Vuelta 2017:Stage 17: Villadiego - Los Machucos. Monumento Vaca Pasiega 180.5KM *Spoilers*

mfin

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

r0bh wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I'm going to say it, and I know it's not going to be popular: this climb shouldn't be in a top level bike race. The surface, gradient and narrowness make it ridiculous. There were motos falling all over the place due to the gradient, then getting in the way on the little downhill bit which was really narrow.
I don't mind steep climbs but all of the factors combined make it something that I don't think the riders should be put through.

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Add that to mental fans

Surely not far off that drones could replace motos for this kind of thing.

I don’t think the route was wrong in terms of surface, gradient or narrowness (the moto problems had to do with drivers, not surface, and I doubt there are more motos in the Vuelta than in the TdF) and there weren’t really that many fans compared to some TdF stages.
However, I like the idea of drones instead of motos and I wonder how feasible it is.

Issues with drones inc notoriously short battery life (30 mins), rubbish in heavily wooded areas, risk of drones falling, best way of them being operated tracking a fast moving event over long distances

That's not actually true. Just for one example of many - The General Atomics MQ-1 has been around for years, it can easily do a round 1,000 mile trip with a good 12 hours of circling.

mididoctors

Pross wrote:

I actually didn't think today's climb was that good. I was looking forward to it but the really steep sections seemed quite short and the riders didn't seem yo struggle like they do on the Angliru.

the angliru's steep bit is nearer the top after you have ground your way up kms of 10%+ ramps.
this thing is hard at the bottom and has resting steps ..

DeVlaeminck

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I'm going to say it, and I know it's not going to be popular: this climb shouldn't be in a top level bike race. The surface, gradient and narrowness make it ridiculous. There were motos falling all over the place due to the gradient, then getting in the way on the little downhill bit which was really narrow.

I don't mind steep climbs but all of the factors combined make it something that I don't think the riders should be put through.

Too right, what a circus, give me another flat time trial all day long. Entertainment, who needs it.

RichN95.

knedlicky wrote:

If talking of the sport on the whole and not just for the UK, I think a Nibali victory would be better because it would again show that the cycling equivalent of Mourinho-Chelsea tactics aren‘t always successful nor that the team with the most financial clout always wins.

But we already know that. Froome didn't win last year

knedlicky wrote:

Diversity in who wins is always better for any sport, and also at any level. It doesn’t mean the main contender field is any less but it shows anything is possible. That is more an incentive than always seeing the same person win.
On this forum, because so many people seem to dislike Nibali, a Kelderman win might be more acceptable, also a good incentive to younger professionals.

Froome and Nibaliu have both won four Grand Tours. I'm not sure how one is more diverse than the other. Nibali has won the Vuelta before, Froome hasn't. I would also dispute that diversity is always better for sport - Usain Bolt for example.

knedlicky wrote:

Publically-viewed sport is a form of entertainment, not just a case of proving who’s the strongest/best tactically, and Nibali, moreso Contador, and all those riders who succeed (or almost) in their breaks, entertain much more than Froome. I know Froome can't behave like Merckx did sometimes, times are different, but Froome's riding is not a good example for flair, initiative, or inspiration. The only admirable things about him are his dogged determination, and his ambition.

Are they more entertaining? I've seen Froome launch a surprise downhill attack at the Tour to win the stage, attack into the wind with Sagan, win mountain top finishes in the leader's jersey, do a 50km attack in Romandie, drop back on climbs and then come raring back. Remember most of the time he's in the lead. Contador very rarely attacked when in the lead. The only time I can remember him winning a mountain stage in a leader's jersey was the 2014 Vuelta after clinging to Froome's wheel all the way up two mountains.

knedlicky wrote:

Anyway, I don’t really understand this wish to win the Tour then the Vuelta. Is it that special? One could have done this years ago in reverse order (I don’t know if anyone did – Hinault perhaps?).
And one can still win the Giro then the Tour, which is probably the greater achievement.

Well, no-one has won back-to-back Grand Tours since 1998. I'd say it was special.

In recent years both Contador and Quintana have tried the Giro-Tour double. Both failed by a long way. No-one is going to try that again for a decade or two.
The Vuelta used to be viewed as a last chance saloon for those whose seasons had been disappointing and riders wanting two weeks racing before the Worlds. The joke used to be that whenever a big name abandoned the Tour the Vuelta organisers celebrated. Now, largely due to Froome, those who have succeeded at the Tour turn up for the Vuelta. The startlist has much greater quality than it did five or six years ago. A Froome double would enhance that. Being beaten by a man who was seen as past it at the Giro won't and might set the trend back.

mfin

Yep. People are quick to moan and their opinion of what makes a good stage never changes anything whatsoever. You get what you're given, you don't have to watch it and you have no right to be entertained anyway.

