Rate the Vuelta 2018 route

[Netserk]

By exciting race, do you mean they open up their mountain sprint from a bit further out?

 

[DFA123]

Re:

By exciting race, do you mean they open up their mountain sprint from a bit further out?

If that's how they choose to ride it, then I think that's the fault of the riders not the course. There are some steep final climbs, some interesting rolling stages, some stages where winds will probably be a factor, a tough multi-mountain stage, some stages where heat will be a factor and a flat TT. I think it's quite good variety and, if the riders choose to, there are plenty of places to attack and make a good show.

 

[Netserk]

Steep final climbs: Uphill sprints.
Rolling stages: Only stage win action, none of GC relevance.
Exposed flat stages: Best case scenario is what we saw in '14...
Multi-mountain stage: singular, and not tough. It's short and easy with the hardest point being the very end.
Heat: and so what? They'll suffer, but will they attack?!
Flat ITT: agreed, but given the time bonuses for all the mountain sprints, it really is too short. Nor will it change how the rest are ridden.

But sure, we'll see them open up their sprints plenty of times...

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Steep final climbs: Uphill sprints.
Rolling stages: Only stage win action, none of GC relevance.
Exposed flat stages: Best case scenario is what we saw in '14...
Multi-mountain stage: singular, and not tough. It's short and easy with the hardest point being the very end.
Heat: and so what? They'll suffer, but will they attack?!
Flat ITT: agreed, but given the time bonuses for all the mountain sprints, it really is too short. Nor will it change how the rest are ridden.

But sure, we'll see them open up their sprints plenty of times...

I see you have made your mind up. But calling Lagos de Covadonga, Covatilla or Rabassa 'uphill sprints' is a bit ridiculous. Likewise, calling the Andorra stage 'easy' suggests you have unrealistic expectations.

The heat is also an underrated factor because - if it is above 35C, which is certainly possible - it can turn innocuous looking stage profiles in Andalucia and Murcia into real tests of attrition and would certainly cause some 'favourites' to crack and lose time in the first week. Setting up the race nicely for later on.

The Vuelta has generally been the most entertaining GT in the last few years, and they have kept with a similar formula this year. Which seems perfectly logical to me.

 

[Netserk]

It has a vertical gain of 3210m. The penultimate climb of importance is 25km from the start of the MTF (which is the toughest climb of the day, but not even a hard cat. 1) and it is only a weak cat.1 climb. The Andorran stage Landa won was tough.

 

[railxmig]

Maybe it's just me, but Vuelta seems to love starting in the south (at least in last 5-10 or so years). I guess the Andalucian stages are okay. Caminito del Rey and Alfacar should sort out, who's in the GC contention. Las Alpujarras stage is pretty lazy though. It's interesting to see the borderland with Portugal in the race, even if it's just a copy of Pozo Alcón stage. I still don't know, why Covatilla is ESP and why Vuelta loves it as a ___/ stage. The usual 2nd week Asturias/Cantabria combo looks quite weak. Monte Oiz north?! That's awesome. Rabassa is ok, but not as ___/. The last Andorra stage is an easier variant of the 2015 stage.

I don't know, what to think about this route. I guess i'm just indifferent to it. It's not as frustrating as Tour or Giro routes are. Nice to see a bigger amount of sprint stages and some of them have tricky finales with cat. 3 hills not far from the finish. The amount of MTF's is a bit too much for me (which is on course with the modern Vuelta's school of design) and the amount of ESP climb is just pathetic (which is on course with the...). Why just not drop the ESP cat. entirely, if it's practically not used at all? I personally think the Giro system would work better for Vuelta, while Vuelta system for Giro.

