• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Vuelta a España Vuelta a España 2023, stage 9: Cartagena - Collado de la Cruz de Caravaca, 184.5k

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
First climb gotta be one of the easiest Cat1 in a Grand Tour ever. Less than 5% on spectacular 11,5km (Official profile)? This makes Arcalis look like Zoncolan.
The easiest seen since 2013 by cyclingcols score (may have missed some, and a few have been cat. 2s in some editions and cat. 1s in others):

Beratón east (Vuelta 2015) - 291 (6.3k at 6.3% with a steepest kilometre of 6.9%, this one was hilarious)

Colladona south (Vuelta 2018) - 312
Montecopiolo short version (Giro 2014) - 316 [MTF]
Roccaraso short version (Giro 2020) - 316 [MTF]
Navafria north (Vuelta 2022) - 323

Colladona north (various Vueltas) - 328
Fito south (Vuelta 2022) - 342

Latrape west (Tour 2017) - 350
Laguna Negra (Vuelta 2020/3) - 350 [MTF]
Épine south (Tour 2013) - 357
Arrate classic side (Vuelta 2020 ) - 362 [MTF]
Feu west (Tour 2023) - 362
Alisas north (Vuelta 2016/7) - 367
Pedro Bernardo south (Vuelta 2019) - 369
La Perdiz south (Vuelta 2023) - 370

Cotos (various Vueltas) - 376
Piornal east (Vuelta 2022) - 376
Aravis south (Tour 2020) - 379
Morcuera north (Vuelta 2015/9) - 380
Cumbre del Sol (Vuelta 2015/7) - 381 [MTF]
Groba north (Vuelta 2013) - 386 [MTF]
Berthiand west (Tour 2016) - 387
Valdelinares (Vuelta 2014) - 397 [MTF]

Orcières (Tour 2020) - 403 [MTF]

Missing in cyclingcols, but would probably/possibly make this list: Campo Felice (Giro 2021) and maybe Pian del Falco north, short version (Giro 2016)

NB: Balcón de Alicante (Vuelta 2021) is at 353 in cyclingcols but that profile is missing the first third of the climb

So not that special (14 climbs ahead of it and probably 15 if I had a score for Campo Felice) and not even the easiest cat. 1 of the race, thanks to it being not that regular. It's still overcategorised, though.
 
Last edited:
The easiest seen since 2013 by cyclingcols score (may have missed some, and a few have been cat. 2s in some editions and cat. 1s in others):

Beratón east (Vuelta 2015) - 291 (6.3k at 6.3% with a steepest kilometre of 6.9%, this one was hilarious)

Colladona south (Vuelta 2018) - 312
Montecopiolo short version (Giro 2014) - 316 [MTF]
Roccaraso short version (Giro 2020) - 316 [MTF]
Navafria north (Vuelta 2022) - 323

Colladona north (various Vueltas) - 328
Fito south (Vuelta 2022) - 342

Latrape west (Tour 2017) - 350
Laguna Negra (Vuelta 2020/3) - 350 [MTF]
Épine south (Tour 2013) - 357
Arrate classic side (Vuelta 2020 ) - 362 [MTF]
Feu west (Tour 2023) - 362
Alisas north (Vuelta 2016/7) - 367
Pedro Bernardo south (Vuelta 2019) - 369
La Perdiz south (Vuelta 2023) - 370

Cotos (various Vueltas) - 376
Piornal east (Vuelta 2022) - 376
Aravis south (Tour 2020) - 379
Morcuera north (Vuelta 2015/9) - 380
Cumbre del Sol (Vuelta 2015/7) - 381 [MTF]
Groba north (Vuelta 2013) - 386 [MTF]
Berthiand west (Tour 2016) - 387
Valdelinares (Vuelta 2014) - 397 [MTF]

Orcières (Tour 2020) - 403 [MTF]

Missing in cyclingcols, but would probably/possibly make this list: Campo Felice (Giro 2021) and maybe Pian del Falco north, short version (Giro 2016)

NB: Balcón de Alicante (Vuelta 2021) is at 353 in cyclingcols but that profile is missing the first third of the climb

So not that special (14 climbs ahead of it and probably 15 if I had a score for Campo Felice) and not even the easiest cat. 1 of the race, thanks to it being not that regular. It's still overcategorised, though.
The cyclingcols algorithm really favors irregular climbs though.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
The cyclingcols algorithm really favors irregular climbs though.
Only metric for which a value is available for most GT climbs. I have better things to do than recalculate everything with a different metric. It isn't perfect but it's a reasonable indicator. Beratón as the most ridiculous cat. 1 also very much passes the eye test.

