The Crostis Descent

[Thomsena]

Translated with Google Translate

http://translate.google.com/transla...trabladet.dk/sport/cykling/article1552808.ece

 

[Escarabajo]

Honestly, I have no idea. All I've seen is that picture they have in that article, which is tilted, and not actually much of a descent at all, but a false flat. I have no idea what the descent as a whole looks like, and 99,9% of the people commenting on the suitability or lack thereof of the Crostis descent have no idea either. I think it's good that they're looking at it again with a renewed understanding of how inherently dangerous the sport is, but I won't go beyond that until I have more info.

This is what I found in Google.

This must be the unpaved descent since the direction of the Giro going up is paved.

The drops don't look as bad.

Finally. That corner looks bad from any angle.

 

[jens_attacks]

what the hell is with that ramp?30% steep?
it looks like a pro cyclist's hell out there.

 

[killswitch]

what the hell is with that ramp?30% steep?
it looks like a pro cyclist's hell out there.

The hairpin is further back.

 

[Boeing]

Well, judge for yourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UDyOKa3fUk

Seriously, from 5:39 and onwards, it is not even a road.

Is the song choice intentional? going out in a blaze of glory?? especially with no helmet..

 

[jens_attacks]

The hairpin is further back.

ok i thought they will have to go on that road in the 3rd picture.it would be impossible.

 

[Boeing]

whether we are qualified or not to comment on the safety of the roads for professionals in a grand tour is irrelevant.

the question I have is how exactly does the near single track gravel fire road assist professional riders in determining the best professional road cyclist in the race?


it makes for good viewing but I find it over the top (no pun intended)

 

[Je ne sais quoi]

I've posted this slideshow of Contador's recon of the stage before. I look at photo 6, and realize that it's on the ascent, and it's a curve that actually has a bit of guard rail (that wouldn't do much for a bike). But Contador spoke of precipices, and I think it gives a pretty good idea of those. The guy has won five grand tours, and done other stage races with serious climbs, like Paris-Nice and the Dauphine, in inclement weather. For him to come out and say that he hopes it will snow so they don't have to ride it, or that maybe he'll have someone give him a mountain bike before the descent, or that even in the relative safety of a car, his hair still stood on end, is saying something. I don't think that Zomegnan sending some guys to check out the unpaved section is a bad thing. I think it was the Vuelta a few years ago where a rider went straight off the side, and his bike just kept sliding down. But he had a soft landing there. This looks to me like the Blue Ridge Parkway where there's a huge drop straight down if you go off the road. And remember, Contador and the others who did recon still showed up for the race, so it's not like they're cowards.

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/7988/sport...rkent-vreselijke-Monte-Crostis-uit-Giro.dhtml

http://www.biciciclismo.com/cas/site/noticias
-ficha.asp?id=38757

Interesting… When Contador made those comments, I was convinced that he was doing a classic recon psych job on his opponents; ie, from his position as a supremely confident bike handler and tactician, he was planting a seed of doubt, and even his joke about the mountain bike would have that effect. After all, it's in his tactical interest if his opponents hold themselves in check or second guess themselves even in a passing thought. Besides, his comments played up the drama - all in good sport.

But now that the WW tragedy has occurred, I don't know what to think.

 

[killswitch]

http://dolomiti-friulane.blogspot.com/2011/05/monte-crostis-da-comeglians.html

http://freeforumzone.leonardo.it/lofi/Monte-Crostis/D6905860.html

 

[Libertine Seguros]

We should bear in mind that RCS and Zomegnan have ploughed a lot of money into road improvements on Monte Crostis so that the Giro could use it. Images from 2009 may well be barely relevant today. And a lot of the shots we've been given where the road is at its worst are from the flattish section at and near the top, which shouldn't really be considered part of the descent.

Like hrotha, I can't say that I know for sure what the road looks like there, so I'm not going to make a call.

 

[Credive]

whether we are qualified or not to comment on the safety of the roads for professionals in a grand tour is irrelevant.

the question I have is how exactly does the near single track gravel fire road assist professional riders in determining the best professional road cyclist in the race?


it makes for good viewing but I find it over the top (no pun intended)

You forget the fact that the sport is dependent on viewers. No viewers leads to no sponsors. This is seriously driven too far. Should we now stop all cllimbing because it results in a descend afterwards?

