The Unipublic way

[Eshnar]

I kind of suspected you implied Paris Roubaix, but since we're discussing Grand Tours - I was not expecting you to compare a ONE SINGLE DAY RACE with a 3 WEEK RACE...... See the difference?

yes, the difference is that PR is 100times harder than a single stage (of this Vuelta). And that's what I wanted to imply.

I don't.
2010 Giro is and perhaps will be the best GC of the last 10 years yet Contador wasn't in it...

and it hadn't 10 uphill sprints. It only had 5 mountain stages. But they weren't as easy as these ones.

 

[The Hitch]

and it hadn't 10 uphill sprints. It only had 5 mountain stages. But they weren't as easy as these ones.

Would you say the best designed stage of that gt was the most tame?

 

[Eshnar]

Just because the route sucks, doesnt mean it cant produce entertaining racing once in a while.

ofc not. So are we meant to just sit here and wait faithfully for something that has under 1% chance to happen?

 

[Eshnar]

Would you say the best designed stage of that gt was the most tame?

yes I'd say that. Ofc the best designed stage was the Aprica one, which wasn't that long but had Trivigno and Mortirolo. the second harder was probably the Zonc one, which was quite good.
As for length, the longest stage was L'Aquila, which for chance turned out to be good. And I'm positive that, had the stage been 150 kms long, we would never have witnessed something like that.
And before you mention the stage to Tonale, that was not very hard. The Forcola was straight at the beginning of the stage and the Gavia North is not that hard.

 

[Netserk]

Seeing as how I'm constantly being told about unhappiness or sour grapes when I say this Vuelta is terrible, I figured I would start a thread to discuss the issues in depth.

The Vuelta has this philosophy where they want it to be as close a race as possible until the very end. To that end, they design stages that can't create gaps. This usually translates into a short, flat stage with a single MTF, only one ITT, and a hilly one at that to make sure it suited all contenders.

The result is that we get about 5 minutes of racing per stage.

Some say that's more than what we got at the Giro or the Tour. I disagree, but for the sake of the argument, I'll say I agree. However, that's irrelevant. Both the Giro and the Tour were designed to make things happen. The Tour in particular was a risky attempt to try to get a more aggressive style of racing back, by forcing the climbers to attack. The parcours was IMO pretty good, and with Contador and Andy there it would probably have been a great race. The Giro parcours wasn't perfect by all means, what with the hardest stages being together at the end of the race and offering very little before that, but even then there was terrain to try something.

Not in the Vuelta. With the Unipublic way, there's no room for tactical moves. What De Gendt did might be relatively rare, but it does happen every now and then, and Unipublic just disallows the possibility. They just want close uphill sprints because they think that's what the general public wants to see. They design courses that blatantly favour the punchy climber specialists (many of whom would never have been GT contenders in previous decades) because that's what the best Spanish riders are, and they're pandering to the general public.

Is pandering to the general public bad, you'll ask? Not per se. But when it involves cheapening what's supposed to be a GT like this, the answer should be different.

We get a gazillion MTFs, most of the time with no previous climbs, with super short stages, and only one hilly ITT, to make it as little selective as possible. That's the most unbalanced and ridiculous parcours I can think of.

I'd have no issues with the stages we've already seen if what's coming next wasn't, for the most part, more of the same. Yes, we get 5-20 minutes of action or whatever, and yes, the action we do get is good, but by celebrating it, you're celebrating the Unipublic way, which runs contrary to what cycling is supposed to be (you know, the epicness and all that? Extreme endurance tests?). You're validating the current Vuelta organizers and making it less likely that we'll see a change. The Tour parcours backfired, but it was a much needed attempt to get a more aggressive style of racing back. At least they tried. The Vuelta is actively campaigning for YouTube cycling.

"Oh you nostalgic git!", you'll say. Sorry, but I'm not talking about some mythical time in the 70s or 80s. I'm talking about recent Giros and even Tours, not to mention other races (Suisse last year? Colorado? Too many to mention).

So this is why you won't hear me talk about how awesome this Vuelta is.

