Rate the Vuelta 2018 route

[Singer01]

Re: Re:

Stage 20, the last one before procession to Madrid:

That looks like one fun stage!

The problem with this stage is that Col de la Galina is the hardest climb of the day.
What they should have done is go all the way up to la galina (1912m), take the descent into Sant Julia de Loria and finish in Andorra.
You add only 25 km to the stage and GC action in the last 30-40 km is almost guaranteed.

Of all the stages, this is the one you are criticising?
I don't mind the final slog stages, my circumstances have changed so all i ever get to watch is the last 30 or so mins of GT stages, therefore i miss less relevant action in the Vuelta than the other 2.

 

[railxmig]

Re:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1033&v=OPS40lGGKD0

Thanks. Hope the hormigón​ surface will stay. it looks really ugly (it might be too ugly for quite vulnerable road bike tyres).

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1033&v=OPS40lGGKD0

Are they filling those holes?
Lol.

 

[klintE]

Re:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1033&v=OPS40lGGKD0

Vuelta Espana cobbled stage version?

 

[Valv.Piti]

Damn thats brutal. If you are gonna have muritos, have these ones.

 

[Gigs_98]

I just realized this is basically a vuelta with not a single worthy esp categorization. Kinda sad when you think of all the climbs that could theoretically be used

Nah, Covadonga is a legit ESP. It's not one of the monster ones, but it would've been HC in the Tour too before they decided to do HC inflation like mad.

It has less than 1000 meters of altitude gain though, right? Cause those kind of climbs very rarely used to be HC. I have to admit though, covadonga is a pretty hard climb, it's just still sad that it's the hardest of the race

 

[Escarabajo]

I agree with Gigs about Covadonga actually being the only proper long hard climb used for this Vuelta. I get the Muritos idea. But have some long hard deep and testing endurance climbs. Not just 1. We have the 1 week races for that.

 

[railxmig]

I just realized this is basically a vuelta with not a single worthy esp categorization. Kinda sad when you think of all the climbs that could theoretically be used

Nah, Covadonga is a legit ESP. It's not one of the monster ones, but it would've been HC in the Tour too before they decided to do HC inflation like mad.

It has less than 1000 meters of altitude gain though, right? Cause those kind of climbs very rarely used to be HC. I have to admit though, covadonga is a pretty hard climb, it's just still sad that it's the hardest of the race

Altitude gain has nothing to do with the climb's toughness. It's about the right length and gradient. Over 1km altitude gain can be a result of this combination but it can also be below 1k. I think technically borderline 1/HC can have 850m gain.

But then... Covadonga is not a HC climb. I looked at some profiles and it oscillates at around 14km at 6,8% to 7%. That's not a HC climb even if there are some 14-16% parts.

 

[Gigs_98]

I just realized this is basically a vuelta with not a single worthy esp categorization. Kinda sad when you think of all the climbs that could theoretically be used

Nah, Covadonga is a legit ESP. It's not one of the monster ones, but it would've been HC in the Tour too before they decided to do HC inflation like mad.

It has less than 1000 meters of altitude gain though, right? Cause those kind of climbs very rarely used to be HC. I have to admit though, covadonga is a pretty hard climb, it's just still sad that it's the hardest of the race

Altitude gain has nothing to do with the climb's toughness. It's about the right length and gradient. Over 1km altitude gain can be a result of this combination but it can also be below 1k. I think technically borderline 1/HC can have 850m gain.

But then... Covadonga is not a HC climb. I looked at some profiles and it oscillates at around 14km at 6,8% to 7%. That's not a HC climb even if there are some 14-16% parts.

I agree about this part but in this case the climb has to be ridiculously steep to deserve a HC. As you pointed out yourself, Covadonga isn't. Then again I just saw that considering there are some descents in the climb you probably get more than a 1000 meters of climbing over the whole ascent. Also there is a 6 km long section at close to 10% which is really hard too, so I don't know. It's borderline, but HC definitely wouldn't be an objectively wrong decision.

 

[Red Rick]

Covadonga has more than 1000m altitude gain in absolute terms cause there's 2 very short downhill sections in it, and the central section is about 8km at 9% average. It's about as hard as AdH, except it's way more isolated and there's no monster climbs to put in the same stage.

The Vuelta is usually pretty consistent with the ESP categorization. Climbs like La Farrapona, Sotres and stuff like that have been Cat 1s, San Lorenzo and Cobertoria are always Cat 1, and I think only La Pandera, Los Muchachos and Ermita di Alba have gotten ESP a bit lightly.

In 2013 the stage to Peyragudes had 3 climbs of over 1000 altitude gain all categorized as Cat 1s, including Port de Bales, so I do think they have a bit of a tendency to overcategorize MTFs. I'm pretty sure 2015 was the last time they had an ESP as a non MTF.

But I definitely agree with the overall point that Covadonga should not be the hardest climb of the race. That's just weak.

WIth how much they love dumb, steep climbs, I'm surprised they haven't found their way back to Cuitu Negru

 

[ice&fire]

When the route was announced I got the impression that Unipublic was trying to attract some of the riders that completed the Tour with a course that doesn't look too hard so they don't discard their GC options from the start and just go stage hunting.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

Covadonga has more than 1000m altitude gain in absolute terms cause there's 2 very short downhill sections in it, and the central section is about 8km at 9% average. It's about as hard as AdH, except it's way more isolated and there's no monster climbs to put in the same stage.