 

[VeloCity]

The Crostis is just a symptom - the main question is, at what point is enough enough? When have organizers gone too far in trying to "up" one another in terms of creating spectacle? Moreover, I'd argue that it actually detracts from the racing, as having ridiculously tough stages tends to reduce competitiveness, not enhance it. I'd prefer to watch a stage where GC riders are finishing within seconds of one another, not spread out by minutes.

Remember the '06 Giro, which was touted to be one of the hardest in recent memory? Look at those time gaps - it wasn't even a race. 9 minutes from 1st to 2nd, nearly 3 minutes from 2nd to 3rd, 6 minutes from 3rd to 4th, and the 5th placed rider, Savoldelli, was nearly 20 minutes behind the winner, Basso. Turned out to be one of the most unexciting GTs in years.

imo, the more "conservative" the route, the more interesting the actual racing.

 

[therhodeo]

imo, the more "conservative" the route, the more interesting the actual racing.

Lets see which was more interesting. 2010 Giro or 2010 Tour?

 

[Lanark]

Exactly, 2006 had absolutely nothing to do with how hard the route was (it wasn't even exceptional for a Giro, last year was much more difficult). Basso was so much better in 2006 than the competition, no mather what route you had, it would always be a boring race.

A difficult doesn't guarantee good race, but an easy route pretty much does guarantee a boring one (Paris-Nice anyone?). Making it too difficult early on can kill the competition early, but the Giro-organisers know this, and have perfected a route that's varied, and gradually builds up the stakes to the end. The Tour's answer to postponing the climax seems to be to make the first two weeks completely boring and easy. Because let's face it, even a boring mountain stage (Monte Terminilo last year) is still more exciting than a bunch sprint.

Anyway, there aren't organizers 'upping' eachother in making the most exciting race. If only that was true! The only organizer trying new things and experiments to make stage races more exciting is Zomegnan. So far, these experiments haven't had an effect on the riders safety, so there's little wrong with it. If anything, the Giro has become safer. Don't forget that 5 years or so ago pretty much every bunch sprint had to end in the centre of a city with 3 or 4 local laps, always extremely dangerous. The Giro has become harder, but much safer the last few years.

 

[mastersracer]

and watching a GC favorite standing on the side of the road for 5 minutes to get a wheel change because support cars are backed up isn't exactly compelling racing...

 

[roundabout]

Exactly, 2006 had absolutely nothing to do with how hard the route was (it wasn't even exceptional for a Giro, last year was much more difficult). Basso was so much better in 2006 than the competition, no mather what route you had, it would always be a boring race.

A difficult doesn't guarantee good race, but an easy route pretty much does guarantee a boring one (Paris-Nice anyone?). Making it too difficult early on can kill the competition early, but the Giro-organisers know this, and have perfected a route that's varied, and gradually builds up the stakes to the end. The Tour's answer to postponing the climax seems to be to make the first two weeks completely boring and easy. Because let's face it, even a boring mountain stage (Monte Terminilo last year) is still more exciting than a bunch sprint.

Anyway, there aren't organizers 'upping' eachother in making the most exciting race. If only that was true! The only organizer trying new things and experiments to make stage races more exciting is Zomegnan. So far, these experiments haven't had an effect on the riders safety, so there's little wrong with it. If anything, the Giro has become safer. Don't forget that 5 years or so ago pretty much every bunch sprint had to end in the centre of a city with 3 or 4 local laps, always extremely dangerous. The Giro has become harder, but much safer the last few years.

Were there really that many finishes with local laps in the Giro? I recall a few but not that many.

I think I'll browse the archives for a bit.

Edit: looking at just the 2002 edition you're very right in your recollection.

 

[UpTheRoad]

The events so far and discussion around this descent might create a situation rarely seen...crowds lining a descent. You see all the fans out in droves on the mountain climbs, then very few and far between on any descent. Understandable, of course.

However, the descent of Monte Crostis this year might have a few more spectators. Not the sickos that are hoping for a crash, but those who are generally interested in seeing what *might* be a decisive point in the race.

