Ronde van Vlaanderen v Paris - Roubaix - which one is harder?

[craig1985]

As it says on the tin, what do you consider to be the hardest of the two races? I'm probably leaning towards Roubaix (although Scott Socal may disagree, having just done the RVV Cyclo-tourist edition yesterday, all 260km of it ), with 28 sectors of pavé, with many long sectors (16 - Hornaing to Wandignies-Hamage is at 3700m in length), with many pavé in a poor irregular state, some that can contain a lot of mud, it can really catch out the poor bike handlers (we do get a lot of crashes, especially when the Tour goes over it), and towards the end it becomes a war of attrition, being able to ride over a bumpy rough surface and to be able to stay near the front of the race.

Not that I think the RVV is easy either, it's a long run to the first of the cobbled climbs, with a lot of short(ish) pavé climbs, but are really steep, and there a lot of them, where the ability to position yourself near the front is really important (for mine it is an under-rated attribute), because if you're in the middle of the bunch at say the Koppenberg, it only takes one key who can't handle the gradient, or is over geared, and it forces him to stop, then you run the risk of being held up, and unless you can chase really hard, you may as well call it a day after that. Endurance also becomes a factor when you get to the Grammont and being able to hold the wheel of the leader of the race, or have the power to attack.

Both are fantastic to watch as a viewer on TV, but I would say I enjoy watching Roubaix more, but not by much.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

I think PR is harder.
The cobbles are in a lot worse condition compared to flanders.

Every year, the fields gets a lot more decimated here then flanders.

 

[Echoes]

Agree with Timmy. In my opinion, there's no debate.

Paris-Roubaix is known as the Queen of the Classics. There's a reason, no?

A friend of mine raced the two U23 races.

He told me that though Flanders was a demanding race in itself, fighting to get a good position before the climbing and sprinting on the climb, but fortunately after the climb, you have descents where you can take a breather, freewheeling.

In Paris-Roubaix you have cobbled sections that are much longer than Flanders' climbs (2 or 3kms) and in between those sections, it's flat, there's no descents. Mostly in the final kms, it's completely flat, which means that once you get out of these very hard sections, you still have to pedal to the next sections. No time-outs. I've read comments by Urtasun and Galdos saying that the end is extremely hard.

I'm so pumped for Roubaix, this year. Everything but Boonen. I don't want De Vlaeminck's record to be equalled by him.

Make no mistake, folks. This is really the hardest. "Harder in one day than a GT in 21 days" said Gilbert. It rarely favours a second-tier rider while so many are on Flanders' palmares: Zandegu, Dolman, Leman, Bal, Lamerts, Martens, ...

Flanders is really one of the easiest. Even Amstel is harder. Merckx disliked it because so much favoured the sprinters at a time there weren't so many climbs. and because of those many turns. We all - including myself - like it because it's telegenic, but it's not that hard.

 

[Anonymous]

really needs an option for the same or cannot choose.

Flanders in the rain is harder than an overcast roubaix, a very dry roubaix is tougher than a dry flanders. Depends on the riders, if they push it, or take it easy.

So many things to take into account.

 

[El Pistolero]

I think it also depends if you're riding in the peloton or riding alone. I wouldn't dare ride over the whole course of Roubaix together with 200 people racing hard. If you're alone you can take it easy and look for the best parts of the pavé to ride on.

 

[Cobblestoned]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[El Pistolero]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[brianf7]

The Rond has to be harder than Roubaix to start with it is usualy much colder It is nearly always sliprey then cobbled climbes are very hard even for the best.
They are both tough but by time we get to Roubaix we have some good racing in the legs

 

[Cobblestoned]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

really needs an option for the same or cannot choose.

Flanders in the rain is harder than an overcast roubaix, a very dry roubaix is tougher than a dry flanders. Depends on the riders, if they push it, or take it easy.

So many things to take into account.

not sure I agree, many riders comment on how much harder pr is.
I know weather can play a factor, but almost every year PR fields are that more destroyed. Last couple of flanders with bunch sprints for 3rd place, 5th place etc has been disappointing. you don't get that at pr.

Like I said before, the cobbles at flanders are like clouds compared to pr.

 

[ak-zaaf]

Paris-Roubaix is known as the Queen of the Classics. There's a reason, no?

Because Vlaanderen is King?


In the end it all depends on circumstances and how they race.

 

[El Pistolero]

Who cares what YOU think ?
99% of your waterpistol shots don't make any sense.
I let you just shoot around most of the time. Just sayin, so that you know it now.
Would be way too much work to respond to all of your daily high frequency and senseless shots.

Its just piff piff instead of BANG BANG, you know.

It was a joke smart ***.

Your head is probably as thick as cobbled stones yes.

 

[Cobblestoned]

It was a joke smart ***.

Your head is probably as thick as cobbled stones yes.

You seem to be joking all the time.

Better pay attention now on race. You might miss a crash and then miss out commenting your hahaha, jokerman.

 

[Anonymous]

You seem to be joking all the time.

Better pay attention now on race. You might miss a crash and then miss out commenting your hahaha, jokerman.

Do you contribute anything except trying to wind people up?

 

[Cobblestoned]

Do you contribute anything except trying to wind people up?

Yes, weather predictions.
Pistolero posting and commenting, nearly always ends up...with this special taste and waste of time.

He should choose "I just disagree and joke" as nickname.

 

[Kellys Big Sprocket]

really needs an option for the same or cannot choose.

