Tour of California too hard??

[Anonymous]

Pretty interesting comparison.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/06/news/which-is-harder-comparing-power-meter-data-from-the-tour-de-france-and-the-tour-of-california_119551

"Now of course it goes without saying that the Tour de France as a whole is harder since it is three weeks long, but now we can see how the Tour of California is just as difficult as the hardest week of the Tour de France."

 

[benpounder]

...but now we can see how the Tour of California is just as difficult as the hardest week of the Tour de France..

No. What we see is that one non-mountain week of a typical GT is rivaled by the entirety of the ToC based upon power outputs of a few select riders. Hardly exaustive, and miles from comprehensive.

I happen to like the ToC, but I'd be a fool to compare it to a real GT.

 

[Anonymous]

No. What we see is that one non-mountain week of a typical GT is rivaled by the entirety of the ToC based upon power outputs of a few select riders. Hardly exaustive, and miles from comprehensive.

I happen to like the ToC, but I'd be a fool to compare it to a real GT.

Interesting to me is the author speculating how some riders may not show up next year if the ToC organizers make it harder. Meanwhile, the last week of the Giro was... hard.

 

[Jamsque]

There is a world of difference between how tough the course of a race is and how hard it is actually raced.

 

[benpounder]

Interesting to me is the author speculating how some riders may not show up next year if the ToC organizers make it harder.

At first I thought the scheduling change would be... counterproductive. But given that the organizers can now plan a decent week-long stage race with significant climbs, I think that some top echeleon riders, even non-US based, will opt to use the ToC as training for the TdF instead of risking the peril and punishment of the Giro. As will some DS's looking to encourage/reward those domestiques requisite for a successful TdF campaign.

In other words, Julich is blowing smoke out of his arse when he speculates that it may become too hard.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

There is a world of difference between how tough the course of a race is and how hard it is actually raced.

There's that, and there's how conducive a course is to good racing. Ask the Vuelta organisers, who made a very tough third week last year, only to find that the riders had nothing in the tank after the first two weeks.

The Big Bear stage was very tough because it featured a metric f-ton of climbing, but it was all over an enormous distance at 3-4%. This meant that it was hard to get separation, hard to break the race apart or create excitement, but it required as much energy to deal with it as a tough Tour stage.

My opinion was that, considering it has no history or tradition, the only way for California to make itself desirable to top racers not as a bit of a post-classics holiday but as a point of prestige on the palmarès, is to make it difficult enough that winning it is a challenge. Looks like they've got 'making it difficult' down pat, but they need to find a way to make the racing more entertaining, because Lance and his Omertà Inc. team won't be around forever.

 

[tifosa]

Cycling is a grueling sport. Those who ride have a kinship with suffering. And now there's talk of a race getting too hard?

When is "hard" ever a bad thing? <rhetorical question & deliberate double entendre>

 

[spanky wanderlust]

There's that, and there's how conducive a course is to good racing. Ask the Vuelta organisers, who made a very tough third week last year, only to find that the riders had nothing in the tank after the first two weeks.

The Big Bear stage was very tough because it featured a metric f-ton of climbing, but it was all over an enormous distance at 3-4%. This meant that it was hard to get separation, hard to break the race apart or create excitement, but it required as much energy to deal with it as a tough Tour stage.

My opinion was that, considering it has no history or tradition, the only way for California to make itself desirable to top racers not as a bit of a post-classics holiday but as a point of prestige on the palmarès, is to make it difficult enough that winning it is a challenge. Looks like they've got 'making it difficult' down pat, but they need to find a way to make the racing more entertaining, because Lance and his Omertà Inc. team won't be around forever.

i enjoyed watching levi get schooled in the art of stage racing. that was entertaining.

i don't understand why some are trying to compare the toc to a grand tour. any gt. it's a one week race ffs! get over yourselves.

for me it does not help to sell their product to try to overhype it. stupid.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Completely agree with Ben and LS. This year's ToC had one long, tough stage, the stage to BigBear. But while it had a lot of cumulative climbing, even the big final climb isn't that steep, there were only a spatter of short attacks - none of which lasted, and some 15 riders came into the finish at the same time because despite the organizers calling it a mountaintop finish, it was anything but. Remove that stage, and the rest of the race was easier than most any Dauphine or Suisse, or maybe even easier than Paris-Nice or Romandie. I'd also say easier than probably any Coors' Classic as well of you want an "American" comparison.