Also tomorrow's MTF only gets to 349 points despite being stupidly irregular, it's more accurate than you are suggesting.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Sandisfan
Only metric for which a value is available for most GT climbs. I have better things to do than recalculate everything with a different metric. It isn't perfect but it's a reasonable indicator. Beratón as the most ridiculous cat. 1 also very much passes the eye test.

Also tomorrow's MTF only gets to 349 points despite being stupidly irregular, it's more accurate than you are suggesting.
Maybe I phrase it wrong, but the poitns get really weird for the larger irregularities, like the Aubisque over the weird ass Soulor side getting more points than the normal hard side. It really favors climbs with descents in them like Croix de Fer. They also favor length more than steepness, but I guess my beef with that algorithm is way too specific to get into anyway
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
F5DZyLqXUAAEdP4
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Maybe I phrase it wrong, but the poitns get really weird for the larger irregularities, like the Aubisque over the weird ass Soulor side getting more points than the normal hard side. It really favors climbs with descents in them like Croix de Fer. They also favor length more than steepness, but I guess my beef with that algorithm is way too specific to get into anyway
Aubisque from the east has 3 kilometres averaging 8.5%, 4 averaging 8%, 5 averaging 7.5% and 1 averaging 6.5%, with everything else 5% or below.

Aubisque from the classic side has 3 kilometres averaging 9%, 4 averaging 8.5%, 1 averaging 8%, 1 averaging 7.5% and 2 averaging 7%, with everything else 5% or below.

So eliminating the kilometres that match each other, that's 3k at 8% plus 4k at 7.5% plus 1k at 6.5%, versus 3k at 9% plus 1k at 8.5% plus 1k at 7%. On a climb where those kilometres are uninterrupted, you'd have to say that is pretty even, and that is reflected by the cyclingcols score (890 versus 919 - that's a difference of about 3%). The problem is that Aubisque from the east is very clearly a climb where the irregularity makes it easier, but it's very hard to quantify when the irregularity makes a climb easier and when it doesn't, let alone the extent to which it does. And so that's a problem you're going to run into with pretty much every methodology, and therefore not that relevant a criticism of the cyclingcols one. For example, the APM coefficient, which is biased towards the really steep stuff, gives 255 (as per APM itself), 266 (as per Desdemispedales) or 269 (as per the Forociclista profile) for the classic side and 277 (as per RoCoBike) or 292 (as per an old APM profile on PRC) for the eastern side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Just for a laugh I'm hoping Poels gets into the break and takes the red jersey. Either that or just to see Horner's face, Soler somehow manages to take red.
Otherwise this is a poor stage for a Sunday on the first week. GC guys who are thinking of and preparing for the TT on Tuesday and the others (who should be listening to Ma Vingegaard about not doing back flips into the pool) who are just waiting for a day off.
Looks like a breakaway win with the GC guys all coming in together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Aubisque from the east has 3 kilometres averaging 8.5%, 4 averaging 8%, 5 averaging 7.5% and 1 averaging 6.5%, with everything else 5% or below.

Aubisque from the classic side has 3 kilometres averaging 9%, 4 averaging 8.5%, 1 averaging 8%, 1 averaging 7.5% and 2 averaging 7%, with everything else 5% or below.

So eliminating the kilometres that match each other, that's 3k at 8% plus 4k at 7.5% plus 1k at 6.5%, versus 3k at 9% plus 1k at 8.5% plus 1k at 7%. On a climb where those kilometres are uninterrupted, you'd have to say that is pretty even, and that is reflected by the cyclingcols score (890 versus 919 - that's a difference of about 3%). The problem is that Aubisque from the east is very clearly a climb where the irregularity makes it easier, but it's very hard to quantify when the irregularity makes a climb easier and when it doesn't, let alone the extent to which it does. And so that's a problem you're going to run into with pretty much every methodology, and therefore not that relevant a criticism of the cyclingcols one. For example, the APM coefficient, which is biased towards the really steep stuff, gives 255 (as per APM itself), 266 (as per Desdemispedales) or 269 (as per the Forociclista profile) for the classic side and 277 (as per RoCoBike) or 292 (as per an old APM profile on PRC) for the eastern side.
Most algorithms being bad doesn't make them not bad. There's no real incentive, so ofcourse they just make a simple formula that takes 2 seconds to put into a spreadsheet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan