Tour de France 2013

[The Hitch]

Any specific examples? Don't confuse steepness with toughness, yeah Zoncolan is ridiculously steep but climbing Joux-Plane at full speed with "TDF pressure" certainly expends more energy. It's like VAM, it's easier to get high VAM on steep climbs than on 7% climbs.

Riders ride their hardest up mountains. They dont go into the giro and think - oh this isnt the tour, ill only ride at 70% of my capabilities and finish fresh at the top.

By the way your beloved Wiggins said the Vuelta was a harder gt than the Tour and Cav said the Giro was harder than the Tour.

 

[airstream]

it is not about energy, but the fact remains: to win in morzine after joux plane (from the main pack in the tdf surely) is harder than to win on zoncolan.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

It means they went as fast as Sastre in July 2006.

You can't compare the Dauphine with the last mountain stage in a TDF when everyone is fatigued. The stage was much harder, anyway.

 

[The Hitch]

it is not about energy, but the fact remains: to win in morzine after joux plane (from the main pack in the tdf surely) is harder than to win on zoncolan.

For that same type of rider it would be harder to win the Madrid sprint of the Vuelta than it would to win Liege Bastogne Liege. Does that make the Madrid sprint a harder stage?

 

[airstream]

For that same type of rider it would be harder to win the Madrid sprint of the Vuelta than it would to win Liege Bastogne Liege. Does that make the Madrid sprint a harder stage?

I'm saying about ability/inability to win within the limits of one specialization. Because we have a talk about GC riders. I didn't understand what Cavendish has got to do with joux plane and zoncolan whatsoever

 

[Ferminal]

You can't compare the Dauphine with the last mountain stage in a TDF when everyone is fatigued. The stage was much harder, anyway.

Agreed, it was a harder stage, but even then, Joux Plane wasn't "too hard".

So I don't think Joux Plane-Avoriaz combo after 90km is "too hard" either.

I'd say Tourmalet-Luz, Bales-Peyragudes, Pailheres-Bonsacre are all just as difficult.

 

[The Hitch]

I'm saying about ability/inability to win within the limits of one specialization. Because we have a talk about GC riders. I didn't understand what Cavendish has got to do with joux plane and zoncolan whatsoever

Im talking about what is harder. Zoncolan is harder than Joux Planne, and the average giro has x > 2 stages harder than joux planne avoriaz.

 

[Magnus]

I'm not sure even Amaury would be capable of that, going on a 100km journey across the plains, just because. If the stage actually were true, I think 2x Tourmalet (!) would be more likely. The PSM stage would make more sense than all of it.

But Bagneres-de-Luchon as a start for the stage seems very unlikely given the fact they had a start/finish this year, the strong rumour for Saint-Girons, and a pointlessly long transfer from Bonascre.

You think ~80km of flat between Peyresourde-Aspin and Soulor-Tourmalet is more ridiculous than the usual Pyrenees run-in?

I guess you're right about the transfer though.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Agreed, it was a harder stage, but even then, Joux Plane wasn't "too hard".

So I don't think Joux Plane-Avoriaz combo after 90km is "too hard" either.

I'd say Tourmalet-Luz, Bales-Peyragudes, Pailheres-Bonsacre are all just as difficult.

That's not what I was responding to, but sure.

 

[Ferminal]

That's not what I was responding to, but sure.

It's what I was responding to.

 

[Descender]

what a bunch of nonsense joux plane+ avoriaz being too tought, god forbid us from a having a proper mountain stage at the tour. . . .

Indeed......

 

[airstream]

Im talking about what is harder. Zoncolan is harder than Joux Planne, and the average giro has x > 2 stages harder than joux planne avoriaz.

yes it is the case on paper, by climbbybike rating, from viewpoint for amateur who rode both climbs, whatever, but not for the tour and in the giro with their fields. the last factor distorts any numbers. i like the giro climbs, but i cannot imagine anton or basso winning in morzine in the tour even in their best shape. though, obviously zoncolan is harder if one assumes that the same rider under the same circumstances ride these 2 climbs.

 

[The Hitch]

yes it is the case on paper, by climbbybike rating, from viewpoint for amateur who rode both climbs, whatever, but not for the tour and in the giro with their fields. the last factor distorts any numbers.

Do you think a 5k pan flat tt in the tour is harder than a 60 km hill tt in the giro ?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

yes it is the case on paper, by climbbybike rating, from viewpoint for amateur who rode both climbs, whatever, but not for the tour and in the giro with their fields. the last factor distorts any numbers. i like the giro climbs, but i cannot imagine anton or basso winning in morzine in the tour even in their best shape. though, obviously zoncolan is harder if one assumes that the same rider under the same circumstances ride these 2 climbs.

Hello? Last time they put Morzine in a meaningful race, you had all of the main headliners on the same time, with only a couple gaining a few seconds (Sánchez and Andy).

Now, you may argue (and should) that Joux-Plane is a harder climb than Ramaz, but Ramaz is hardly a walk in the park.

The last time they put Joux-Plane in a meaningful race, you had all of the main headliners on the same time, with only one gaining a few seconds (Evans - Quintana wasn't a GC threat).

These two climbs by themselves - not after multiple previous climbs as in the 2012 Dauphiné, even if there was only the one that would be decisive - are somehow too tough for the Tour?

Since you have decided that the higher average speed at the Tour means that the Giro and Vuelta multi-mountain (Vuelta, multi-mountain, lol) stages are irrelevant to the discussion, so need I remind you of a few Tour stages?

2008 stage 10
2008 stage 17
2010 stage 14
2011 stage 12
2011 stage 19
2012 stage 17

None of these are more than a tiny, tiny, tiny bit easier than 90km + Joux-Plane + Morzine-Avoriaz.

 

[airstream]

Hello? Last time they put Morzine in a meaningful race, you had all of the main headliners on the same time, with only a couple gaining a few seconds (Sánchez and Andy).

Now, you may argue (and should) that Joux-Plane is a harder climb than Ramaz, but Ramaz is hardly a walk in the park.

The last time they put Joux-Plane in a meaningful race, you had all of the main headliners on the same time, with only one gaining a few seconds (Evans - Quintana wasn't a GC threat).

These two climbs by themselves - not after multiple previous climbs as in the 2012 Dauphiné, even if there was only the one that would be decisive - are somehow too tough for the Tour?

Since you have decided that the higher average speed at the Tour means that the Giro and Vuelta multi-mountain (Vuelta, multi-mountain, lol) stages are irrelevant to the discussion, so need I remind you of a few Tour stages?

2008 stage 10
2008 stage 17
2010 stage 14
2011 stage 12
2011 stage 19
2012 stage 17

None of these are more than a tiny, tiny, tiny bit easier than 90km + Joux-Plane + Morzine-Avoriaz.

I was saying obviously about finish in Morzine after Col du Joux Plane. Dauphine is other story. Main headliners only train there. I never operated with the fact of average speed. Average speed is one big conventionality. Hardness is defined by opponents and fatigue, which is accumuluted in the Tour differently in comparison to Giro and Vuelta.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I was saying obviously about finish in Morzine after Col du Joux Plane. Dauphine is other story. Main headliners only train there. I never operated with the fact of average speed. Average speed is one big conventionality. Hardness is defined by opponents and fatigue, which is accumuluted in the Tour differently in comparison to Giro and Vuelta.

It may be accumulated differently, but a stage like 2011 Giro '15 is still tougher than 90km then Joux-Plane + Morzine-Avoriaz. The greater fatigue level of racing hard in the Tour is compensated for by the far, far, far greater fatigue level when that stage is taken in isolation.

There have been countless stages in the Tour's history way, way harder than a Joux-Plane - Morzine double. To suggest that because the Tour accumulates fatigue differently to the Giro that this stage is too hard is only evidence of how far cycling has sunk. Soon you'll be campaigning that Mont Ventoux is too hard unless we only have 50km flat before it, or that L'Alpe d'Huez is too hard. The Tour's legends built their names over massive multi-mountain stages, and it's only fair that in order to be seen on the same level, the present and future legends build theirs in the same way.

 

[webvan]

You don't need multiple HC climbs for legends to be born, look at what Bertie just did on a CAT 2, much more of a legend than these silly mountain goat climbs some get their panties in a twist about and where no one can go faster than 8 or 9 kph and where JRod sprints in the last 500 meters, yawn...

I'm surprised some experienced posters here still confuse the difficulty on paper with the difficulty in the field. It's well known that "racers make the race". If they soft pedal, it's easy, if some crazy mofo like Landis attacks in the first climb than the field gets decimated.

 

[airstream]

I'm surprised some experienced posters here still confuse the difficulty on paper with the difficulty in the field. It's well known that "racers make the race". If they soft pedal, it's easy, if some crazy mofo like Landis attacks in the first climb than the field gets decimated.

Exactly. I don't quite get what is difficulty on paper. How beautiful does a profile look like or what? A certain relation of forces or tactics can easily burn any fabulously profiled stage strictly speaking as we observe increasingly. Stages like Plateau de Beille and Pampeago will never be forgotten.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You don't need multiple HC climbs for legends to be born, look at what Bertie just did on a CAT 2, much more of a legend than these silly mountain goat climbs some get their panties in a twist about and where no one can go faster than 8 or 9 kph and where JRod sprints in the last 500 meters, yawn...

