Vuelta a España 2012

[Parrulo]

The riders are the ones who are gonna make this parcours worth it or not. What we're seeing now, anyway, is that they're waiting for the last climb to attack. So be a little bit open minded.

but where are they supposed to attack if not for the last climb? because mostly there either isn't another mountain on the stage to attack or it has too much flat btw the second to last and last mountain. are you really expecting climbers to start attacking 50k out on the flat?

 

[Thomsena]

you don't seem to get it do you.

the route is pathetic, i am honestly not that bothered about the amount of TT k's tho another itt would be good imo but its not what ruins the route at all, what i really think its pathetic is how they handle the mountain stages, no mountain passes and just 1 climb at the end of a 150k stage. that won't create any gaps and we will get the same old groups of 5 or 10 riders getting to the last 1k together.

btw i would much rather have 6 proper mountain stages with 4 MTF and 2 downhill finishes then 10 MTF's. the rest of the days could be either flat or medium mountain/ hilly stages with potential to have some great racing btw the favourites and some chances for guys from breakaways to win

What do I not get? That people constanly moaning about pretty much everything in here - oh, I do get that.
It's the same every time. When they do have mountains passes then they are wrongly chosen, disrespected and irrelevant because they are either too far from the finish line or too far from the MTF and nothing happens. Then Andy and Berto goes from kilometres 1 and then it turns out to the perfect stage... It's a discussion to make AFTER the race whether the route was 'that pathetic'. It's laughable that you can decide how everything is going to turn out 8 months before the race has started and the starting riders are revealed. As always - no matter the route - it's the riders to create the race.

 

[Eshnar]

What do I not get? That people constanly moaning about pretty much everything in here - oh, I do get that.
It's the same every time. When they do have mountains passes then they are wrongly chosen, disrespected and irrelevant because they are either too far from the finish line or too far from the MTF and nothing happens. Then Andy and Berto goes from kilometres 1 and then it turns out to the perfect stage... It's a discussion to make AFTER the race whether the route was 'that pathetic'. It's laughable that you can decide how everything is going to turn out 8 months before the race has started and the starting riders are revealed. As always - no matter the route - it's the riders to create the race.

Stage 19 of last year tdf was pathetic on paper,and the race itself demonstrated that. Gc guys went berserk at the very start and the result was.... 70 riders together on the foot of L'Alpe.

 

[Another_Dutch_Guy]

Wow, what an amount of uphill finishes!

On one hand I like it, since the sprinting stages in the Vuelta are always boring, but on the other hand: this is to much. Take the Ancares - Covadonga - Pajares trio; I'm quite sure the climbers will only attack on the last of these because they want to spare energy.

The good news is: some stages involve more than 1 climb!

 

[roundabout]

Agreed about stage 19 of the TdF

I am however somewhat wary of being overly critical of this particular Vuelta route. It might be me being overly pessimistic, but signs point to difficulties in finding venues interested in hosting the race.

One thing that's inexcusable, period, is the stage to Andorra.

 

[greatking88]

Stage 19 of last year tdf was pathetic on paper,and the race itself demonstrated that. Gc guys went berserk at the very start and the result was.... 70 riders together on the foot of L'Alpe.

But ok stage 19 of the TdF was pathetic on paper, but wasn't it great to watch?? I think people should just wait and see how the race unfolds before sounding the death knell of the vuelta. Though I do agree, maybe if there was some nice climbs just before the final climbs it might make it more exciting but i suppose time will tell.

 

[Ryaguas]

They really want Contador to win it... The route is just perfect for him... If He rides it He would win it with his eyes closed and at 80% of his form...

 

[will10]

Well, looks like recording the last hour while I'm at work and watching that when I get back will be more than sufficient - not many epic days are there. Shame.

 

[Thomsena]

Stage 19 of last year tdf was pathetic on paper,and the race itself demonstrated that. Gc guys went berserk at the very start and the result was.... 70 riders together on the foot of L'Alpe.

Are you kidding me? Please tell me you are joking?

 

[Ferminal]

What do I not get? That people constanly moaning about pretty much everything in here - oh, I do get that.
It's the same every time. When they do have mountains passes then they are wrongly chosen, disrespected and irrelevant because they are either too far from the finish line or too far from the MTF and nothing happens. Then Andy and Berto goes from kilometres 1 and then it turns out to the perfect stage... It's a discussion to make AFTER the race whether the route was 'that pathetic'. It's laughable that you can decide how everything is going to turn out 8 months before the race has started and the starting riders are revealed. As always - no matter the route - it's the riders to create the race.

The route on paper is completely different to the race. You can still have a great race on a terrible route, and the other way. On paper the 2010 Giro is a strong route, but not as good as the race was. The racing of the 2011 Tour probably matched the expectations from the route. The 2011 Giro, probably underwhelming.