The Vuelta is usually pretty consistent with the ESP categorization. Climbs like La Farrapona, Sotres and stuff like that have been Cat 1s, San Lorenzo and Cobertoria are always Cat 1, and I think only La Pandera, Los Muchachos and Ermita di Alba have gotten ESP a bit lightly.

In 2013 the stage to Peyragudes had 3 climbs of over 1000 altitude gain all categorized as Cat 1s, including Port de Bales, so I do think they have a bit of a tendency to overcategorize MTFs. I'm pretty sure 2015 was the last time they had an ESP as a non MTF.

But I definitely agree with the overall point that Covadonga should not be the hardest climb of the race. That's just weak.

WIth how much they love dumb, steep climbs, I'm surprised they haven't found their way back to Cuitu Negru

Fuente del Chivo was definitely overcategorized in 2015 and if you count Monachil and Sierra Nevada as two separate climbs I'd say Sierra Nevada doesn't deserve the ESP categorization either. The thing is though, all these 4/5 examples come from 2015 to 2018 and I'd say 4 overcategorized climbs in four years, despite the category basically only getting used 2-4 times per edition, is quite a lot. I'm getting off topic though, I think the general point of my Covadonga argument is clear and most of you seem to agree.

 

[Ataraxus]

Re: Re:

Stage 20, the last one before procession to Madrid:

That looks like one fun stage!

The problem with this stage is that Col de la Galina is the hardest climb of the day.
What they should have done is go all the way up to la galina (1912m), take the descent into Sant Julia de Loria and finish in Andorra.
You add only 25 km to the stage and GC action in the last 30-40 km is almost guaranteed.

Of all the stages, this is the one you are criticising?
I don't mind the final slog stages, my circumstances have changed so all i ever get to watch is the last 30 or so mins of GT stages, therefore i miss less relevant action in the Vuelta than the other 2.

The aim of this stage, unlike all the other stages in the Vuelta, was to stimulate GC action from far away.
If you aim for C and get a C- you get criticized less than when you aim for A and get a C. Even though the C is better then C- in absolute terms.

 

[Escarabajo]

I think the Vuelta made a mistake putting together the stages 5, 6, 7 and 8. There are too many together without a proper murito or a mountain. Is not in the Vuelta DNA to do that.

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

I think the Vuelta made a mistake putting together the stages 5, 6, 7 and 8. There are too many together without a proper murito or a mountain. Is not in the Vuelta DNA to do that.

I agree that 4 non GC days in a row is a bit much, especially for the Vuelta.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Axtually very atypical that we wont have a murito before stage 12 or 13 or something like that. I mean, what the hell Guillén? I need some Mirador de Ezaro in my life

 

[barmaher]

To be honest, the five opening stages have been better than the equivalent stages of 90% of Grand Tours in the last decade.

 

[Gigs_98]

I just noticed something weird about stage 9. The stage passes the Puerto del Pico, a first category climb which from south usually has this profile:

The official Vuelta profile however is looking like this:

The interesting thing is that the final kilometer in the vuelta is way steeper and that the short downhill section isn't in any other profile of the climb too. And it also isn't a mistake of the profile I posted above as you can see this little descent in the profile of the whole stage as well.
Now I would usually say that the people responsible for the profiles simply f*cked up if there wouldn't be a different albeit strange explanation. There is an alternative cobbled Roman road for the final kilometers of the pass which would more or less fit to the profile from the vuelta website. I think someone used that climb in the Roman Empire race design challenge we had a few years ago so I started to wonder, do they actually go up that climb or what else do those gradients on the profile mean? I mean it sounds like a ridiculous idea but there isn't really a reasonable explanation either.

 

[railxmig]

I just noticed something weird about stage 9. The stage passes the Puerto del Pico, a first category climb which from south usually has this profile:

The official Vuelta profile however is looking like this:

The interesting thing is that the final kilometer in the vuelta is way steeper and that the short downhill section isn't in any other profile of the climb too. And it also isn't a mistake of the profile I posted above as you can see this little descent in the profile of the whole stage as well.
Now I would usually say that the people responsible for the profiles simply f*cked up if there wouldn't be a different albeit strange explanation. There is an alternative cobbled Roman road for the final kilometers of the pass which would more or less fit to the profile from the vuelta website. I think someone used that climb in the Roman Empire race design challenge we had a few years ago so I started to wonder, do they actually go up that climb or what else do those gradients on the profile mean? I mean it sounds like a ridiculous idea but there isn't really a reasonable explanation either.

Profiles provided by Vuelta often have a lot of mistakes. The roman road is hardly probable as it's made of really large, chunky stones. It's definitely too much for a road bike to handle. Also, i don't think the Roman road has a descent unless it would be approached via a balcon road (Liberine remembers the name of this climb) from San Esteban del Valle, that joins the main road near the top of Pico. However, i'm not a specialist. Maybe Libertine or someone else knows the explanation for this profile.

 

[Koronin]

Remember this is the same race that is good for omitting climbs completely from stage profiles. For them to make a mistake like this wouldn't exactly be that strange.