 

[ice&fire]

Stage 1 - Malaga ITT: I'm OK with the ITT. It could be a bit longer, but coming after 8 years with an opening TTT there's not much to complain about.
Stage 2 - Caminito del Rey: Same last 50kms as in 2015. Not very original.
Stage 3 - Alhaurín de la Torre: Boring sprint stage with a cat 1 KOM at the start to help making the break.
Stage 4 - Alfacar: Mirador de la Cabra is one of the hardest climbs of this vuelta not hosting the finish line, but with more than 80km to go it will be irrelevant. This would be much better with Monachil. But unlike 2017, this Vuelta has a trend to avoide the best possible route to connect stage departure and finish within a reasonable mileage.
Stage 5 - Roquetas de Mar: The only descending finish of the route, and it comes after an easy climb and descent and 10km of flat. Looks like Comella/Andorra, Garbí/Sagunto, Collado Bermejo/Alhama, Torcal/Antequera and Huerces/Gijón were mistakes not to be repeated.
Stage 6 - San Javier: Flat stage close to the coast. Valverde said during the presentation that the wind blows hard in the area and echelons are a possibility. I wish it was true and it blew hard with Unipublic wishes to have a close GC until the end.
Stage 7 - Pozo Alcón: They could have done a much better loop around the finish town. Second stage they deliberately avoid the best possible route in just one week.
Stage 8 - Almadén: Flat stage on a Saturday?
Stage 9 - La Covatilla: Alfacar 2.0. Third stage where they have deliberately avoided the best possible routes, and there were several alternatives. In practice this is a single climb MTF were riding protected from the wind is a clear advantage. Red flag attack or reduced bunch sprint.
Stage 10 - Fermoselle: The finish of the 2016 Vuelta a Castilla y Leon stage 3 km after the climb from the bottom of the river canyon was perfect. Unipublic has decided to spoil it moving the finish almost 30km further away.
Stage 11 - Luintra: A very good mid mountain stage.
Stage 12 - Estaca de Bares: rolling terrain and twisty roads on the eve of three MTFs in a row. This screams breakaway. May the ocean wind blow hard.
Stage 13 - La Camperona: Wall bike finsh in a most uninteresting place preceded by a cat 1 KOM 70km from the finish. Same as in 2014 and San Glorio then was harder than Tarna. I wish this climb is forgotten soon.
Stage 14 - Les Praeres: Another wall bike finish that will spoil the racing in what it could be a good mid mountain stage.
Stage 15 - Lagos de Covadonga: They couldn't be absent in this year of centenaries, but Unipublic has served us with a very unimaginative route. As el Fito no longer works selecting the bunch they'll climb it twice while there are similar or better climbs in the area that remain unused. It will depend on whether there's a rider able to put the hammer down as Quintana did in 2016.
Stage 16 - Torrelavega ITT: Not as flat as it looks and shorter than usual. They have just subtracted the opening ITT lenght from the mid-race ITT length to keep the total amount of ITT kms constant.
Stage 17 - Monte Oiz/Balcón de Vizcaya: The preceding climbs are not very selective but I guess there isn't much they could do to have a better approach to the final climb. Another wall bike finish in an area with a wind farm. Will we see riders sucking wheels in 15% ramps?
Stage 18 - Lleida: Flat stage. I don't know if wind could be a factor.
Stage 19 - La Rabassa: MTF with nothing before in a climb with a road to descend. A waste considering they could have added another climb before and still have the stage below 200km.
Stage 20 - Canolich: Six KOMs, but only one of them climbs more than 700m. Could be the best mid mountain stage ever if the second last climb wasn't the easiest one of the lot. Whoever says the Vuelta route is backloaded has not looked properly at the climbing figures of this stage. Purito's sportive is much harder than this.
Stage 21 - Madrid: Final pointless parade.

Apart from the flaws already mentioned by most posters in this thread there are two things that I don't like on a global scale: the lack of descend finishes (Delgado made a remark on this during the presentation) and the deliberate trend to avoid the best possible route in most mountain stages. A clear step back from 2017.

 

[Netserk]

To be a bit positive, at least Covadonga is the last MTF of the block. We should actually see real racing on that climb.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

Looks decent to me. Easily enough there for the riders to make an exciting race, yet not so hard that the main GC men will skip it before the World Championships. Slightly disappointed there's not a few more really short stages, but a 7 overall.

I genuinely don't see a single stage which can have more than 10km of action.

 

[Netserk]

The ITT

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Looks decent to me. Easily enough there for the riders to make an exciting race, yet not so hard that the main GC men will skip it before the World Championships. Slightly disappointed there's not a few more really short stages, but a 7 overall.