Bo Duke

Nice to see everyone went to bed happy !!!

StillGoing

dish_dash wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

dish_dash wrote:

meh... and of course only nice guys try to drop their team leader...

But come on... for the sport, wouldn't it be better if this Vuelta resulted in Nibali rather than Froome getting a fifth GT?

No. I think a Tour de France winner going on to win the Vuelta is better for the sport. It's not only a big historic achievement, it encourages more people to ride both for GC. Remember before Froome, Carlos Sastre was the only Tour winner ever to ride the Vuelta afterwards.

this basically

its a good race having the tour guys here...chance of payback in there too..or fading al la bardet ...who went wayyyyyyyyy deep in the tour.

Doesn't do much for the doping shadow over cycling for Froome to do the two on the trot. Esp with his back story.

Nibs winning makes him a more rounded rider.

Nibs and his taxi. I Don't see how it has any effect on any doping shadow over cycling when Froome has been very open with his tests. Give me a Froome or even Contador win over Nibali any day, given NIbs blatant willingness to cheat and then plead innocence.

ContrelaMontre

Nibali didn't plead innocence for the turbo sticky bottle

yourpaceormine

davidof wrote:

yourpaceormine wrote:

Crazy mad road.
Great win for Aqua Blue.
Bertie motopaced up that climb - s'pose inevitable as it is Spain (Robert Millar being misdirected so he didn't win the stage and probably the race).

My memory was that Millar was misdirected by a French gendarme in the 1988 Tour de France in the Pyrenees to Guzet Neige. In the '85 Vuelta he got worked over by the Spanish riders.

:oops: absolutely correct, my bad (as our cousins from the former colonies would say). :oops:

Richmond Racer 2

bobmcstuff wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

r0bh wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I'm going to say it, and I know it's not going to be popular: this climb shouldn't be in a top level bike race. The surface, gradient and narrowness make it ridiculous. There were motos falling all over the place due to the gradient, then getting in the way on the little downhill bit which was really narrow.
I don't mind steep climbs but all of the factors combined make it something that I don't think the riders should be put through.

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Add that to mental fans

Surely not far off that drones could replace motos for this kind of thing.

I don’t think the route was wrong in terms of surface, gradient or narrowness (the moto problems had to do with drivers, not surface, and I doubt there are more motos in the Vuelta than in the TdF) and there weren’t really that many fans compared to some TdF stages.
However, I like the idea of drones instead of motos and I wonder how feasible it is.

Issues with drones inc notoriously short battery life (30 mins), rubbish in heavily wooded areas, risk of drones falling, best way of them being operated tracking a fast moving event over long distances

Key term there in r0bh's post is "not far off" - think how much consumer drones have improved even in the last couple of years.

Clearly there are some issues still which make them difficult to use but looking at the rate of improvement (battery life/controls etc) it might only be a couple of years or so when they become a reasonable option. There's some drones around today which do a passable job of "follow-me" tracking.

Was chatting with an acquaintance who's a pro cameraman t'other day. He loves his drone for personal stuff, but reckons things are still always off from drones being able to replace in bike racing. Supplement here and now - yeah.

But I'm sure he'll be proved wrong

Richmond Racer 2

Bo Duke wrote:

Nice to see everyone went to bed happy !!!

I though the racing was great. And l enjoyed Bertie loads. And the Aqua Blue win was uplifting. Mr Nibbles taking a chunk out of Froome was the sprinkles on my trifle

mrb123

RichN95 wrote:

knedlicky wrote:

If talking of the sport on the whole and not just for the UK, I think a Nibali victory would be better because it would again show that the cycling equivalent of Mourinho-Chelsea tactics aren‘t always successful nor that the team with the most financial clout always wins.

But we already know that. Froome didn't win last year

knedlicky wrote:

Diversity in who wins is always better for any sport, and also at any level. It doesn’t mean the main contender field is any less but it shows anything is possible. That is more an incentive than always seeing the same person win.
On this forum, because so many people seem to dislike Nibali, a Kelderman win might be more acceptable, also a good incentive to younger professionals.

Froome and Nibaliu have both won four Grand Tours. I'm not sure how one is more diverse than the other. Nibali has won the Vuelta before, Froome hasn't. I would also dispute that diversity is always better for sport - Usain Bolt for example.

knedlicky wrote:

Publically-viewed sport is a form of entertainment, not just a case of proving who’s the strongest/best tactically, and Nibali, moreso Contador, and all those riders who succeed (or almost) in their breaks, entertain much more than Froome. I know Froome can't behave like Merckx did sometimes, times are different, but Froome's riding is not a good example for flair, initiative, or inspiration. The only admirable things about him are his dogged determination, and his ambition.