+1

Major props

 

[The Hitch]

ofc not. So are we meant to just sit here and wait faithfully for something that has under 1% chance to happen?

no. but if the race does turn out to be entertaining as it has so far, lets aknowledge that too, in along with the criticism. And i think some people have played down how entertaining the first week was (for a first week no less) because of their frustration with the route.

yes I'd say that. Ofc the best designed stage was the Aprica one, which wasn't that long but had Trivigno and Mortirolo. the second harder was probably the Zonc one, which was quite good.
As for length, the longest stage was Aprica, which for chance turned out to be good. And I'm positive that, had the stage been 150 kms long, we would never have witnessed something like that.
And before you mention the stage to Tonale, that was not very hard. The Forcola was straight at the beginning of the stage and the Gavia North is not that hard.

Actually what I meant was the Tonale stage

That was the most tame, nothing happened, yet i remember people predicting Mortirolo would be softpedaled because people would wait for Gavia.

So i was wondering if you thought that was the best designed stage, and obviously you answered above.

 

[Eshnar]

no. but if the race does turn out to be entertaining as it has so far, lets aknowledge that too, in along with the criticism. And i think some people have played down how entertaining the first week was (for a first week no less) because of their frustration with the route.

I think I'm not biased when I say that this Vuelta (for now) hasn't provided anything out of range when it comes to entertainment. We saw something like 4 short accelerations by AC in the Arrate stage, the fall of Piti at Valdezcaray, AC trying to get a few seconds on La Gallina and all those damn sprints. It's Purito or Degenkolb.
If you wipe out AC we get only a small try of Valverde I guess.
That's not bad... But really it's not good either.

 

[Eshnar]

*cough*
I just noted I had a lapsus and said "The longest stage was Aprica"...
Ofc I meant L'Aquila... I just edited.

 

[Lanark]

I don't mind those short-hill sprints, I find them far more entertaining than regular bunch sprints. The first week of this GT wasn't bad either.

I agree though that this is were the problem comes. Those short hills and single mountain stages are fine, and there's certainly a place for them. But in this Vuelta it's the only thing it has going for it.

 

[cineteq]

The notion that people who criticize something are "whining haters" who should go watch anything else is ludicrous, as is the idea that you can't criticize something unless you've done better personally. It's very annoying to write what I think is a well-reasoned post only to have to see replies like "omigod haterz".

The issue is that you guys don't let up and have no intention of discussing other posters views. You assume your position: we're right you're wrong from the getgo. So the thread becomes bashing GTs and all you see is whines, hates, complains, etc.

Unipublic way, which runs contrary to what cycling is supposed to be (you know, the epicness and all that? Extreme endurance tests?)."

Extreme endurance tests. Who said this is what's supposed to be? What about competition and tactics? That IS what cycling should be. Does La Vuelta 2012 ring a bell? The triptico is coming this weekend, and we have 5 guys still with the chance to win.

I agree with some of you that the designs are not the best, but riders, like it or not, are the ones who make the race in the end.

 

[The Hitch]

I think I'm not biased when I say that this Vuelta (for now) hasn't provided anything out of range when it comes to entertainment. We saw something like 4 short accelerations by AC in the Arrate stage, the fall of Piti at Valdezcaray, AC trying to get a few seconds on La Gallina and all those damn sprints. It's Purito or Degenkolb.
If you wipe out AC we get only a small try of Valverde I guess.
That's not bad... But really it's not good either.

You are playing it down everytime you claim a hill sprint is the same as a bunch sprint. Contador cracked in 1. froome cracked in 2. In another Purito and GIlbert put big time into the lot of them. In 1 of them Valverde fantastically took what seemed to be a guaranteed stage win from Contador in the last few m.

and in all these different stages, it mattered who came 3rd,4th 5th 10th.

You saying in all those different outcomes (and rodriguez has only won 2) you had exactly the same emotion as watching degenkolb pip out 10 seconds before the finish (where it did not matter one iota who finished 2nd, 10th or 140th, as they all got the same time).

I feel the need for mixing it up a bit, i do, but the hill finishes really were not the predetermined borefests some make them out to be.

 

[Descender]

I'm tired of hearing the old argument about how "y'all can't stop *****in' about how bad the routes are, but in the end it doesn't matter, since it's the riders who make the race".