I genuinely don't see a single stage which can have more than 10km of action.

Would you have seen more than 10km of action before the Formigal stage, or the Garbi stage last year for example? This isn't a traditional first week of the Tour de France route where it's crosswinds or nothing to create the action; there are definitely opportunities to attack from long - I think the race situation and the riders will make or break the action, not the course.

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

Looks decent to me. Easily enough there for the riders to make an exciting race, yet not so hard that the main GC men will skip it before the World Championships. Slightly disappointed there's not a few more really short stages, but a 7 overall.

I genuinely don't see a single stage which can have more than 10km of action.

Would you have seen more than 10km of action before the Formigal stage, or the Garbi stage last year for example? This isn't a traditional first week of the Tour de France route where it's crosswinds or nothing to create the action; there are definitely opportunities to attack from long - I think the race situation and the riders will make or break the action, not the course.

No, but I would've on several stages which were made to have 20km+ of action. You can't design *** stages and hope something happens, because more often than not it won't (your examples are the exception, not the rule). You have to at least help the action.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

Looks decent to me. Easily enough there for the riders to make an exciting race, yet not so hard that the main GC men will skip it before the World Championships. Slightly disappointed there's not a few more really short stages, but a 7 overall.

I genuinely don't see a single stage which can have more than 10km of action.

Would you have seen more than 10km of action before the Formigal stage, or the Garbi stage last year for example? This isn't a traditional first week of the Tour de France route where it's crosswinds or nothing to create the action; there are definitely opportunities to attack from long - I think the race situation and the riders will make or break the action, not the course.

No, but I would've on several stages which were made to have 20km+ of action. You can't design **** stages and hope something happens, because more often than not it won't (your examples are the exception, not the rule). You have to at least help the action.

I think this route is very much in keeping with recent Vueltas, which have been undeniably successful in creating action. Basically the intention is for most stages to have GC action for between 5 and 30 minutes, rather than everyone waiting for the one or two big mountain stages, like in the Tour. But, while also giving opportunities for long stages or ambushes in the final two weeks. It's worked well in recent years, and I think this route will be more of the same.

Also I think the last few years have shown that too many long stages with loads of climbing often do not create more action than having lots of shorter, easier mountain stages. They just result in battles of attrition and give more importance to strong teams and domestiques who can control and neutralize the race.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Redrawing the mountain stages (these have all been beefed up, I wouldn't expect them to go with ALL beefed up versions!!!):

Stage 4:

Same stage but with El Purche added.

Stage 5:

Heading down to the coast and adding the Collado del Retamar (first 8,5km of this profile - 8km @ 5,8%) before descending to the finish, so a not dissimilar stage but with a few more selective ramps on the final climb and a shorter descent.

Stage 8, a flat stage on the weekend, is proof that ASO's influence is growing.

Stage 9:

Very long mountain stage using similar lead-ins to original La Covatilla stages in the early 2000s. However instead of using the cat.2 El Cerro and then a flattish run-in, or the tempo grinder of La Garganta by the normal route, I've gone for the less consistent side via La Hontilla which includes 3km at almost 9% in the middle.

Stage 9 (option 2):

Presumably the reason for the route going as it does, with such a long break between the leg-softeners and the final climb, is that the province of Ávila wants to see the race. Here I've souped it up a bit so they get more of the early going, with an underrated Sierra de Gredos opening with La Centenera followed by a variation of the Puerto del Pico via El Sidrillo (the super steep ramp is a tracking error, so the stage should probably be about a kilometre longer), then Las Erillas with its steep middle section. After that it's more or less the same as the real stage, save for the late addition of the Puerto del Tremedal, which is only just over 25km from the line, so will still be in the legs when they start the (abridged) La Covatilla.

Stage 10 should have the loop be around the same little climb, they could change the stage very little but instead of having the pan flat circuit, loop back south and repeat the climb so they do it twice. Easy.

Stage 13, you can't really do anything that won't be Unipuerto with La Camperona, it's such a garage ramp and there's nothing you can put close enough to prevent it being the only relevant climb. Maybe they could have continued past Tarna to Las Señales and approached from the west, but that's all.