Flanders in the rain is harder than an overcast roubaix, a very dry roubaix is tougher than a dry flanders. Depends on the riders, if they push it, or take it easy.

So many things to take into account.

A well put together summary. All the spring classics are hard. Roubaix is longer and the elements especially when wet is an additional factor that contributes towards the final outcome. Plus there are those cobbled sections that appear to be getting in worse condition every year !!!! To land on them at the wrong time at the wrong place could so easily end one's season.

 

[Monty Dog]

Flanders is tough, P-Rx is brutal IME - I've ridden them both hard a few times. Whilst I could quite happily ride for hours the day after Flanders, it took three days to recover from P-Rx because the muscle-pain was so deep. You have to be a lot 'sharper' on the pave too - choosing and fighting for lines. Only the Koppenberg is critical in Flanders.

 

[Echoes]

"He who has not finished Paris-Roubaix is no cycling rider" said Mottet.

 

[Barrus]

Keep it civil guys, quit winding each other up that much

 

[Descender]

Agree with Timmy. In my opinion, there's no debate.

Paris-Roubaix is known as the Queen of the Classics. There's a reason, no?

A friend of mine raced the two U23 races.

He told me that though Flanders was a demanding race in itself, fighting to get a good position before the climbing and sprinting on the climb, but fortunately after the climb, you have descents where you can take a breather, freewheeling.

In Paris-Roubaix you have cobbled sections that are much longer than Flanders' climbs (2 or 3kms) and in between those sections, it's flat, there's no descents. Mostly in the final kms, it's completely flat, which means that once you get out of these very hard sections, you still have to pedal to the next sections. No time-outs. I've read comments by Urtasun and Galdos saying that the end is extremely hard.

I'm so pumped for Roubaix, this year. Everything but Boonen. I don't want De Vlaeminck's record to be equalled by him.

Make no mistake, folks. This is really the hardest. "Harder in one day than a GT in 21 days" said Gilbert. It rarely favours a second-tier rider while so many are on Flanders' palmares: Zandegu, Dolman, Leman, Bal, Lamerts, Martens, ...

Flanders is really one of the easiest. Even Amstel is harder. Merckx disliked it because so much favoured the sprinters at a time there weren't so many climbs. and because of those many turns. We all - including myself - like it because it's telegenic, but it's not that hard.

Yes, it's called French chauvinism.

 

[Descender]

Agree with Timmy. In my opinion, there's no debate.

Paris-Roubaix is known as the Queen of the Classics. There's a reason, no?

A friend of mine raced the two U23 races.

He told me that though Flanders was a demanding race in itself, fighting to get a good position before the climbing and sprinting on the climb, but fortunately after the climb, you have descents where you can take a breather, freewheeling.

In Paris-Roubaix you have cobbled sections that are much longer than Flanders' climbs (2 or 3kms) and in between those sections, it's flat, there's no descents. Mostly in the final kms, it's completely flat, which means that once you get out of these very hard sections, you still have to pedal to the next sections. No time-outs. I've read comments by Urtasun and Galdos saying that the end is extremely hard.

I'm so pumped for Roubaix, this year. Everything but Boonen. I don't want De Vlaeminck's record to be equalled by him.

Make no mistake, folks. This is really the hardest. "Harder in one day than a GT in 21 days" said Gilbert. It rarely favours a second-tier rider while so many are on Flanders' palmares: Zandegu, Dolman, Leman, Bal, Lamerts, Martens, ...

Flanders is really one of the easiest. Even Amstel is harder. Merckx disliked it because so much favoured the sprinters at a time there weren't so many climbs. and because of those many turns. We all - including myself - like it because it's telegenic, but it's not that hard.

OK I'll tell you again.

O'Grady, Bäckstedt, Knaven, Guesdon, Demol, Rosiers, Post... all those were second-tier riders who have the P-R as their best career achievement by a long shot.

 

[beer_thirty]

Like I said before, the cobbles at flanders are like clouds compared to pr.

I cannot imagine crashing in say Arenberg or the Carrefour going about 45K an hour; be like getting hit in the knee or the hip or whatever with a sharpened sledgehammer.

Never been to Roubaix (going next year!) but I've got a friend who went a couple years ago; he said the first time he saw the Trouee he literally laughed out loud. Totally nuts.

 

[boomcie]

I also voted for Roubaix. It usually has less tactics involved and more natural selection.

 

[mr. tibbs]

I also voted for Roubaix. It usually has less tactics involved and more natural selection.

Yep, me too, for this reason.

I think it's telling that, though the hellingen of De Ronde are insanely brutal, Paris-Roubaix is pan flat and the race still comes down to between one and five guys every year. Any course that is flat and still features this kind of selection and often with a solo winner who wins by minutes... yeah.

What was the largest group to finish in Roubaix? For my money, I can only think of threes, but I'm sure there are a few years where a much larger group came in together.

 

[boomcie]

Yep, me too, for this reason.

I think it's telling that, though the hellingen of De Ronde are insanely brutal, Paris-Roubaix is pan flat and the race still comes down to between one and five guys every year. Any course that is flat and still features this kind of selection and often with a solo winner who wins by minutes... yeah.

What was the largest group to finish in Roubaix? For my money, I can only think of threes, but I'm sure there are a few years where a much larger group came in together.

In "recent" history:

2004: 4 riders
1997: 8 riders (Guesdon edition)