Re:
Escarabajo said:
I think I partially agree with OlavEH about the Oropa stage. They already have 1 or 2 like that. The Oropa stage could have been with several other medium climbs. I wouldn't want to change the Piancavallo stage because if you made it harder then the last week could become an attrition race. And we don't want that. We want to make it a little easier so that the riders feel with more power to attack. No point in making it so hard that everyone is wasted on the last mountain.
The more that I think about the route the better it seems. Good points have been made about the sides of the Mortirolo and Grappa being the ones that were originally used, so this makes sense; and where the Mortirolo is placed on stage 16 mean that a 10km at 8% climb is still tough enough, considering the two high altitude monsters to follow. Perhaps they could have also ascended a tougher side of the Mortirolo though on stage 15 or 17?
Stage 15 is the main disappointment of the route for me. Coming on the day before the second rest day, this is the perfect opportunity for a multiple mountain stage rather than a Vueltaesque one. I am also surprised that there is so much need to always pay tribute to Pantani. Great rider for sure, but he did only win one Giro. I mean where are all the annual tributes to Basso?
Week 1 is pretty good, but only because of the MTF's on stages 4 and 9. There seem to be more missed opportunities here than in any other week of the route. A prologue was of course a possibility, but more so than that, where is the sterrato? This is the 100th Giro right? And where is the genuinely intriguing, lengthy medium mountain stage??
At least most of the stages are placed reasonably well. The first ITT is reasonably long, and perfectly placed after the first rest stage. For example if this was bought forward one day (and same with Blockhaus) then the racing on the MTF would be severely compromised due to the next day ITT. So having these either side of a rest day is perfect.
The same could be said for stage 15, but I think that the end of the second week should have more of a serious sorting out than the end of the first week.
The second week also has a nice enough looking hilly stage, though at 160 kms it's disappointingly short. Still, that's three stages out of six which might see some GC action.
Week 3 might turn out to be great. A lot depends on the GC standings and who needs to gain time. I feel like a lot of faith is being placed on stage 18 here, and I'm hopeful for an epic stage. Many are complaining about the disappointing stage 20, but making a super hard stage there could be a little pointless anyway, given the final ITT the next day. I like an ITT to conclude matters, but they can compromise racing on the day prior. Also the apparent weakness of stage 20 should encourage great racing on stage 18 in the dolomites, also considering that stage 19 is not a brute (though a hard final climb). It just seems really set up for fireworks on stage 18, so if we don't get them then the Giro might be a bit of a fail. It's an intriguing design, with the vast majority of the second half of the stage involving descending, but with still JUST enough climbing to not discourage early attacks. It's a short stage too, following on from two long ones.
Anyway, if you made all of the last six stages 100% GC focused then it wouldn't work. This might not work either, but I think I can see what they are trying to do here.
EDIT: Just had another look at the route now; didn't realise that Oropa MTF is stage 14, with the hilly stage to Bergamo on stage 15. I'm not sure of what to make of either of that. One of these stages probably should have been much harder/longer.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram