10 years in, verdict on the new Flanders route?
Comments
-
This ^.rick_chasey said:I also don't like loops in races generally.
Fleche wallonne with it's 3 laps is ridiculous.
One final ascent up the Muur is sufficient.
If you're going to have a crit/kermesse have a crit/kermesse not have a road race tour crit kermesse loop thingy.
A to B. Simple.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
MvdP couldn't follow because he had punctured, crashed and chased back on; not because Bettiol was actually stronger that day. I honestly don't think he was. Subsequent editions prove that point at least a little bit.PTP Champion 2019, 2022 & 20230
-
I'm not really against the strongest riders winning, but I thought about this in the context of "how could Pogacar win this?"
He needed to have a point where riders that might have been able to follow waited for someone else to close the gap. But only mvdp could follow so that never happened.
I'm not sure though that it's the route that's "too hard" or that it's how the strongest race it now - making it hard early to weed out the weaker riders, and putting in huge power on pretty much every climb. There's possibly even a cyclo-cross feel to it, with major efforts and short recoveries. Do riders have more matches to burn these days?Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Good to know that you prefer MSR to Flanders.rick_chasey said:
Mmm i dunno.50x11 said:So you think it's too hard and the strongest rider wins? Isn't this the way the classics should be? Also Ddravvers post shows you're talking poop anyway, multiple solo wins in last 10 years.
MSR is certainly not always about the strongest rider by any stretch.
I guess what I'm trying to say, imagine knowing at the start line exactly who's gonna be the strongest riders, in order, on that day.
The old route, I'd say anyone in that top 15 strongest on the day could have a realistic chance to win.
On this route, I'd say it's only really the top 3 save for crashes or bad luck.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
With "lesser classics riders", GVA and Sagan just behind.rick_chasey said:
Eh? Kristoff was in a different league to everyone that year for that whole fortnight.blazing_saddles said:It’s all irrelevant in any case.
As I pointed out, Kristoff has won on this course.
No way would he be considered the strongest, especially over the climbs.
His forte is being extremely durable.
Blows the Nuyens theory, whatever that actually is, out of the water.
He shook everyone bar Terpstra off and rinsed him in the sprint.
You're not just shifting the goal posts now, but putting them back in the shed.
At this point I will point out that Valentin Maduoas finished on the same time as MvDP and Fred Wright was within 11 seconds.
You should have stuck on: "I don't like loops.""Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Honestly, I am so confused. Am I writing something different to what I think I am writing?
I say things and people are going "no" and then giving the exact reason why I am saying it.
0 -
Although the front two lost about 30 seconds in the last 1.5kmblazing_saddles said:
At this point I will point out that Valentin Maduoas finished on the same time as MvDP and Fred Wright was within 11 seconds.
."Twitter: @RichN950 -
Shouldn't the Muur Van Geraardsbergen be in the parcours late for style reasons? Ever since Cancellara's dropping of Boonen, it seems like a must towards the end of the race.PTP Champion 2019, 2022 & 20230
-
I think there's probably a touch of confusion between strongest riders (in general) and strongest riders on the day. As I read it, your argument is that the race is generally won by raw strength (apart from a bit of nous in the 2 or 3 up sprint), rather than by cunning and tactics. Obv. you can also have strong riders making tactical blunders, but you don't get weaker riders winning from a tactical stroke of genius. I think it's a fair assessment, but I don't know if it was ever really different.rick_chasey said:Honestly, I am so confused. Am I writing something different to what I think I am writing?
I say things and people are going "no" and then giving the exact reason why I am saying it.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
That was my take too: Rick is saying that the slightly easier finish made the final group a bit less selective, so increasing the chances the win going to an outlier.No_Ta_Doctor said:
I think there's probably a touch of confusion between strongest riders (in general) and strongest riders on the day. As I read it, your argument is that the race is generally won by raw strength (apart from a bit of nous in the 2 or 3 up sprint), rather than by cunning and tactics. Obv. you can also have strong riders making tactical blunders, but you don't get weaker riders winning from a tactical stroke of genius. I think it's a fair assessment, but I don't know if it was ever really different.rick_chasey said:Honestly, I am so confused. Am I writing something different to what I think I am writing?
I say things and people are going "no" and then giving the exact reason why I am saying it.
Possibly this true, but as you suggest ever really that different? I would say not, when Boonen and Cancellara were in their prime.
Then it was two riders and now, including Pogacar, we have four.
It's also true that Nick Nuyens was a savvy racer. However, it's worth remembering that he also finished second in the Ronde and the only cobbled race of note he failed to win during his career, was E3.
Small margins.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Not a fan of World Champs then?pinno said:
This ^.rick_chasey said:I also don't like loops in races generally.
Fleche wallonne with it's 3 laps is ridiculous.
One final ascent up the Muur is sufficient.
If you're going to have a crit/kermesse have a crit/kermesse not have a road race tour crit kermesse loop thingy.
A to B. Simple.0 -
The Poggio always works great in MSR, why not make a loop and do it three times?Pross said:
Not a fan of World Champs then?pinno said:
This ^.rick_chasey said:I also don't like loops in races generally.
Fleche wallonne with it's 3 laps is ridiculous.
One final ascent up the Muur is sufficient.
If you're going to have a crit/kermesse have a crit/kermesse not have a road race tour crit kermesse loop thingy.
A to B. Simple.0 -
The crux of this discussion is that the unspoken and unpleasant reality is that one day* cycling is 99% one semi-strong guy making a cheeky move whilst the others are looking the wrong way and then at each other to chase or no cheeky move and a sprint.
That's what makes the last few kms of GW so good.
(* to be honest I'm being kind by limiting it to one day...)We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Is there a correlation where loops favour the strongest?
I don't think so.
The worlds are special (and different).Pross said:
Not a fan of World Champs then?pinno said:
This ^.rick_chasey said:I also don't like loops in races generally.
Fleche wallonne with it's 3 laps is ridiculous.
One final ascent up the Muur is sufficient.
If you're going to have a crit/kermesse have a crit/kermesse not have a road race tour crit kermesse loop thingy.
A to B. Simple.
We're talking about the classics.
RVV did not have loops until 2012 (from what I can gather)
LBL - is a straightforward there and back loop.
PR - a to b
MSR a to b
Fleche wallonne - not always had loops
Lombardy - 1 big loop.
Omloop (het volk) - 1 big meandering loop.
GW - no loops until 2008
Harelbeke - a to b
It seems to be a more modern incarnation of the races to add finishing loops and it doesn't add anything.
Imagine adding 3 climbs of the Poggio or 2 loops at the end of PR?
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
So, twice over the Camphin-en-Pévèle and Carrefour de l’Arbre sectors.pinno said:Is there a correlation where loops favour the strongest?
I don't think so.
The worlds are special (and different).Pross said:
Not a fan of World Champs then?pinno said:
This ^.rick_chasey said:I also don't like loops in races generally.
Fleche wallonne with it's 3 laps is ridiculous.
One final ascent up the Muur is sufficient.
If you're going to have a crit/kermesse have a crit/kermesse not have a road race tour crit kermesse loop thingy.
A to B. Simple.
We're talking about the classics.
RVV did not have loops until 2012 (from what I can gather)
LBL - is a straightforward there and back loop.
PR - a to b
MSR a to b
Fleche wallonne - not always had loops
Lombardy - 1 big loop.
Omloop (het volk) - 1 big meandering loop.
GW - no loops until 2008
Harelbeke - a to b
It seems to be a more modern incarnation of the races to add finishing loops and it doesn't add anything.
Imagine adding 3 climbs of the Poggio or 2 loops at the end of PR?
What's not to like?
(I agree on the pointless Poggio loops)
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Yeah.blazing_saddles said:
So, twice over the Camphin-en-Pévèle and Carrefour de l’Arbre sectors.
What's not to like?
(I agree on the pointless Poggio loops)
Joking aside. PR remains iconic and how much of that is down to a route that really doesn't change much since the start was moved to Compiegne? (not that RVV isn't iconic).
[ a la Hatch] "They're going up the Oude de kwaremont, it's the iconic place where dreams are made of. Is this the place where somebody is going to launch an attack and become a legend?"
Tick tock tick tock...
"They're going up the Oude de kwaremont for the second time, it's the iconic place where dreams are made of. Is this the place where somebody is going to launch an attack and become a legend?"
Tick tock tick tock...
"They're going up the Oude de kwaremont for the third time, it's the iconic place where dreams are made of. Is this the place where somebody is going to launch an attack and become a legend?"
seanoconn - gruagach craic!1 -
I think that if the route can achieve the distance without repeated sections, and Flanders patently can, then it should be single passes of each one. It did so before and only does so now so that it can charge some punters money.pinno said:
This ^.rick_chasey said:I also don't like loops in races generally.
Fleche wallonne with it's 3 laps is ridiculous.
One final ascent up the Muur is sufficient.
If you're going to have a crit/kermesse have a crit/kermesse not have a road race tour crit kermesse loop thingy.
A to B. Simple.0 -
It could be about television coverage where you can install stationary cameras. I dunno.
But that's insufficient justification.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
How many laps of the velodrome do they do?pinno said:Is there a correlation where loops favour the strongest?
I don't think so.
The worlds are special (and different).Pross said:
Not a fan of World Champs then?pinno said:
This ^.rick_chasey said:I also don't like loops in races generally.
Fleche wallonne with it's 3 laps is ridiculous.
One final ascent up the Muur is sufficient.
If you're going to have a crit/kermesse have a crit/kermesse not have a road race tour crit kermesse loop thingy.
A to B. Simple.
We're talking about the classics.
RVV did not have loops until 2012 (from what I can gather)
LBL - is a straightforward there and back loop.
PR - a to b
MSR a to b
Fleche wallonne - not always had loops
Lombardy - 1 big loop.
Omloop (het volk) - 1 big meandering loop.
GW - no loops until 2008
Harelbeke - a to b
It seems to be a more modern incarnation of the races to add finishing loops and it doesn't add anything.
Imagine adding 3 climbs of the Poggio or 2 loops at the end of PR?0 -
There were an awful lot of punters in those hospitality areas, as Andy says that must be a factor0
-
I once read someone in the internet (ergo, it must be true) that RVV sells tickets not just at the finish line, and by making repeated loops around, e.g. Oude Kwaremont, seats become more valuable.pinno said:It could be about television coverage where you can install stationary cameras. I dunno.
But that's insufficient justification.
Again, not my argument, and I ignore whether RVV sells tickets for other than the finish line, but could be a point.1 -
One and a half. Doesn't compare to say... 68km's (4 loops IIRC) of Shelderprijs or the loops at the end of Fleche Wallonne/Flanders.phreak said:
How many laps of the velodrome do they do?pinno said:Is there a correlation where loops favour the strongest?
I don't think so.
The worlds are special (and different).Pross said:
Not a fan of World Champs then?pinno said:
This ^.rick_chasey said:I also don't like loops in races generally.
Fleche wallonne with it's 3 laps is ridiculous.
One final ascent up the Muur is sufficient.
If you're going to have a crit/kermesse have a crit/kermesse not have a road race tour crit kermesse loop thingy.
A to B. Simple.
We're talking about the classics.
RVV did not have loops until 2012 (from what I can gather)
LBL - is a straightforward there and back loop.
PR - a to b
MSR a to b
Fleche wallonne - not always had loops
Lombardy - 1 big loop.
Omloop (het volk) - 1 big meandering loop.
GW - no loops until 2008
Harelbeke - a to b
It seems to be a more modern incarnation of the races to add finishing loops and it doesn't add anything.
Imagine adding 3 climbs of the Poggio or 2 loops at the end of PR?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pay per view (sort of).drhaggis said:
I once read someone in the internet (ergo, it must be true) that RVV sells tickets not just at the finish line, and by making repeated loops around, e.g. Oude Kwaremont, seats become more valuable.pinno said:It could be about television coverage where you can install stationary cameras. I dunno.
But that's insufficient justification.
Again, not my argument, and I ignore whether RVV sells tickets for other than the finish line, but could be a point.
Cycling was never that way.
Hundreds of thousands line Alpe D'huez just to see them go by once.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
pinno said:
One and a half. Doesn't compare to say... 68km's (4 loops IIRC) of Shelderprijs or the loops at the end of Fleche Wallonne/Flanders.phreak said:
How many laps of the velodrome do they do?pinno said:Is there a correlation where loops favour the strongest?
I don't think so.
The worlds are special (and different).Pross said:
Not a fan of World Champs then?pinno said:
This ^.rick_chasey said:I also don't like loops in races generally.
Fleche wallonne with it's 3 laps is ridiculous.
One final ascent up the Muur is sufficient.
If you're going to have a crit/kermesse have a crit/kermesse not have a road race tour crit kermesse loop thingy.
A to B. Simple.
We're talking about the classics.
RVV did not have loops until 2012 (from what I can gather)
LBL - is a straightforward there and back loop.
PR - a to b
MSR a to b
Fleche wallonne - not always had loops
Lombardy - 1 big loop.
Omloop (het volk) - 1 big meandering loop.
GW - no loops until 2008
Harelbeke - a to b
It seems to be a more modern incarnation of the races to add finishing loops and it doesn't add anything.
Imagine adding 3 climbs of the Poggio or 2 loops at the end of PR?
One of the main problems with loops was highlighted yesterday. Just 30 riders could be ar$ed to complete Scheldeprijs."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
But the Alpe is free?pinno said:
Pay per view (sort of).drhaggis said:
I once read someone in the internet (ergo, it must be true) that RVV sells tickets not just at the finish line, and by making repeated loops around, e.g. Oude Kwaremont, seats become more valuable.pinno said:It could be about television coverage where you can install stationary cameras. I dunno.
But that's insufficient justification.
Again, not my argument, and I ignore whether RVV sells tickets for other than the finish line, but could be a point.
Cycling was never that way.
Hundreds of thousands line Alpe D'huez just to see them go by once.0 -
Precisely. See post above about tickets sales at Flanders.joeyhalloran said:
But the Alpe is free?pinno said:
Pay per view (sort of).drhaggis said:
I once read someone in the internet (ergo, it must be true) that RVV sells tickets not just at the finish line, and by making repeated loops around, e.g. Oude Kwaremont, seats become more valuable.pinno said:It could be about television coverage where you can install stationary cameras. I dunno.
But that's insufficient justification.
Again, not my argument, and I ignore whether RVV sells tickets for other than the finish line, but could be a point.
Cycling was never that way.
Hundreds of thousands line Alpe D'huez just to see them go by once.seanoconn - gruagach craic!1 -
Having been lucky enough to be on the Kwaremont on Sunday (non-VIP), I can say that I'm all for the loops0
-
I think they're here to stay; it pays the bills.....cycling is pretty bad at making events work (no ticket income for spectators).
It's no good cycling saying how great it is that people can watch for free, but struggle making cash. Euros 10-15 per car/per person would raise a decent amount on a MTF, but nobody would ever do it.All Road/ Gravel: tbcWinter: tbcMTB: tbcRoad: tbc"Look at the time...." "he's fallen like an old lady on a cruise ship..."0 -
If you are familiar with the area, you can move around and pick up the race at many points as it meanders.poweredbyidris said:Having been lucky enough to be on the Kwaremont on Sunday (non-VIP), I can say that I'm all for the loops
Same as Roubaix but I see your point.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