Stage 14:

Would prefer to end this in Nava rather than atop another garage ramp, but then with Lagos de Covadonga the next day riders would probably be shy about attacking and regretting it the next day. I've stuck to the gameplan of the original stage but added in a few bonus climbs to make this a relentless medium mountain stage. First up, after San Isidro and La Collaona (which I've downgraded to cat.2, because it's more realistic), comes La Bobia. Not to be mistaken for the bigger, borderline ESP La Bobia in the west of the province, this is a cat.2 short sharp Asturian miner's climb, which joins La Mozqueta at the village of La Nueva, on this profile. Keeping it to a 6,5km climb therefore, I move it down to cat.2 although it is consistently over 8% - however it is consistent so more rhythmic than many Spanish climbs of comparable gradient. On the way down via La Colladiella, however, I make a brief detour to take in a Montée Laurent Jalabert-type wall, called El Cabo, or El Cau in Asturianu. It's nasty - 3,3km @ 10,8%. Instead of just climbing La Faya de los Lobos after returning to the Valle del Nalón, however, I've taken a slight side road that takes us up to La Campeta - or to what's marked 'cruce' on that profile, as we stay on the main road in order to have a descendable road. This makes the climb 3,5km @ 8,3%, before joining up for the last 2,5km of this side of La Faya de los Lobos which averages 8,0%. After that the stage is as per the real one.

Stage 15:

For the most part the start of the stage is the same, but I have included the 'other' La Camperona, this one a borderline cat.2/3 climb near Siero, and among the many training climbs around here for José Manuel Fuente in days of yore, and Chechu Rubiera more recently. It's optional. Then, after heading over the Mirador del Fito, instead of the long loop to do it again (you could do a shorter loop and add Cueto Argüeri if you wanted) we head southwards, up into the mountains, to try a bit more of the edges of the Picos de Europa where they merge into the Parque Natural Ponga. Here we take on some more tough climbs with steep gradients, the first being the toughest, this being the Alto de los Bedules, also known as the Collada Llomena. This is followed by the Collada Mohandi/Moande (depending on dialect or Castilian), which is a solid cat.2 then the small Alto de Bada - 2,7km @ 8,7% so not inconsiderable, but dwarfed by the other climbs of the day. That should put some more suffering into the legs before Lagos.

Stage 16: Instead of this, they should use the course they used between Torrelavega and Santillana del Mar-Cuevas de Altamira in 2004 and 2009 in the national championships. That course was 47,8km long, much more like it.

Stage 17:

This was the only stage I changed the finish of, moving it down to the Ermita de San Kristobal. I also brought the distance down to an Itzulia kind of length. I've eschewed the loop around Bilbao but kept the section around Bermeo using San Pelaio instead of the more famous Sollube as I assume Gernika is on the route for a specific reason, with it being the 80th anniversary. Instead of using the Balcón de Bizkaia climb and thus descending part of the final climb, I have arrived at Munitibar via an easier route, then flipped the circuit bit around into the opposite direction, so instead of climbing the easy side of Gontzegaraigane, we climb the harder side of a summit above that, Parriolaburu. From here on, it gets very, very Basque. We back immediately into a narrow and difficult Muniozguren (only from the junction marked to Munitibar[/url] then a tricky but shallow descent leads into a nice normal one into Ermua, then to Eibar where we climb the classic Ixua. I've added an optional small climb into the descent to Markina-Xemein before Lekoitz-Gane, then a repeat of Parriolaburu and the final climb being the first 6,5km of this. You could potentially skip Iturreta entirely, or use the much easier Trabakua in place of Muniozguren if the road at the summit of Muniozguren is deemed a problem.

Stage 19:

La Rabassa isn't that bad a climb for a Unipuerto stage since its hardest gradients are at the bottom. With the short stage the day after this may work, but there's just so many options a _____/ stage is a disappointment. With that said, however, there's literally only been one HC climb in the race thus far, and damage is coming. ASO have a major stake in Unipublic, so why not go with an ASO trick, and use the same climb two days running? I've put the southern side of La Gallina here, because we'll see the northern side tomorrow. If using two sides of the same climb on two days is seen as a problem, why not do the double La Rabassa thing that they did in 2008?

