La Vuelta Femenina by Carrefour 23 **SPOILERS**

mididoctors

crescent said:

Good racing all week. Very close finish, I thought Vollering was just going to shade it.

Under rated watch . 2 horse race with big swings on GC and stellar efforts by both protagonists. Final stage was excellent

orraloon

mididoctors said:

crescent said:

Good racing all week. Very close finish, I thought Vollering was just going to shade it.

Under rated watch . 2 horse race with big swings on GC and stellar efforts by both protagonists. Final stage was excellent

Agree, and the way that last climb to Covadonga developed was excellent to watch. Will she, won't she... Mind the camera close up on Demi V's face when she realised AvV had made it, just, was maybe a bit too intrusive.

phreak

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

andyp

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

phreak

andyp said:

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

Don't get me wrong, they're bloody quick and the speed Vollering went up the final climb yesterday was incredible. But that's still an hour shorter than the quickest woman rode the Maratona and 3 hours shorter than the fastest woman to complete the Marmotte. It just seems a bit of a shame that amateur races provide a tougher parcours than the biggest professional races.

Hopefully now the sport is gaining more traction we'll see it happen as we seem to be selling incredibly talented athletes short a bit at the moment.

webboo

phreak said:

andyp said:

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

Don't get me wrong, they're bloody quick and the speed Vollering went up the final climb yesterday was incredible. But that's still an hour shorter than the quickest woman rode the Maratona and 3 hours shorter than the fastest woman to complete the Marmotte. It just seems a bit of a shame that amateur races provide a tougher parcours than the biggest professional races.

Hopefully now the sport is gaining more traction we'll see it happen as we seem to be selling incredibly talented athletes short a bit at the moment.

Are those not Sportives or Fondo’s rather than races. I know people will race them but they are different kettle of fish.

phreak

webboo said:

phreak said:

andyp said:

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

Don't get me wrong, they're bloody quick and the speed Vollering went up the final climb yesterday was incredible. But that's still an hour shorter than the quickest woman rode the Maratona and 3 hours shorter than the fastest woman to complete the Marmotte. It just seems a bit of a shame that amateur races provide a tougher parcours than the biggest professional races.

Hopefully now the sport is gaining more traction we'll see it happen as we seem to be selling incredibly talented athletes short a bit at the moment.

Are those not Sportives or Fondo’s rather than races. I know people will race them but they are different kettle of fish.

You'll get some people doing them professionally, but the point is that the very existence of grand tours was because they're the ultimate physical test. If you're getting amateurs doing longer and tougher routes than the pros do in grand tours it feels a bit wrong. When Emma Pooley rode the Swissman triathlon, for instance, the bike leg on its own was harder than any route she did as a professional cyclist.

The UCI just seems massively out of touch (who knew?) by limiting both the number of stages and the length of the stages for women.

webboo

phreak said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

andyp said:

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

Don't get me wrong, they're bloody quick and the speed Vollering went up the final climb yesterday was incredible. But that's still an hour shorter than the quickest woman rode the Maratona and 3 hours shorter than the fastest woman to complete the Marmotte. It just seems a bit of a shame that amateur races provide a tougher parcours than the biggest professional races.

Hopefully now the sport is gaining more traction we'll see it happen as we seem to be selling incredibly talented athletes short a bit at the moment.

Are those not Sportives or Fondo’s rather than races. I know people will race them but they are different kettle of fish.

You'll get some people doing them professionally, but the point is that the very existence of grand tours was because they're the ultimate physical test. If you're getting amateurs doing longer and tougher routes than the pros do in grand tours it feels a bit wrong. When Emma Pooley rode the Swissman triathlon, for instance, the bike leg on its own was harder than any route she did as a professional cyclist.

The UCI just seems massively out of touch (who knew?) by limiting both the number of stages and the length of the stages for women.

It’s not just about the distance and the amount of climbing. It’s more about the speed they go up the climbs etc, generally that’s what will make a race harder that a sportive regardless of the distance.

phreak

webboo said:

phreak said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

andyp said:

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

Don't get me wrong, they're bloody quick and the speed Vollering went up the final climb yesterday was incredible. But that's still an hour shorter than the quickest woman rode the Maratona and 3 hours shorter than the fastest woman to complete the Marmotte. It just seems a bit of a shame that amateur races provide a tougher parcours than the biggest professional races.

Hopefully now the sport is gaining more traction we'll see it happen as we seem to be selling incredibly talented athletes short a bit at the moment.

Are those not Sportives or Fondo’s rather than races. I know people will race them but they are different kettle of fish.

You'll get some people doing them professionally, but the point is that the very existence of grand tours was because they're the ultimate physical test. If you're getting amateurs doing longer and tougher routes than the pros do in grand tours it feels a bit wrong. When Emma Pooley rode the Swissman triathlon, for instance, the bike leg on its own was harder than any route she did as a professional cyclist.