What this race was, was poorly designed from the start. We were arguing this months ago when the course was first announced. The way it was designed offered almost no drama. Despite a very long day with a lot of cumulative climbing, the race was quite frankly boring.

 

[dolophonic]

Just as well they don't give out the jersey to the guy with the most Kj's..
We saw the race, and we watched the Giro, i don't think we need a readout from a power meter to tell us which one was really at the sharp end..do we ?

 

[dolophonic]

+1 to what Alpe say's.. i checked my interest index numbers and the TOC was considerably down on the Giro...

 

[BroDeal]

If California is as hard as the Tour then the Tour of Utah must be as hard as the Giro.

 

[theyoungest]

I read more complaints that this race was just too hard. Maarten Tjallingii said that the Big Bear stage was just as tough as the toughest stage in last year's Giro. Which is probably the reason why we didn't get to see any exciting racing: the riders aren't willing to go that deep in a training race.

 

[Mellow Velo]

I don't doubt the Big Bear stage was too hard. It was a planning disaster. Endlessly climbing to 2400 metres, but with no recovery descents and no selective ramps.
A high mountain stage like this, without a proper climb is going to wear down most the field and not produce any significant time gaps.


As Alpe said, the course came under scrutiny, when it was announced and several posters pointed out at the time, that there appeared to be several design flaws.

So it proved.

We need the race to be more testing, rather than more gruelling.

I'm beginning to think that while California has the means and motivation, it may not have the route, due to it's road network.

 

[Roninho]

There is a world of difference between how tough the course of a race is and how hard it is actually raced.

Exactly. The TDF is famous for the intensity by which it is raced, with full on attacks and high tempo right from the start of the stage. I remember in the early 00's that Rabobank had a new kid called Wielinga, he had a good showing in the dauphinee during the climbs and was added to the Tour squad. Unfortunately he was totally overwhelmed with the pace on the flat and got dropped by the peleton even before the mountains.

The Giro on the other hand is known for (at least used to be known for) having more of a slow start of the stages and then hard climbing at the end.

Again, totally agree with Jamsque's quote, it all depends on how hard the racing is. And with most of the topriders not being in their best shape at this time of the year the race pace simply isn't comparable to a grand tour.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

... I'm beginning to think that while California has the means and motivation, it may not have the route, due to it's road network.

Not true Mellow. I used to live there, my parents live there, and I've driven all over the state and ridden up many of the big climbs there. While the majority of passes are of the 3,000' at 6% gradient (similar to Big Bear), there are plenty of roads that could split the peloton up, and they don't require riding all the way to and up Onion Valley road or Horseshoe Basin in the Sierras, or Mt. Shasta's Everett Memorial Highway (all certainly HC climbs). The issue is funding and sponsorship. In order to get to some of the better climbs, there has to be enough money and enough exposure. Riding for 100 miles along very remote forest roads with only teeny-tiny towns along the way is not an easy sell, so a delicate balance needs to be found. When this year's route was announced there were several of us that offered alternatives that would have made the racing more interesting, and didn't require some of the most remote (and brutal) climbs.

Someone from the ToC needs to come here later this year when planning for next year's edition happens. And they really, truly need to contact John Summerson and get his advice. He knows those roads and climbs better than probably anyone alive.

 

[BeachBum]

Not true Mellow. I used to live there, my parents live there, and I've driven all over the state and ridden up many of the big climbs there. While the majority of passes are of the 3,000' at 6% gradient (similar to Big Bear), there are plenty of roads that could split the peloton up, and they don't require riding all the way to and up Onion Valley road or Horseshoe Basin in the Sierras, or Mt. Shasta's Everett Memorial Highway (all certainly HC climbs). The issue is funding and sponsorship. In order to get to some of the better climbs, there has to be enough money and enough exposure. Riding for 100 miles along very remote forest roads with only teeny-tiny towns along the way is not an easy sell, so a delicate balance needs to be found. When this year's route was announced there were several of us that offered alternatives that would have made the racing more interesting, and didn't require some of the most remote (and brutal) climbs.

Someone from the ToC needs to come here later this year when planning for next year's edition happens. And they really, truly need to contact John Summerson and get his advice. He knows those roads and climbs better than probably anyone alive.

Alpe was saying this when they 1st announced the 2010 course last year, he was right then and he is right now. California has plenty of Euro-style HC climbs, but the ToC braintrust will have to go outside of their comfort zone to select any of them.

 

[benpounder]

Not true Mellow. ... The issue is funding and sponsorship. In order to get to some of the better climbs, there has to be enough money and enough exposure. Riding for 100 miles along very remote forest roads with only teeny-tiny towns along the way is not an easy sell.

Aint that the truth. There are many magnificant routes available here in western US. And they could be part of any race, if there were funding and sponsorship.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Potentially far more damaging than any worries over the course.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-hold-fast-to-protour-rules-excluding-continental-teams

Pat's globalisation of the sport will be on his own terms, or not at all, it seems.
Possibly putting the race out of next season's PT and back to HC?

 

[Ashtabula]

Potentially far more damaging than any worries over the course.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-hold-fast-to-protour-rules-excluding-continental-teams

Pat's globalisation of the sport will be on his own terms, or not at all, it seems.
Possibly putting the race out of next season's PT and back to HC?

The "Mellow Johnny's" legal fiction is going to need to be out in force, and maybe extended, or else people are just going to have to keep these worlds separate, with No. America's races being "Outlaw."

 

[richwagmn]

Potentially far more damaging than any worries over the course.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-to-hold-fast-to-protour-rules-excluding-continental-teams

Pat's globalisation of the sport will be on his own terms, or not at all, it seems.
Possibly putting the race out of next season's PT and back to HC?

McQuaid's an idiot. We all know that.

 

[philcrisp]

I don't doubt the Big Bear stage was too hard. It was a planning disaster. Endlessly climbing to 2400 metres, but with no recovery descents and no selective ramps.

A high mountain stage like this, without a proper climb is going to wear down most the field and not produce any significant time gaps.

If I may refer you to the results, with the odd exception in between, lead group, laughing group +28 minutes, falling around laughing group +31 minutes.

If the riders make the race, then it looks like plenty didn't. For comparison may I point you to the Ventoux stage of last year's Dauphiné (http://www.cyclingnews.com/races/63rd-criterium-du-dauphine-libere-upt/stage-5/results)

I'm beginning to think that while California has the means and motivation, it may not have the route, due to it's road network.

As I implied above, TOC, like any race making a name for itself, needs the riders to make it happen.

 

[montel]

We need the race to be more testing, rather than more gruelling.

I agree with this.

So with that in Mind, does anyone have any ideas for making it more testing?

I am in favor of some sort of tough hill top (high sierra mountains not required) near a large metro area. I think the final stage this year and the Santa Cruz stage were the best days of racing for spectators.

I had the idea of a stage from say Palo Alto to Santa Cruz with Bonny Doon used 2 times. What about true finishes on climbs like Mt. Diablo, Sierra, Quimby or Hwy 9 Saratoga side would work which are all in the Bay Area and would be mobbed.

Plus please no more boring time-trails like the Downtown LA one. There were way more spectators at Solvang the last 2 years...