour. Everyone said Bordeaux 2010 was quite good, and in 08 and 07 the tts were very interesting for obvious reasons.

And maybe they see 50k tts as being less boring than 80k ones. IMO if you include a cat 3 hill somewhere in the middle and collect times at the top of that (like they did in Annency), then theres no problem with having it 80k. But 80k flat all the way can get a little dull.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

That could be the case - but even if that were the logic behind it, if they only put in one ITT it could still be 70-80km long rather than 40km or shorter.

...Or do the old 12a and 12b thing with a TT in the morning and a sprint in the afternoon.

 

[hrotha]

I think there's few ITT kms because organizers want to keep the gaps small until the end to make things more exciting.

Of course, when gaps are small no one is forced to be particularly aggressive.

 

[Descender]

It's not about TTs being spectacular stages, it's about them being necessary to have a balanced GT. The way we're going GTs are just for one type of riders: climbers. Gone are the days of Ullrich vs Pantani, Indurain vs Chiapucci... it's a big shame in my books.

 

[icefire]

I recall having read somewhere some words from Guillén on TT stages. His first Vuelta was in 2009. It had 2 ITTs apart from the prologue of about 30kms each. Both of them were on Saturdays, and he had evidence of significant TV audience drop. That may explain why there's only one ITT, and is done in the middle of the week.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I think there's few ITT kms because organizers want to keep the gaps small until the end to make things more exciting.

Of course, when gaps are small no one is forced to be particularly aggressive.

What a load of crap! More itt km's means that the pure climbers are more attacking because they need time back that they have lost. It is a proven fact.

 

[khardung la]

I don't understand why some have said that in the Angliru stage it is just the Angliru. Straight before, without time to recover they will climb Cordal http://www.altimetrias.net/aspbk/verPuerto.asp?id=312 5,5 km at 9,1 % average, with the last 2 km at about 12% average.

By the same token La Covatilla is underestimated. They climb 1100 m in 19 km, but that is misleading. From km 12 to 16 the average is 10% constant. It is very exposed and hot up there. And before La Covatilla, although no pass is categorized, it is constantly up and down, not at all a just one last climb stage if cyclists want.

The finish in El Escorial is as hard as in Valdepenas de Jaen, but the kilometers leading to it are also hard with several small climbs, some pave...

Stage 14 is impressive from the beginning, and the last 7 km epic (hard (8-10 average) and gorgeous landscapes in narrow road). The problem is that that stage should be after the Angliru day.

The stages in the Vasque country (specially the one to Vitoria) are dissapointing, they wanted to finish in big cities instead of more hilly options.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Even finishing in a big city, they could have finished in San Sebastián and used a circuit going up Monte Igueldo a few times or gone over Jaizkibel. They could have climbed the Alto de Aia on the way over there - it's about 15-16km outside of San Seb... they could have done that then a couple of laps over Monte Igueldo and had a really exciting last 30-40km with lots of short but steep climbs.