I do not see why that should stop anyone from commenting on whether or not a particular route matches their subjective "perfect route", which they feel leads more often than the others, to the best kind of racing. Otherwise what is the point of even looking at the route seven months before? Why even look just before a stage? No one can predict with absolute certainty on how the race is going to end up, an opinion of the route shouldn't be an absolute prediction of the race.

 

[Descender]

´

Punchy climbers who can ITT for the win

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...250px-Alejandro_Valverde-Octobre_2008_(2).jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0dGo55TST4jfR6Jn2u9GlP0A1Rs9zLdA7cvP8_Cq8FbyULBpa

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1AKDxhPHX6HQko7gxOFdhxxxTkrijfZlgg1HZm0No_alA70iSJ[/quote]

More like:

[img]http://news.velonation.com/Men/Road/Fm_Fz/original/Fuglsang_Jacobgdf10.jpg

This is the perfect route for second-tier riders.

I'm quite intrigued by the Mirador. Has that been used in the Vuelta before?

No. It's 2kms at 12%.

More of the ****ing same.

Ancares from Balouta if I'm correct?

Yes.

"Los muchos finales en alto se compensan con que hemos reducido kilometros y hemos quitado puertos de paso"
OMG
Poor Vuelta...

Epic. Epic stuff.

The riders are the ones who are gonna make this parcours worth it or not. What we're seeing now, anyway, is that they're waiting for the last climb to attack. So be a little bit open minded.

Lol what??

I know, we should just wait for them to attack on the 3rd cat climb 50kms from the start of the last climb...

Agreed about stage 19 of the TdF

I am however somewhat wary of being overly critical of this particular Vuelta route. It might be me being overly pessimistic, but signs point to difficulties in finding venues interested in hosting the race.

One thing that's inexcusable, period, is the stage to Andorra.

The economic difficulties account for some things, certainly. But even taking that into account most (all?) stages could have been much, much better. They've gone out of their way to make the stages as worse as possible.

Well, looks like recording the last hour while I'm at work and watching that when I get back will be more than sufficient - not many epic days are there. Shame.

The last hour? More like the last 10mins.

 

[Eshnar]

But ok stage 19 of the TdF was pathetic on paper, but wasn't it great to watch??

It was good.
With a proper design, it would have been epic.
Even a flat stage can be good if something happens. But it's not due to the route. It's just by chance.

 

[Eshnar]

Are you kidding me? Please tell me you are joking?

Did I say something untrue?

 

[Eshnar]

Well, looks like recording the last hour while I'm at work and watching that when I get back will be more than sufficient - not many epic days are there. Shame.

No need to record. There's Youtube for this Vuelta.

 

[Descender]

* 12 uphill finishes (out of 19 road stages). 13 if we count Viana.

* No stage above 200kms. Has that ever happened in a GT? I doubt it.

* No finish after descent. That must also be a first.


Call it what you like, but please, please don't call it a Grand Tour. If this is grand I'm a buddhist monk.

 

[Thomsena]

The route on paper is completely different to the race. You can still have a great race on a terrible route, and the other way. On paper the 2010 Giro is a strong route, but not as good as the race was. The racing of the 2011 Tour probably matched the expectations from the route. The 2011 Giro, probably underwhelming.

I do not see why that should stop anyone from commenting on whether or not a particular route matches their subjective "perfect route", which they feel leads more often than the others, to the best kind of racing. Otherwise what is the point of even looking at the route seven months before? Why even look just before a stage? No one can predict with absolute certainty on how the race is going to end up, an opinion of the route shouldn't be an absolute prediction of the race.

It's all good stuff. I agree with you. Of course we should commentate on the route. That wasn't what I meant about the 'after the race' discussion. The thing I just don't get that is how you can call this route pathetic and then turn your head over the Tour-thread and read that this is, funnily enough, also a pathethic route because of the lack of mountains. It's pretty much impossible to satisfy some people as I stated by saying.

 

[Eshnar]

"Para mis características hubiera preferido menos crono" Igor Antón.

EPIC!

 

[Thomsena]

Did I say something untrue?

Yeah, nothing happened on that stage. Imagine the likes of Berto, Evans and Andy attacking on the first mountain, unlikely to happen, but wouldn't it be amazing?

Oh.. wait?..

"Stage 19 of last year tdf was pathetic on paper,and the race itself demonstrated that"

What a laugh. Sorry, but it really is.

 

[Ferminal]

The thing I just don't get that is how you can call this route pathetic and then turn your head over the Tour-thread and read that this is, funnily enough, also a pathethic route because of the lack of mountains. It's pretty much impossible to satisfy some people as I stated by saying.

