Tour of Britain Upgrade
The Tour of Britain has been promoted to 2.HC status, which is nice. I don't know what this means in practical terms.
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/road/a ... s-by-UCI-0
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/road/a ... s-by-UCI-0
Twitter: @RichN95
0
Comments
-
The commentators mentioned every 30 seconds, throughout the entire coverage, constantly, that radios weren't allowed in the category it was in, dunno if this changes anything?0
-
According to Wiki. eligible are:
UCI ProTeams (max 70%)
UCI professional continental teams
UCI continental teams of the country
National teams of the country of the organiser0 -
RichN95 wrote:The Tour of Britain has been promoted to 2.HC status, which is nice. I don't know what this means in practical terms.
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/road/a ... s-by-UCI-0
It becomes the 5th Grand Tour?
Maybe a stepping stone to the WT.
As it stands, the potential for a better quality field, but in mid-Sept, who knows?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Well deserved by Mick Bennett and his Sweetspot crew0
-
This is good news for the ToB, and recognition of the work put in over the years and the success of cycling and cyclists from GB. The downside would be if it reduces the space available for the UK conti teams.
As the ToB is a big reason for companies to sponsor UK conti teams, I feel the upgrade could be detrimental to the UK domestic scene if less of them get to race in ToB, reducing the appeal of sponsoring a team at that level. I hope that it doesn't though and the ToB continues to be a win-win for everyone.0 -
Congratulations to all those who have worked so hard on the Tour to achieve this.0
-
Greggyr wrote:This is good news for the ToB, and recognition of the work put in over the years and the success of cycling and cyclists from GB. The downside would be if it reduces the space available for the UK conti teams.
As the ToB is a big reason for companies to sponsor UK conti teams, I feel the upgrade could be detrimental to the UK domestic scene if less of them get to race in ToB, reducing the appeal of sponsoring a team at that level. I hope that it doesn't though and the ToB continues to be a win-win for everyone.
It doesnt necessarily mean less UK conti teams - at least according to Nick Bull over at the at the Comic. But I guess that all comes down to Sweetspot.
AN Post will miss out though as they're not UK.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Greggyr wrote:This is good news for the ToB, and recognition of the work put in over the years and the success of cycling and cyclists from GB. The downside would be if it reduces the space available for the UK conti teams.
As the ToB is a big reason for companies to sponsor UK conti teams, I feel the upgrade could be detrimental to the UK domestic scene if less of them get to race in ToB, reducing the appeal of sponsoring a team at that level. I hope that it doesn't though and the ToB continues to be a win-win for everyone.
It doesnt necessarily mean less UK conti teams - at least according to Nick Bull over at the at the Comic. But I guess that all comes down to Sweetspot.
AN Post will miss out though as they're not UK.
Yep. Assuming that Wiki quote is accurate this is good news as the one thing that worried me about going to HC was that home teams would miss out. Although a few of the UK based teams could easily not be there and still contribute as much as they have in recent years!0 -
Certainly the .HC status won't stop the British teams entering and it also allows for a larger field afaik. Only 100 or so riders did the ToB last year. Teams of 8 riders I think are permitted for .HC stage races while at the USA Pro Cycling Challenge there were 5 US Continental teams. It's up to the organiser who gets to race.0
-
I do hope that the Uk teams get a start, even if most don't feature too much.
In terms of the number of riders, is that controlled by the police and/or available hotel beds etc? Will the Police make any extra allowances given the higher UCI ranking?0 -
Just noticed that the Women's tour is in May - Vos has confirmed and Lucy Garner riding
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/26273617
but Britain has definately shrunk
:
The opening stage will be from Oundle to Northampton, while Leicestershire, Bedfordshire, Essex and Hertfordshire all host subsequent stages in the event, before the final stage finish in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.0 -
Until GB can get over a few back roads being closed for a few hours it will always have the same status (in real terms) ...
Finding more towns/counties that are willing to embrace the race (and the subsequent road closures) to allow a more varied parcours is the only thing that will move things forward ...0 -
It's the women's tour. Average stage < 100kms.