Stage 20:

Keeping it short, keeping the easiest climb the penultimate one, sure, but beefing up the length of the climbing early in the stage to strengthen the break and also improve the opportunities to go early. Plus putting the ceiling of the race in this stage, with Port d'Envalira as high as we're going to go, meaning a bit of extra incentive in the battle for the GPM (in which case this ought to get cat.ESP). Using the tunnel to descend like in 2013, but putting the tougher Beixalis in place of Ordino. Suspect this "two sides of the same climb in the same stage" business may be about mimicking 2015.

Stage 21: I've done several things other than the tri-point parade with my Madrid stages in the Race Design Thread, including the 2006 Worlds course, an ITT, and there are other options I'll use in future. But for now, this is what we have.

 

[Red Rick]

In after the Guru

Many of the recent Vuelta's have been excellent more due to circumstances than anything else, mostly due to the unexpected breakthrough of Tom Dumoulin and the shenanigans of Alberto Contador.

 

[Gigs_98]

[quote="Brullnux":jv8lojwe][quote="DFA123":jv8lojwe][quote="Brullnux":jv8lojwe][quote="DFA123":jv8lojwe]Looks decent to me. Easily enough there for the riders to make an exciting race, yet not so hard that the main GC men will skip it before the World Championships. Slightly disappointed there's not a few more really short stages, but a 7 overall.

I genuinely don't see a single stage which can have more than 10km of action.[/quote]
Would you have seen more than 10km of action before the Formigal stage, or the Garbi stage last year for example? This isn't a traditional first week of the Tour de France route where it's crosswinds or nothing to create the action; there are definitely opportunities to attack from long - I think the race situation and the riders will make or break the action, not the course.[/quote]
No, but I would've on several stages which were made to have 20km+ of action. You can't design **** stages and hope something happens, because more often than not it won't (your examples are the exception, not the rule). You have to at least help the action.[/quote]
I think this route is very much in keeping with recent Vueltas, which have been undeniably successful in creating action. Basically the intention is for most stages to have GC action for between 5 and 30 minutes, rather than everyone waiting for the one or two big mountain stages, like in the Tour. But, while also giving opportunities for long stages or ambushes in the final two weeks. It's worked well in recent years, and I think this route will be more of the same.

Also I think the last few years have shown that too many long stages with loads of climbing often do not create more action than having lots of shorter, easier mountain stages. They just result in battles of attrition and give more importance to strong teams and domestiques who can control and neutralize the race.[/quote]
But even on short stages you need to give riders opportunities to attack. You can't make a stage completely flat and put a mtf at the end and expect long range attacks, but that's basically what the vuelta usually does.

And although I agree some of the most epic vuelta stages came when nobody expected it, basically all those attacks came from one man, and that guy isn't riding anymore. Of all vueltas I've watched (since 2011) I can only remember two mountain stages with action from a long way out where Contador was not the rider who caused the action, and those two stages were stage 11 and 20 of the vuelta 2015, both stages where people absolutely expected the race to explode early.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Re: Re:

Also I think the last few years have shown that too many long stages with loads of climbing often do not create more action than having lots of shorter, easier mountain stages. They just result in battles of attrition and give more importance to strong teams and domestiques who can control and neutralize the race.

Well designed mountain stages create more action, not shorter ones by rule. It's not the short mountain stage in and of itself that creates the action, it's the mix of the route. A badly designed or badly-paced short mountain stage can be utter garbage - like Oropa in the Giro. Some of the best stages of recent years have been the long mountain stages too - Galibier in 2011, Rifugio Gardeccia, Risoul 1850 in the 2016 Giro, Sestriere 2015, all up in the 200km area, and Cercedilla was 175km.