I think people who make such an argument have fairly sound reasoning to support their opinion. It's not just about mountains, flat stages or time trials, surely we can analyse deeper than this? It's the design of the stages themselves. It's the overall balance of the route. It's the location and concentration of the key stages within the three weeks. It's variety year-to-year, and not always sticking with the same formulae, be they successful or otherwise.

 

[Eshnar]

Yeah, nothing happened on that stage. Imagine the likes of Berto, Evans and Andy attacking on the first mountain, unlikely to happen, but wouldn't it be amazing?

Oh.. wait?..

"Stage 19 of last year tdf was pathetic on paper,and the race itself demonstrated that"

What a laugh. Sorry, but it really is.

Maybe you didn't get what I meant.
I did say that the race was good.
But the route was awful, and this was showed by the fact that, despite an amazing attacking racing by the gc guys, AT LEAST half of the peloton was still together at 14 kms from the line.
A stage like that, with 200+ kms and a couple of climbs more instead, what could have been? I'll tell you: AC and co. attack on the telegraphe, the peloton disappear and is every rider by himself at 70+ kms to go.

 

[Descender]

Maybe you didn't get what I meant.
I did say that the race was good.
But the route was awful, and this was showed by the fact that, despite an amazing attacking racing by the gc guys, AT LEAST half of the peloton was still together at 14 kms from the line.
A stage like that, with 200+ kms and a couple of climbs more instead, what could have been? I'll tell you: AC and co. attack on the telegraphe, the peloton disappear and is every rider by himself at 70+ kms to go.

Well said.

That stage was terribly designed, and that was evidenced by the fact that, despite the riders showing the most crazy-***, kamikaze attitude you are ever going to find, the shortness of the stage and the long stretch of false flat on easy roads brought the peloton back to the breakaway, frustrating their attack.

If the stage turned out to be any good, it was because of the riders, not because of the stage. I don't see how anyone can deny that.

I think it's a fairly straightforward piece of logic to say that, even though the riders' attitude obviously plays a big role, a well-designed route is likely to offer more spectacle than a badly-designed one.

 

[Thomsena]

Maybe you didn't get what I meant.
I did say that the race was good.
But the route was awful, and this was showed by the fact that, despite an amazing attacking racing by the gc guys, AT LEAST half of the peloton was still together at 14 kms from the line.
A stage like that, with 200+ kms and a couple of climbs more instead, what could have been? I'll tell you: AC and co. attack on the telegraphe, the peloton disappear and is every rider by himself at 70+ kms to go.

I didn't see your post above saying you thought it was a good race. I was referring to this quote' Stage 19 of last year tdf was pathetic on paper,and the race itself demonstrated that' and that's not entirely prasing the race is it? And ok- lets call 50-60 riders half the peloton. As i tried to state from the beginning it's up to the riders to create the race. That's why I think calling a route pathethic a tiny bit harsh tbh. Where the 1-2 stages in the pyrenees in the Tour11 pathethic? No, -at least I don't think so - but the riders made them pathethic.

 

[Kvinto]

Tbh the perfect route doesn't exist, but aspiration to perfection in designing of a route recuires its balance, but this route is far from being balanced. You can't design a good route using just one type of stages about 10 times (>200km stage with the only place to actually attack in final kms). Yeah, it's the riders who make a race interesting, I agree, maybe thay will animate the Vuelta 2012, but this animation may occur only on final ascents, so maybe it'd be wise to coverage the race only within this final 1-20km? The Tour route is million times better though it's far from perfection, but at least i get the idea of Tour organizers, while this Vuelta route doesn't have an idea at all.
1/10

 

[Eshnar]

I didn't see your post above saying you thought it was a good race. I was referring to this quote' Stage 19 of last year tdf was pathetic on paper,and the race itself demonstrated that' and that's not entirely prasing the race is it? And ok- lets call 50-60 riders half the peloton. As i tried to state from the beginning it's up to the riders to create the race. That's why I think calling a route pathethic a tiny bit harsh tbh. Where the 1-2 stages in the pyrenees in the Tour11 pathethic? No, -at least I don't think so - but the riders made them pathethic.

A route is "bad" when doesn't allow the riders to make the stage epic.
It's partially true that the riders make the race. If they don't feel like fighting, there's no route that can force them to do it. But if they DO feel like doing it, there are still plenty of routes that destroy their porpouse. And stage 19 was one of them.

 

[Descender]

I didn't see your post above saying you thought it was a good race. I was referring to this quote' Stage 19 of last year tdf was pathetic on paper,and the race itself demonstrated that' and that's not entirely prasing the race is it? And ok- lets call 50-60 riders half the peloton. As i tried to state from the beginning it's up to the riders to create the race. That's why I think calling a route pathethic a tiny bit harsh tbh. Where the 1-2 stages in the pyrenees in the Tour11 pathethic? No, -at least I don't think so - but the riders made them pathethic.

Fine, let's make 21 flat stages then.