Are they more entertaining? I've seen Froome launch a surprise downhill attack at the Tour to win the stage, attack into the wind with Sagan, win mountain top finishes in the leader's jersey, do a 50km attack in Romandie, drop back on climbs and then come raring back. Remember most of the time he's in the lead. Contador very rarely attacked when in the lead. The only time I can remember him winning a mountain stage in a leader's jersey was the 2014 Vuelta after clinging to Froome's wheel all the way up two mountains.

knedlicky wrote:

Anyway, I don’t really understand this wish to win the Tour then the Vuelta. Is it that special? One could have done this years ago in reverse order (I don’t know if anyone did – Hinault perhaps?).
And one can still win the Giro then the Tour, which is probably the greater achievement.

Well, no-one has won back-to-back Grand Tours since 1998. I'd say it was special.

In recent years both Contador and Quintana have tried the Giro-Tour double. Both failed by a long way. No-one is going to try that again for a decade or two.
The Vuelta used to be viewed as a last chance saloon for those whose seasons had been disappointing and riders wanting two weeks racing before the Worlds. The joke used to be that whenever a big name abandoned the Tour the Vuelta organisers celebrated. Now, largely due to Froome, those who have succeeded at the Tour turn up for the Vuelta. The startlist has much greater quality than it did five or six years ago. A Froome double would enhance that. Being beaten by a man who was seen as past it at the Giro won't and might set the trend back.

This. Excellent post.

blazing_saddles

Drones: Pray, how are they going to replace the security bikes?
A drone would not have saved Geraint Thomas's Giro.

salsiccia1

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I'm going to say it, and I know it's not going to be popular: this climb shouldn't be in a top level bike race. The surface, gradient and narrowness make it ridiculous. There were motos falling all over the place due to the gradient, then getting in the way on the little downhill bit which was really narrow.

I don't mind steep climbs but all of the factors combined make it something that I don't think the riders should be put through.

Too right, what a circus, give me another flat time trial all day long. Entertainment, who needs it.

Well done on totally missing the point.

The racing was good, the risk to riders wasn't.

shazzz

RichN95 wrote:

...

knedlicky wrote:

Anyway, I don’t really understand this wish to win the Tour then the Vuelta. Is it that special? One could have done this years ago in reverse order (I don’t know if anyone did – Hinault perhaps?).
And one can still win the Giro then the Tour, which is probably the greater achievement.

Well, no-one has won back-to-back Grand Tours since 1998. I'd say it was special.

In recent years both Contador and Quintana have tried the Giro-Tour double. Both failed by a long way. No-one is going to try that again for a decade or two.

...

I reckon Froome will try the Giro-Tour double in 2019. If he wins the Vuelta this year and if he wins the Tour in 2018 (followed by a jaunt around Britain in Sept 2018).

r0bh

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Drones: Pray, how are they going to replace the security bikes?
A drone would not have saved Geraint Thomas's Giro.

How many security bikes did you see on the final climb yesterday versus how many tv/photo motos did you see? My perception (which may or may not be correct) is that either there are more motos on la Vuelta than on le Tour and/or they are less well controlled. It's pretty common to see a cavalcade of motos around the lead rider on la Vuelta, so much so that it's sometimes hard to pick out the rider! I just don't remember seeing the same thing at le Tour in recent years.

RichN95.

shazzz wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

...

knedlicky wrote:

Anyway, I don’t really understand this wish to win the Tour then the Vuelta. Is it that special? One could have done this years ago in reverse order (I don’t know if anyone did – Hinault perhaps?).
And one can still win the Giro then the Tour, which is probably the greater achievement.

Well, no-one has won back-to-back Grand Tours since 1998. I'd say it was special.

In recent years both Contador and Quintana have tried the Giro-Tour double. Both failed by a long way. No-one is going to try that again for a decade or two.

...

I reckon Froome will try the Giro-Tour double in 2019. If he wins the Vuelta this year and if he wins the Tour in 2018 (followed by a jaunt around Britain in Sept 2018).

I reckon his Grand Tour winning days will be all but over in 2019.

salsiccia1

shazzz wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

...

knedlicky wrote:

Anyway, I don’t really understand this wish to win the Tour then the Vuelta. Is it that special? One could have done this years ago in reverse order (I don’t know if anyone did – Hinault perhaps?).
And one can still win the Giro then the Tour, which is probably the greater achievement.

Well, no-one has won back-to-back Grand Tours since 1998. I'd say it was special.