Sticking to part of the UK makes sense, unless you'd
prefer them making huge transfers each day."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Crankbrother wrote:Until GB can get over a few back roads being closed for a few hours it will always have the same status (in real terms) ...
Finding more towns/counties that are willing to embrace the race (and the subsequent road closures) to allow a more varied parcours is the only thing that will move things forward ...
It would be interesting if it were to expand to include other areas of GB. Cover some of the ground that the Giro Belfast start is going to cover* and a stage on IOM.
*Though a Tour of 'Britain' in Belfast could have political implications which nobody could be ar5ed with.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
^ Was referencing the entire content of the thread ...0
-
This is the bit where a pendant points out there's a difference between 'Britain' or 'Great Britain' and the 'United Kingdom'TailWindHome wrote:
It would be interesting if it were to expand to include other areas of GB. Cover some of the ground that the Giro Belfast start is going to cover* and a stage on IOM.
*Though a Tour of 'Britain' in Belfast could have political implications which nobody could be ar5ed with.Twitter: @RichN950 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10RichN95 wrote:
This is the bit where a pendant points out there's a difference between 'Britain' or 'Great Britain' and the 'United Kingdom'TailWindHome wrote:
It would be interesting if it were to expand to include other areas of GB. Cover some of the ground that the Giro Belfast start is going to cover* and a stage on IOM.
*Though a Tour of 'Britain' in Belfast could have political implications which nobody could be ar5ed with. 0 -
RichN95 wrote:
This is the bit where a pendant points out there's a difference between 'Britain' or 'Great Britain' and the 'United Kingdom'TailWindHome wrote:
It would be interesting if it were to expand to include other areas of GB. Cover some of the ground that the Giro Belfast start is going to cover* and a stage on IOM.
*Though a Tour of 'Britain' in Belfast could have political implications which nobody could be ar5ed with.
and a pedant has a field day ... :oops:0 -
RichN95 wrote:
This is the bit where a pendant points out there's a difference between 'Britain' or 'Great Britain' and the 'United Kingdom'TailWindHome wrote:
It would be interesting if it were to expand to include other areas of GB. Cover some of the ground that the Giro Belfast start is going to cover* and a stage on IOM.
*Though a Tour of 'Britain' in Belfast could have political implications which nobody could be ar5ed with.
That would be nothing more than pedantry for the sake of pedantry.
Chill. I'm aware of the difference and very aware of the political conations.
It wasn't like I misused statistics or anything “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
ad_snow wrote:
That's a pretty good summary.
I assume he thought better of trying to explain why some of "The South" was further north than "The North" “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:It's the women's tour. Average stage < 100kms.
Sticking to part of the UK makes sense, unless you'd
prefer them making huge transfers each day.
[Women's tour] - I know they need towns to host and see the logistic argument, I'm just expressing my disappointment that it is so geographically restricted. Heading (N)West to the peak district or Wales instead of south then it might have been more interesting, and a potentially in reach of a wider audience (including me).0 -
Mad_Malx wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote:It's the women's tour. Average stage < 100kms.
Sticking to part of the UK makes sense, unless you'd
prefer them making huge transfers each day.
[Women's tour] - I know they need towns to host and see the logistic argument, I'm just expressing my disappointment that it is so geographically restricted. Heading (N)West to the peak district or Wales instead of south then it might have been more interesting, and a potentially in reach of a wider audience (including me).
Guy Elliott last year on why this area and route:
'Receptive local authorities is one of the reasons for heading east, Elliott says. “It’s an area that has not been visited so frequently by the men’s Tour of Britain, but there’s a great appetite for cycling from the local councils. For example we get great support from Colchester for the Tour Series; last year the start of the Tour of Britain was in Ipswich.”
This region should also help keep the race interesting from a sporting point of view.
Elliott says: “We want to make sure that to start with the race is on flattish or undulating courses and in future years we will move towards more hilly region. We don’t want the race to be decided over one mountain with someone having five minutes lead.”
http://road.cc/content/news/89427-women ... and-venues0 -
If the Tour de France can start in Yorkshire then I'm sure the Tour of Britain could start in Northern Ireland! Or even Ireland for that matter.0