That would be like saying "y'all can't stop *****in' about the awful condition the pitch is in, with all those holes and uneven grass and bald patches... but in the end it doesn't matter, since it's the footballers who make the game".

 

[ElChingon]

It's not that Unipublic have done anything deliberately wrong per se, it's that they've looked at the data from their race and drawn the same conclusions as others, but their response to this has been antithetical to what one might expect.

i.e.:
Problem:
- small time gaps created on single-climb mountain stages.

Solution:
- tougher mountain stages to create bigger gaps, or more time trial mileage to mean more time needed by climbers so they must attack earlier.

Unipublic Solution:
- more single-climb mountain stages so gaps are increased by cyclical repetition of those small gaps.

I'm not against their method/style.

They have more of a storybook style with I think adds to the overall plot. I do think their style is good for the "new generation" of racers and clinic related issues (as in preventing them). The catastrophic death march are just that and lead to the clinic solutions, as has been proven.

 

[Kwibus]

yes, the difference is that PR is 100times harder than a single stage (of this Vuelta). And that's what I wanted to imply.

Yes, but it's also a one day race. So everyone will give their all while in GT's riders are thinking about the next day or next week or next 2 weeks...

But that wasn't your point. I think we agree on what your trying to say. This Vuelta lacks a real hard tough long stage.

 

[Kwibus]

I'm tired of hearing the old argument about how "y'all can't stop *****in' about how bad the routes are, but in the end it doesn't matter, since it's the riders who make the race".

That would be like saying "y'all can't stop *****in' about the awful condition the pitch is in, with all those holes and uneven grass and bald patches... but in the end it doesn't matter, since it's the footballers who make the game".

The riders make the race, but on a tough course the chances of riders making a race is a lot bigger than on a pancake flat stage

 

[Eshnar]

You are playing it down everytime you claim a hill sprint is the same as a bunch sprint. Contador cracked in 1. froome cracked in 2. In another Purito and GIlbert put big time into the lot of them. In 1 of them Valverde fantastically took what seemed to be a guaranteed stage win from Contador in the last few m.

and in all these different stages, it mattered who came 3rd,4th 5th 10th.

You saying in all those different outcomes (and rodriguez has only won 2) you had exactly the same emotion as watching degenkolb pip out 10 seconds before the finish (where it did not matter one iota who finished 2nd, 10th or 140th, as they all got the same time).

I feel the need for mixing it up a bit, i do, but the hill finishes really were not the predetermined borefests some make them out to be.

Different views about excitement, that's for sure.
Btw, when a gc guy "cracks" he loses minutes.

 

[cineteq]

I'm tired of hearing the old argument about how "y'all can't stop *****in' about how bad the routes are, but in the end it doesn't matter, since it's the riders who make the race".

Thanks for providing a good example of my previous post Btw, I forgot to include the word: mockery in it.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

The riders make the race, but on a tough course the chances of riders making a race is a lot bigger than on a pancake flat stage

Although in recent years we have seen that a tough GT course just makes everyone wait longer, with less racing as result. That Giro everyone so fondly remembers only got good because that break. Without that break we would have watched Liquigas doing a train up the mountains every single day. Kinda like the Giro this year, but then with a Basso actually able to finish it.

What the Vuelta is doing right is forcing the GT riders to act. You can't take it easy on those uphill sprints because you will easily lose 30+ seconds that way. So they can't wait for the real mountains. Since the Vuelta didn't get to those real mountains yet, I find it far too early for this thread. And I don't get this putting those uphill sprints on the same level as a bunch sprint. It kinda lowers the argument people want to make.

 

[Eshnar]

What the Vuelta is doing right is forcing the GT riders to act.

Really? when did they act more than they did in this year Giro or tdf? I just saw some acceleration at less than 3 kms to go.
Even if you call it attacks then you must call attacks the little digs of Purito and Hesjedal in the Giro too.

 

[Izzy eviel]

I'm rather enjoying this Vuelta. I get what OP is saying but I've found the stages that i've watched to be entertaining.