I cannot recall a descent anywhere else which, before the stage and not in hindsight, is discussed as being so vital to the outcome of a GT.

I would think that Menchov might need 10 minutes at the top on Nibali to have a chance of starting Zoncolan at the same time as VN.

 

[El Pistolero]

The events so far and discussion around this descent might create a situation rarely seen...crowds lining a descent. You see all the fans out in droves on the mountain climbs, then very few and far between on any descent. Understandable, of course.

However, the descent of Monte Crostis this year might have a few more spectators. Not the sickos that are hoping for a crash, but those who are generally interested in seeing what *might* be a decisive point in the race.

I cannot recall a descent anywhere else which, before the stage and not in hindsight, is discussed as being so vital to the outcome of a GT.

I would think that Menchov might need 10 minutes at the top on Nibali to have a chance of starting Zoncolan at the same time as VN.

Well, there's a descend in this Giro that decided the 2005 Giro.

 

[masking_agent]

what stage is this crostis descent ?

 

[UpTheRoad]

what stage is this crostis descent ?

14th. Saturday, May 21.

 

[masking_agent]

14th. Saturday, May 21.

thank you.

 

[benpounder]

and watching a GC favorite standing on the side of the road for 5 minutes to get a wheel change because support cars are backed up isn't exactly compelling racing...

If a GC rider is that isolated, is he a realistic bet? (Very few GT winners won without support from their team-mates.) Also, if they are refusing neutral assistance, seems like they are looking for an excuse for not winning.

 

[Boeing]

You forget the fact that the sport is dependent on viewers. No viewers leads to no sponsors. This is seriously driven too far. Should we now stop all cllimbing because it results in a descend afterwards?

There is a section there that will require a good manual to counter steer....

OK lets see who can juggle 3 balls in a crit and no hand wheelie to the finish. the circus is in town.


you really think people will tune in less if there is no dirt in a road race? Really?
Are you implying that this stage was forced by sponsors?

Is that anything like people tune in for the crashes? more crashes more sponsors?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Anyway, there aren't organizers 'upping' eachother in making the most exciting race. If only that was true! The only organizer trying new things and experiments to make stage races more exciting is Zomegnan. So far, these experiments haven't had an effect on the riders safety, so there's little wrong with it.

I agree with your general point but I think you do Guillén a disservice. The Vuelta's route has been predictable and often poor (2007...) recently, but he's obviously starting to take note of fans and peoples' complaints about this. There are a lot of great climbs in Spain that are seldom used (just try that link in the Spanish magazine thread) - and finally it seems the Vuelta is starting to use them (Cotobello, Farrapona, Bola del Mundo, La Pandera all being added to the race recenty) - and there are many more they can use in future (Collado Trevinca, Coll de Pal, and so on) that mean they don't have to rely on the likes of Cerler again and again. I think the Vuelta's organisation is improving in this respect (they're climbing Sierra Nevada on the fourth stage!)*, though it has a way to go to compete with Zomegnan for experimenting with the route.

*(this does make me quite a hypocrite, since they climbed Lagos de Covadonga in a very early stage in the 2007 route I criticised. However, the 2007 route did mean neutralising the effects of most of the Asturian and Cantabrian mountains on the race, rather like the rather castrated use of the Alps and Dolomites in the 2009 Giro which attracted criticism)

 

[benpounder]

imo, the more "conservative" the route, the more interesting the actual racing.

One of the things that makes a GT route interesting to me, is how realistic it is. That is, does it look like something I would enjoy riding. We all have our favorite training rides and favorite punishing rides. I'd bet most of us also love exploring potentially new routes, or even just new paths to link up favorite sections of rides. I have no problem with a short stretch of gravel, or deteriorating pavement that joins two great sections; or a short stint on a bike path; or a tiny section of 10% dirt which may be mud.

Too many of the Tours non-mountain stages lack that realism - they seem antiseptically engineered. They are, in effect, alien to what the normal cycling enthusiast and fan would ever encounter. A real route will have danger, danger a real cyclist will recognize and account for.

WW's death was a fluke, one likely caused by his own momentary inattentiveness. (Search on this site for tales of near death - we all have had them.) But to tone down the difficulties of a race because of this, while not as tragic, would certainly be as terminal to our beloved sport.