That would be fun to see.Egan Bernal from the break.
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
That would be fun to see.Egan Bernal from the break.
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):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 cyclingcols algorithm really favors irregular climbs though.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.
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.The cyclingcols algorithm really favors irregular climbs though.
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 anywayOnly 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.
That would be fun to see.
Unfortunately that could be true.unfortunately G will probably make him stick around to help him defend 22nd on GC
Only if he knows 100% it is for the stage win, otherwise he soft pedals...Remco for the stage win
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.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
Likely Roglič to try.
Again, He can't. He needs to protect Thomas position!Egan Bernal from the break.
Break for the win.
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.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.