It's about the balance. Oropa was garbage because it was a Unipuerto short stage, so the very point of those short stages - to entice attacking from afar because the obstacles start before the domestiques are into their rhythm and there's not a huge distance to go - was negated. And, worse, it was at the START of a mountain block. Put the short stage at the END of a mountain block (like in the 2018 Vuelta plan), that's fine. What that does is prevent riders from being too scared by the big multi-climb stage to make action earlier - if you have a Rifugio Gardeccia type 220km multi-col odyssey at the end of a mountain block, you have to make the stage before it a climb which is so tough it will automatically create gaps (they used Zoncolan, you could also say Angliru, Ventoux, La Pandera, either a super epic or a super steep monstrosity). Whereas if you have an easier mountain stage to follow, you can have a more regular MTF before it because there isn't the same fear of the impending stage that you have to force the riders to split apart. The only short mountain stage that's ever truly worked and wasn't at the end of a block of mountain stages was Andalo, which came after a rest day and before a transitional day that meant riders didn't have to fear the day after being GC-relevant.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re: Re:

Also I think the last few years have shown that too many long stages with loads of climbing often do not create more action than having lots of shorter, easier mountain stages. They just result in battles of attrition and give more importance to strong teams and domestiques who can control and neutralize the race.

Well designed mountain stages create more action, not shorter ones by rule. It's not the short mountain stage in and of itself that creates the action, it's the mix of the route. A badly designed or badly-paced short mountain stage can be utter garbage - like Oropa in the Giro. Some of the best stages of recent years have been the long mountain stages too - Galibier in 2011, Rifugio Gardeccia, Risoul 1850 in the 2016 Giro, Sestriere 2015, all up in the 200km area, and Cercedilla was 175km.

It's about the balance. Oropa was garbage because it was a Unipuerto short stage, so the very point of those short stages - to entice attacking from afar because the obstacles start before the domestiques are into their rhythm and there's not a huge distance to go - was negated. And, worse, it was at the START of a mountain block. Put the short stage at the END of a mountain block (like in the 2018 Vuelta plan), that's fine. What that does is prevent riders from being too scared by the big multi-climb stage to make action earlier - if you have a Rifugio Gardeccia type 220km multi-col odyssey at the end of a mountain block, you have to make the stage before it a climb which is so tough it will automatically create gaps (they used Zoncolan, you could also say Angliru, Ventoux, La Pandera, either a super epic or a super steep monstrosity). Whereas if you have an easier mountain stage to follow, you can have a more regular MTF before it because there isn't the same fear of the impending stage that you have to force the riders to split apart. The only short mountain stage that's ever truly worked and wasn't at the end of a block of mountain stages was Andalo, which came after a rest day and before a transitional day that meant riders didn't have to fear the day after being GC-relevant.

That stage was actually only 162 km long, so neither super long nor super short. That said, the pretty great corvara stage in that giro was over 200 km long

 

[DFA123]

Re:

In after the Guru

Many of the recent Vuelta's have been excellent more due to circumstances than anything else, mostly due to the unexpected breakthrough of Tom Dumoulin and the shenanigans of Alberto Contador.

Sure, that may be the case. But still, the routes in recent years have allowed those circumstances to shine, rather than stifling them (*cough* Tour), or confining the GC action to just a small number of stages (*cough* Giro). If it ain't broke why fix it? I think it's completely understandable for the Vuelta to stick with more or less the same formula; if it's a poor race this year, then surely that is time to think about making it more difficult or more extreme, not before then.

 

[roundabout]

2 of the biggest race changing events in recent years occurred after tough and very tough (by Vuelta standards) stages.

There is no space for that this year.

Similarly a lot of the action in the last edition (which was not particularly good as GC race, should one honestly rate it) happened on stages with downhill finishes, stage where the penultimate climb was tougher than the last one and a stage where a rather tricky downhill led immediately to the last climb.

Obviously there is also little chance of it happening this year.

It's an awful, lazy, unimaginative design. I am not going to speak for everyone, but as presented, the only road stage that I am currently planning to watch for more than 30 minutes is the penultimate one.

 

[DFA123]

2 of the biggest race changing events in recent years occurred after tough and very tough (by Vuelta standards) stages.

There is no space for that this year.