 

[icefire]

I take this from the Race Design Thread:

Stage 17, Tuesday. Lugo-Candín (163kms)

Ancares at its best, climbed through its hardest side and with the finish right after the descent.

Climbs:

Alto de Fontaneira, 3rd Cat

Alto de Cerredo, 3rd Cat

Alto de Louxas, 2nd Cat (aprox. 9kms at 5%)

Alto de Sierra Morela, 1st Cat (10,2kms at 6,3%)
http://www.altimetrias.net/Lugo/Morela.gif
The Vuelta calls it "Alto de Folgeiras de Aigas" after the town at the top.

Alto de Ancares, HC (12kms at 9,3%)
http://www.altimetrias.net/Lugo/Ancares4.gif

Good design that misses an important point. Ancares is at the border of the provinces of Lugo (region of Galicia) and León (region of Castilla y León). All the stage is hosted in Lugo with the exception of the last descent, which is in León. I wish I was wrong, but given the provincianism of those who would pay for the stage (local and regional authorities), I'm afraid this stage is unlikely to happen. I'm sure you know that for a stage like the one you propose to become a reality a more likely course would be climbing from Candín, going down through Balouta to Murias, climbing through Pan do Zarco and down to the finish. That way, most of the stage, including the finish, would stay within the same region making it easier to sell to those who would pay.

 

[Eshnar]

Good design that misses an important point. Ancares is at the border of the provinces of Lugo (region of Galicia) and León (region of Castilla y León). All the stage is hosted in Lugo with the exception of the last descent, which is in León. I wish I was wrong, but given the provincianism of those who would pay for the stage (local and regional authorities), I'm afraid this stage is unlikely to happen. I'm sure you know that for a stage like the one you propose to become a reality a more likely course would be climbing from Candín, going down through Balouta to Murias, climbing through Pan do Zarco and down to the finish. That way, most of the stage, including the finish, would stay within the same region making it easier to sell to those who would pay.

Unfortunately this stage is unlikely to happen in either way, seeing that Unipublic already stated that whenever they'll climb the whole Ancares, it'll be a MTF.
But I see your point.

 

[Descender]

Thanks for providing a good example of my previous post Btw, I forgot to include the word: mockery in it.

Competition and tactics? How? By going "I think this time I'll attack at the 3km mark instead of at the 2km mark. They'll never see that one coming!"?

 

[Descender]

I take this from the Race Design Thread:



Good design that misses an important point. Ancares is at the border of the provinces of Lugo (region of Galicia) and León (region of Castilla y León). All the stage is hosted in Lugo with the exception of the last descent, which is in León. I wish I was wrong, but given the provincianism of those who would pay for the stage (local and regional authorities), I'm afraid this stage is unlikely to happen. I'm sure you know that for a stage like the one you propose to become a reality a more likely course would be climbing from Candín, going down through Balouta to Murias, climbing through Pan do Zarco and down to the finish. That way, most of the stage, including the finish, would stay within the same region making it easier to sell to those who would pay.

Unipublic finds financing whenever they want to find it.

They have finished stages in remote places where the chances of getting good money are slim to none (Asturias for one pays peanuts very often).

Besides, the Diputación de León HAS been known to be interested in financing Vuelta stages, most notably the ones that finished in Ponferrada. I can't see why they wouldn't be interested in helping to promote the beautiful Ancares area.

Add to that that, as it recently surfaced, the town of Vega de Espinareda showed their disposition some months ago to host a stage finish that included a climb to Ancares, but Unipublic refused.

That would also have been a great option, as Vega de Espinareda is merely 19km from the finish of the (tricky) Ancares descent, and the riders would have to tackle the 3rd Cat Lumeras climb before the finish.

Seeing as, in my proposed route, that would be the last truly hard mountain stage, I'd say that would be a great option as well.

 

[the asian]

I don't mind those short-hill sprints, I find them far more entertaining than regular bunch sprints. The first week of this GT wasn't bad either.

I agree though that this is were the problem comes. Those short hills and single mountain stages are fine, and there's certainly a place for them. But in this Vuelta it's the only thing it has going for it.

Agree. The first week was good. It's the lack of more multiple Mt stages that hurts this Vuelta