In recent years both Contador and Quintana have tried the Giro-Tour double. Both failed by a long way. No-one is going to try that again for a decade or two.

...

I reckon Froome will try the Giro-Tour double in 2019. If he wins the Vuelta this year and if he wins the Tour in 2018 (followed by a jaunt around Britain in Sept 2018).

You might be right, but I think it'll be too late by then. I think we're already seeing the beginning of the decline (he is 32).

If he wins this Vuelta (still a pretty big if at the moment) I'd like to see him give the Giro a go next year, to try and hold all 3 GTs at the same time. It won't happen though because
a: he'll obviously want to go for a 5th Tour next year
b: he'd be worried about the weather in the mountains of Italy at that time of year.

RonB

More likely to be tempted if the Giro parcours comes up with a fair chunk of TT and long slog MTFs rather than walls. Soon to be announced I think.

Still a very long-shot though.

RichN95.

There's as much chance of Froome doing the Giro next year as there is of me doing it

ContrelaMontre

This debate about who would be a better winner, Froome or Nibali, misses the point.

Neither is particularly better for the sport unless you're a Froomedog fanboy or a Squalo tifoso. The fact that for the third GT in succession we have the race coming down to the final weekend is great. If Froome was 3 or 4 minutes ahead that would be terrible, because there would be no sense of jeopardy.

And if Froome loses by a matter of seconds it hardly rules out someone trying the Tour-Vuelta double in future, as if he can finish in the top three it shows that the double is 'possible' if improbable.

r0bh

RichN95 wrote:

There's as much chance of Froome doing the Giro next year as there is of me doing it

You could probably get a "pay to ride" deal at Cannondale-Drapac

mrb123

Froome has to be worried about the Angliru after yesterday. I suspect of all the climbs in world cycling he'd choose to defend a narrow lead on, that would be about bottom of the list.

rick_chasey

So consensus seems to be Froome is ill.


Makes sense.

ContrelaMontre

MrB123 wrote:

Froome has to be worried about the Angliru after yesterday. I suspect of all the climbs in world cycling he'd choose to defend a narrow lead on, that would be about bottom of the list.

And of all the riders to defend that narrow lead against, I think Nibali would be near the bottom of the list too.

kingstongraham

I saw one moto start to topple over on the hill, were they falling over all over the place?

The moto getting in the way on the descent was bad, but that is nothing to do with the steepness of the uphill bit is it?

DeVlaeminck

Salsiccia1 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I'm going to say it, and I know it's not going to be popular: this climb shouldn't be in a top level bike race. The surface, gradient and narrowness make it ridiculous. There were motos falling all over the place due to the gradient, then getting in the way on the little downhill bit which was really narrow.

I don't mind steep climbs but all of the factors combined make it something that I don't think the riders should be put through.

Too right, what a circus, give me another flat time trial all day long. Entertainment, who needs it.

Well done on totally missing the point.

The racing was good, the risk to riders wasn't.

No you miss the point, professional cycling exists because people want to watch it, yesterday was a compelling stage and I didn't see any great risk to riders caused by them having to climb a steep hill at the end. The road wasn't even that narrow and what was wrong with the surface - if you watch the classics yesterday's route wouldn't merit a raised eyebrow other than for the gradient.

As for motos falling over all over the place - I saw one stop and tip over.

salsiccia1

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I'm going to say it, and I know it's not going to be popular: this climb shouldn't be in a top level bike race. The surface, gradient and narrowness make it ridiculous. There were motos falling all over the place due to the gradient, then getting in the way on the little downhill bit which was really narrow.

I don't mind steep climbs but all of the factors combined make it something that I don't think the riders should be put through.

Too right, what a circus, give me another flat time trial all day long. Entertainment, who needs it.

Well done on totally missing the point.

The racing was good, the risk to riders wasn't.

No you miss the point, professional cycling exists because people want to watch it, yesterday was a compelling stage and I didn't see any great risk to riders caused by them having to climb a steep hill at the end. The road wasn't even that narrow and what was wrong with the surface - if you watch the classics yesterday's route wouldn't merit a raised eyebrow other than for the gradient.

As for motos falling over all over the place - I saw one stop and tip over.

I've missed my point? Thanks for making me aware of that.

DeVlaeminck

Salsiccia1 wrote:

I've missed my point? Thanks for making me aware of that.

If you need it spelling out, racing on wide, well surfaced climbs of reasonable gradient rarely produces the excitement we saw yesterday.

Yes there is some increased risk but this is professional sport and it relies on attracting viewers otherwise the riders will be paying to race like I have to.

Richmond Racer 2

I bloody loved it