Similarly a lot of the action in the last edition (which was not particularly good as GC race, should one honestly rate it) happened on stages with downhill finishes, stage where the penultimate climb was tougher than the last one and a stage where a rather tricky downhill led immediately to the last climb.

Obviously there is also little chance of it happening this year.

It's an awful, lazy, unimaginative design. I am not going to speak for everyone, but as presented, the only road stage that I am currently planning to watch for more than 30 minutes is the penultimate one.

The problem with this theory is that you can't know yet what is going to be a tough stage and what isn't. The parcours is only one factor. Sometimes riders soft pedal long, mountainous stages sheltering behind team mates the whole time, and sometimes they ride rolling stages much harder, with key riders looking to attack. Other factors like heat, wind or race situation can also make a rolling or flatter stage very tough.

And the formula of the Vuelta is to design a course with lots of stages where GC action is probable at some point. Allowing the other less predictable factors to dictate the racing as much as, if not more than the course. IMO, this is a more entertaining strategy than designing a course with loads of mountain stages, so that the race becomes a fairly predictable battle of attrition, where factors other than the route itself have limited effect on the race.

 

[roundabout]

No, there is no problem. And no, it's not a "theory" as you put it, or at least not any more of a "theory" than your same old posts defending the same tired Vuelta model.

And since nowhere in my post did I call for a design with a lot of mountain stages your last paragraph is once again one of your strawmen.

 

[Arredondo]

Re:

Seriously, name me a worse route. Looking back, I guess '14 was crap as well, but this one is still completely bull*.

I agree. It really sucks.

There are only 3/4 interesting stages. It's good they implement some (relatively) new climbs, but a lot of stages are just way too Unipublic. They could have designed some proper stages .

2/10.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

No, there is no problem. And no, it's not a "theory" as you put it, or at least not any more of a "theory" than your same old posts defending the same tired Vuelta model.

And since nowhere in my post did I call for a design with a lot of mountain stages your last paragraph is once again one of your strawmen.

Lol, easily the best GT of the last few years is a tired model? The age of super long mountain stages being entertaining is behind us. Short stages, muritos and letting the riders make the race is the future, not making them slaves to a ridiculously hard course.

Race parcours have always been changing, so they stay entertaining as times change. It's time a few people accepted that what they believe should create entertaining racing, doesn't work any more. Perhaps cut some slack to the professionals who have been delivering a great GT for the last few years.

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

Looks decent to me. Easily enough there for the riders to make an exciting race, yet not so hard that the main GC men will skip it before the World Championships. Slightly disappointed there's not a few more really short stages, but a 7 overall.

I genuinely don't see a single stage which can have more than 10km of action.

Would you have seen more than 10km of action before the Formigal stage, or the Garbi stage last year for example? This isn't a traditional first week of the Tour de France route where it's crosswinds or nothing to create the action; there are definitely opportunities to attack from long - I think the race situation and the riders will make or break the action, not the course.

No, but I would've on several stages which were made to have 20km+ of action. You can't design **** stages and hope something happens, because more often than not it won't (your examples are the exception, not the rule). You have to at least help the action.

I think this route is very much in keeping with recent Vueltas, which have been undeniably successful in creating action. Basically the intention is for most stages to have GC action for between 5 and 30 minutes, rather than everyone waiting for the one or two big mountain stages, like in the Tour. But, while also giving opportunities for long stages or ambushes in the final two weeks. It's worked well in recent years, and I think this route will be more of the same.

Also I think the last few years have shown that too many long stages with loads of climbing often do not create more action than having lots of shorter, easier mountain stages. They just result in battles of attrition and give more importance to strong teams and domestiques who can control and neutralize the race.

This is a level or two below the past few years. 2015 was bad apart from two well designed stages, 2016 only really had Formigal which stood out (everything else was ok, especially if you like schleck-contador dynamics up climbs and the froome yo-yo) and 2017 was generally kind of poor, apart from Froome having an off day and Contador attacking at every incline. So I would take you up on 'the vuelta is always amazing'. Giro 2015, and the final week of 2016, were better. Because of well designed stages.

And this year also has a disappointing number of flat stages, 7 or 8. Oh, and muritos do replace good mountain/medium mountain stages, not flat ones.