Tour of Britain 2009

markwalker

http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk/


what do you think of that then?

whydoesitalwaysrainonme

Why did you post it twice?

Yorkman

Stage 1 is as flat as a witches tit.

Thats another year theyve missed out on some cracking climbs.

FJS

Looks terrible again; no TT (!!!) and no really selective climbing stage. Again a relative nobody in a coincidental breakaway will win the overall... missed opportunities.

greeny12

What's happened to the promised Norfolk stage????

I was bloody looking forward to that....

markwalker

greeny12 wrote:

What's happened to the promised Norfolk stage????

I was bloody looking forward to that....

Too many hills so late in the season

GroupOfOne MkII

greeny12 wrote:

What's happened to the promised Norfolk stage????

I was bloody looking forward to that....

That's on the 2010 Tour.

andyrac

FJS wrote:

Looks terrible again; no TT (!!!) and no really selective climbing stage. Again a relative nobody in a coincidental breakaway will win the overall... missed opportunities.

With the best will in the world, why would anybody want to do it? Why no ITT?

markwalker

Well presumably theyd want to do it because theyre paid to?

Teams with sponsors that do business in the UK might want coverage here perhaps?

Its the only uci stage race in the UK.

Most races dont have alpine stages or one day monument parcours anyway.

And finaly it takes place in the best country in the world.

markwalker

oops is girvan and the other premier calender stuff uci rated?

Also if i were a UK rider i would want to do it becuase Its a chance to ride in a different level event on home soil.

I guess there a re probably loads of reasons why someone would want to do it.

markwalker

And what is the benifit of an itt anyway? to be of practical use in seperating the pack it would need to be reasonably long and that would entail long road closures or the embarrasing spectacle of laps round goodwood or something. Its a short race anyway.
and it adds to the cost for teams and organisers for no sporting benifit. no itt is a good thing.

FJS

I think we disagree about ITTs and cycling in general then. An ITT or selective hilly stage (not talking about 'alpine', but just a challenging hilly stage in the Peaks, Lakes, Wales, etc.) that will give the top riders an opportunity to shine. If you're happy with people like Lequatre winning (no he wasn't the best last year, just lucky to be in a good break, with the other teams not interested enough to put him under pressure), fine, but I thought last year's GC was dissapointing. The ToB last years has had winners that I wouldn't think worthy of an important country's main event. If say Vansevenant would win the TdF because he got in a lucky break-away, and there were no mountains or TTs, that would be fun, but also somewhat dissappointing, right?
I realise not having a TT is related to road closure issues, but we have had TTs with closed roads in the UK before, and I know no other country anywhere else where it is apparently so difficult to even temporarily inconvenience car drivers. It's pathetic this country (which is indeed a very fine country in many other ways) isn't able to sort that out amongst all the token statements of promoting cycling.

GroupOfOne MkII

Incidently, I know some riders like the race because of the lack of a ITT, as they feel it gives them more of a chance. If there was an ITT of any length other than a prologue, there's a fair chance that it would be a case of control the race, win the TT, win the Tour. Not a good spectacle.

Besides, if it's a choice between having another road stage of a TT, I know which one I'd rather watch!

teagar

Surely the race reflects the style of racing in the UK?

I know a lot want continental style UK stage race, but that would make it as faceless as any Spanish and French week long stage race like Romandie or the Tour of the Basque, which, for me at least, were gigantic bore fests. At least it has its own charm.

FJS

GroupOfOne MkII wrote:

Incidently, I know some riders like the race because of the lack of a ITT, as they feel it gives them more of a chance. !

Sure, a less selective route = more of a lottery = more chance for weak riders. I rather see the best win than the luckiest one. It's sport, it's not supposed to give everyone an equal chance to win.

I agree that not having an ITT can be a good thing, provided there is something like a mountain (or seriously hilly) stage. But this route has neither.

markwalker

FJS wrote:

GroupOfOne MkII wrote:

Incidently, I know some riders like the race because of the lack of a ITT, as they feel it gives them more of a chance. !

Sure, a less selective route = more of a lottery = more chance for weak riders. I rather see the best win than the luckiest one. It's sport, it's not supposed to give everyone an equal chance to win.

I agree that not having an ITT can be a good thing, provided there is something like a mountain (or seriously hilly) stage. But this route has neither.

But a mountain stage in a short race like this would skew the likely outcome as much as a longer itt would. I do agree a hard day in cornwall or the peaks would make it a more interesting race, even better if there were 3 hard days

GroupOfOne MkII

FJS wrote:

I agree that not having an ITT can be a good thing, provided there is something like a mountain (or seriously hilly) stage. But this route has neither.

How do you know it doesn't have a seriously hilly stage? I think both the SW stages will be quite testing, ok no massive hills but continuously up and down. Last year's Somerset stage was truly brutal. None of the climbs would make a top ten hardest climbs, but coming one after another it made for a very tough stage and some of the best racing I've seen.

Also I would have though the Scottish stage could see a reasonable hill (a la Wanlockhead/Mennock Pass last year) and the Stoke stage looks as if it goes east of the city, so possibly into the Staffordshire Moorlands and Peak District, plenty of steep bits there!

I know it's always a disappointment that it doesn't go up Kirkstone Pass etc, but until a region/town/city/council put up the money, make provisions for some serious road closures, and say 'We want a stage held entirely in the Lake District' etc, then we won't get that spectacular stage. Personally I'd love to see a summit finish/hill top finish, like the one in Kendal two years ago but more remote, where there could happen with enough space for the finish infrastructure at the top (Great Orme possibly) and all the full road closures, I don't know, but again you really need a local authority to really want to make it happen I guess.

oldwelshman

May sound stupid, but at the level those riders are, the hills in the UK are not long enough to really challenge or split the field. The majority of the riders if they wanted to could do the climbs within the bunch.
If I recall rightly, even Cav broke away on one of the "climbs" one year

phreak

Bit here by Mick Bennet on the cost issues involved and the subsequent lack of real support for road racing in Britain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... risis.html

"Our police escort is 64 motorbikes and the police bill comes into the hundreds of thousands of pounds - many of these other organisations and promoters simply do not have the funding.

greeny12

GroupOfOne MkII wrote:

greeny12 wrote:

What's happened to the promised Norfolk stage????

I was bloody looking forward to that....

That's on the 2010 Tour.

Ah - OK thanks.

GroupOfOne MkII

Just been reading CW in Smiths and it says the Stoke stage is going up Gun Hill 8)

squired

One of the biggest things holding the race back, in my opinion, is the number of riders competing. I think the website mentions 96 riders. What other race in a developed country has so few riders? So potentiall we will have 64 police motorbikes and 96 actual bicycles... its stupid!

To be a proper Tour of Britain it needs decent stages in England, Scotland and Wales. It also needs some interesting climbs.