Yeah, it would be interesting to compare. I'd guess that they are pretty similar in terms of money in and money out. CA has a big title sponsor in Amgen that surely pumps a lot of coin into it, CO has deliberately gone the more numerous, smaller sponsor route with the thinking being if one big sponsor that the race hinges on pulls out the whole race isn't in jeopardy.screaming fist said:California surely is bigger in terms of world wide coveraged, budget etc etc
Quite possibly it's just a case of the torch being passed. DZ had a good run but likely is past his prime. No one is immune, it happens to us all.robert_c said:My question is, does Dave Z have any chance at the US TT Championship next year? Or was this a bad parcours for him?
It depends who is in the field, but all things being equal it's hard to see him beating the likes of Phinney.robert_c said:My question is, does Dave Z have any chance at the US TT Championship next year? Or was this a bad parcours for him?
I think Tejay has passed him as well. Talansky probably isn't far off on his good days either.Zinoviev Letter said:It depends who is in the field, but all things being equal it's hard to see him beating the likes of Phinney.
Well, I'm not from your area and I liked it. I thought it was a great race. In today's final ITT, CVV did a great ride as did time trial winner mini-Phinney. Vangarderen too who took 3rd in the ITT.dgodave said:Good race overall. I enjoyed it a lot. (But I'm a biased local.)
.
Z has been working hard for his team during the week, it's a late in the season, short race, Phinney probably focusing a bit on this TT. I don't think Zabriskie was at his best, but of course he is getting older. Let's see next year.robert_c said:My question is, does Dave Z have any chance at the US TT Championship next year? Or was this a bad parcours for him?
The feed issues were so bad I would just zip to the last 15 minutes (DVR). They couldn't even cover the finish line well. They have a lot to learn.Zinoviev Letter said:The racing was pretty good, largely because Garmin were super aggressive. The TV coverage was very poor, with the feed regularly going down. The crowds however seemed huge and very keen.
You could make a case for it being the top race in the US, but it would be largely based on the crowds. They also have the right topography to make the best parcours, but they haven't really used it so far.
It would be interesting to find out what the problem is. It's not like covering cycling in the mountains is uncharted territory. You'd want to assume the NBC and whoever they contract out for a lot of the operations isn't incompetent. Maybe there is some issue that's inherent to the Colorado Rockies but I can't imagine what it is.alberto.legstrong said:The feed issues were so bad I would just zip to the last 15 minutes (DVR). They couldn't even cover the finish line well. They have a lot to learn.
You did not watch the whole race obaviously and still don't understand the effects the altitutde plays stopping aricraft flying at 18,000 feet into T-storms. You a typical Euro-centric and jump to false conclusion in your zeal to rant and run down anything here.alberto.legstrong said:The feed issues were so bad I would just zip to the last 15 minutes (DVR). They couldn't even cover the finish line well. They have a lot to learn.
Altitude, icing and and wind shear in very thin air. Aircarft typically have to fly higher here over moutains due to FAA regulations. Once you get above 15,000 ft. it's almost always hovering around 0C. Thunder storms can pull air down from even higher. On the stage to Beaver Creek, the aircraft were not even flying and they were using mountain top relays, which will fail if they loose line of sight.9000ft said:It would be interesting to find out what the problem is. It's not like covering cycling in the mountains is uncharted territory. You'd want to assume the NBC and whoever they contract out for a lot of the operations isn't incompetent. Maybe there is some issue that's inherent to the Colorado Rockies but I can't imagine what it is.
Strange because the USPCC folks and the partner organizations have otherwise done a top notch job.
Oh I understand all that. I live above - well, 9000'. I have also worked with helicopters so I'm familiar with what they can and can't do in high mountains. It seems though that other races have been able to cover other races in the mountains in poor weather. The altitude in the alps is lower, but mountain storm characteristics aren't that much different. More fixed relays in the Alps maybe? Maybe they hired a helicopter that isn't a good high altitude machine? (They need a Llama or similar machine) Not to mention, there were video feed issues even during clear weather which indicates to me that it was a hardware/software issue as much as weather.BillytheKid said:Altitude, icing and and wind shear in very thin air. Aircarft typically have to fly higher here over moutains due to FAA regulations. Once you get above 15,000 ft. it's almost always hovering around 0C. Thunder storms can pull air down from even higher. On the stage to Beaver Creek, the aircraft were not even flying and they were using mountain top relays, which will fail if they loose line of sight.
I once worked summers at a resort near 11,000 ft. Wild weather and wild temperature drops.
I think this will be the last post on it. People just want to believe what they want to believe.