I'm surprised some experienced posters here still confuse the difficulty on paper with the difficulty in the field. It's well known that "racers make the race". If they soft pedal, it's easy, if some crazy mofo like Landis attacks in the first climb than the field gets decimated.

The contention was that a double of Joux-Plane and Morzine-Avoriaz would be too tough to include in the Tour. Which is patently nonsense. Yes, Contador took a cat.2 climb and completely turned a race GC upside down on it, but surely you can also see that that could never have happened without the difficulty of other stages? "The racers make the race" is too simplistic an approach. The course and the riders are both important. The riders can turn a great stage into a boring piece of crap (see the 2012 Giro for several examples), while all the attacking will in the world can't turn a totally worthless parcours into a good race (see the 2011 Worlds).

The way the riders race has changed over the years, and needs to be taken into account when designing routes. We may be in a fit of excitement about the way races are won and lost thanks to Contador's epic raid, but before that in 2012 we had two examples of how NOT to make a GT - in the Giro, everybody raced timidly and the race never really started and then was suddenly over. In the Tour, even where riders had all the intention of making the race in the world (see Nibali's and Evans' long range moves), the hopeless parcours meant that the moves were rendered irrelevant thanks to Sky's strength.

Either way, regardless of whether you think parcours is totally irrelevant to the quality of the race, a stage consisting of a 90km run-in then Joux-Plane and Morzine-Avoriaz is a long, long way from being too tough for the Tour.

 

[profff]

The contention was that a double of Joux-Plane and Morzine-Avoriaz would be too tough to include in the Tour. Which is patently nonsense. Yes, Contador took a cat.2 climb and completely turned a race GC upside down on it, but surely you can also see that that could never have happened without the difficulty of other stages? "The racers make the race" is too simplistic an approach. The course and the riders are both important. The riders can turn a great stage into a boring piece of crap (see the 2012 Giro for several examples), while all the attacking will in the world can't turn a totally worthless parcours into a good race (see the 2011 Worlds).

The way the riders race has changed over the years, and needs to be taken into account when designing routes. We may be in a fit of excitement about the way races are won and lost thanks to Contador's epic raid, but before that in 2012 we had two examples of how NOT to make a GT - in the Giro, everybody raced timidly and the race never really started and then was suddenly over. In the Tour, even where riders had all the intention of making the race in the world (see Nibali's and Evans' long range moves), the hopeless parcours meant that the moves were rendered irrelevant thanks to Sky's strength.

Either way, regardless of whether you think parcours is totally irrelevant to the quality of the race, a stage consisting of a 90km run-in then Joux-Plane and Morzine-Avoriaz is a long, long way from being too tough for the Tour.

+1

but, still, racers make the race.

 

[mb2612]

+1

but, still, racers make the race.

and actors make movies, but if the script is rubbish then no amount of acting will save the movie.

 

[OlavEH]

You don't need multiple HC climbs for legends to be born, look at what Bertie just did on a CAT 2, much more of a legend than these silly mountain goat climbs some get their panties in a twist about and where no one can go faster than 8 or 9 kph and where JRod sprints in the last 500 meters, yawn...

I'm surprised some experienced posters here still confuse the difficulty on paper with the difficulty in the field. It's well known that "racers make the race". If they soft pedal, it's easy, if some crazy mofo like Landis attacks in the first climb than the field gets decimated.

Of course; "racers make the race", but still it's very rarely you see really entertaining stages with fairly easy profiles with a 2.category finish. That's more the exception than the rule.

In most cases you need both; an interesting and demanding profile, AND aggressive riders. The ASO can contribute with the first part with interesting and demanding route. You don't need 6 HC or 1.category climbs and 5000 altitude meters on each mountain stage, but you definitely need a more interesting route profil than for example the 2012 Tour.

 

[cineteq]

and actors make movies, but if the script is rubbish then no amount of acting will save the movie.

bad comparison. apples and oranges? sorry, but the story is not the course profile.

 

[oddspam]

What's hardest is of course relative to speed. Saying that, I guess a quite objective way of measuring is to look at the amount of watt produced by the winner of the stage. By doing this, you take the speed into consideration. The same mountain stage will of course be less hard if the speed is lower.

What's difficult is another story.

Let Andy Schelck cycle side by side (not behind) with Cancellara pushing at 80% of his capacity over 100 kilometer of flats, and Andy will be toast.

Let him ride side by side with Cancellara pushing 80% of his capacity up Galibier, and Schleck will feel fine.

What's difficult for one rider might be easy for another.

That said: What's wrong about discussing TdF 2013 in this thread? It's plenty of rumors out there, and yesterday we got Mont Ventoux confirmed for July 14th. isn't that worth discussing?

 

[webvan]

Indeed, but that schedule had it on 14/07...where was that confirmed?