The UCI just seems massively out of touch (who knew?) by limiting both the number of stages and the length of the stages for women.

It’s not just about the distance and the amount of climbing. It’s more about the speed they go up the climbs etc, generally that’s what will make a race harder that a sportive regardless of the distance.

I wonder why the men do much longer stages then? Would we be happy if the men's Paris Roubaix was 145km, like the women's version is?

webboo

phreak said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

andyp said:

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

Don't get me wrong, they're bloody quick and the speed Vollering went up the final climb yesterday was incredible. But that's still an hour shorter than the quickest woman rode the Maratona and 3 hours shorter than the fastest woman to complete the Marmotte. It just seems a bit of a shame that amateur races provide a tougher parcours than the biggest professional races.

Hopefully now the sport is gaining more traction we'll see it happen as we seem to be selling incredibly talented athletes short a bit at the moment.

Are those not Sportives or Fondo’s rather than races. I know people will race them but they are different kettle of fish.

You'll get some people doing them professionally, but the point is that the very existence of grand tours was because they're the ultimate physical test. If you're getting amateurs doing longer and tougher routes than the pros do in grand tours it feels a bit wrong. When Emma Pooley rode the Swissman triathlon, for instance, the bike leg on its own was harder than any route she did as a professional cyclist.

The UCI just seems massively out of touch (who knew?) by limiting both the number of stages and the length of the stages for women.

It’s not just about the distance and the amount of climbing. It’s more about the speed they go up the climbs etc, generally that’s what will make a race harder that a sportive regardless of the distance.

I wonder why the men do much longer stages then? Would we be happy if the men's Paris Roubaix was 145km, like the women's version is?

Different physiology and they’ve been doing it longer. Plus there’s the money to pay for the training science etc. Some of the women in the smaller teams racing in Spain were amateurs according to commentary.

No_Ta_Doctor

Yeah the main issue at the moment is depth of the women's peloton. That and the weeing in public issue for race organisers (mainly that they're terrified of it for the women)

phreak

No_Ta_Doctor said:

Yeah the main issue at the moment is depth of the women's peloton. That and the weeing in public issue for race organisers (mainly that they're terrified of it for the women)

And yet we just had a big hoohaa about a team seeming to pee en masse and get dropped as a result?

webboo

Could they not organise 60 portalloos at half way along the race and just neutralise the race for 5 minutes.

m.r.m.

webboo said:

phreak said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

andyp said:

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

Don't get me wrong, they're bloody quick and the speed Vollering went up the final climb yesterday was incredible. But that's still an hour shorter than the quickest woman rode the Maratona and 3 hours shorter than the fastest woman to complete the Marmotte. It just seems a bit of a shame that amateur races provide a tougher parcours than the biggest professional races.

Hopefully now the sport is gaining more traction we'll see it happen as we seem to be selling incredibly talented athletes short a bit at the moment.

Are those not Sportives or Fondo’s rather than races. I know people will race them but they are different kettle of fish.

You'll get some people doing them professionally, but the point is that the very existence of grand tours was because they're the ultimate physical test. If you're getting amateurs doing longer and tougher routes than the pros do in grand tours it feels a bit wrong. When Emma Pooley rode the Swissman triathlon, for instance, the bike leg on its own was harder than any route she did as a professional cyclist.

The UCI just seems massively out of touch (who knew?) by limiting both the number of stages and the length of the stages for women.

It’s not just about the distance and the amount of climbing. It’s more about the speed they go up the climbs etc, generally that’s what will make a race harder that a sportive regardless of the distance.

This is completely false (no offense). Longer races add more attrition and going to your threshold effort after 2500 kJ, 3500 kJ or 4500 kJ (etc.) of work is completely different. This metric is referred to as fatigue resistance and is one of the key metrics that define pro's.
Shorter races make allround athletes perform better than specialized ones which can result in singular athletes winning much more. Everything just bunches in the middle and puncheurs can hang with pure climbers etc.
Attrition from distance is one of the core components of road cycling.
The big European fondo races are won by professionals who are usually sponsored entirely and at pro conti level (mostly) and are raced as seriously as WT pro's race monuments. I agree with @phreak that it's quite silly that amateurs race harder stages/races than those meant to be the best in the world.

andyp

m.r.m. said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

andyp said:

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

Don't get me wrong, they're bloody quick and the speed Vollering went up the final climb yesterday was incredible. But that's still an hour shorter than the quickest woman rode the Maratona and 3 hours shorter than the fastest woman to complete the Marmotte. It just seems a bit of a shame that amateur races provide a tougher parcours than the biggest professional races.

Hopefully now the sport is gaining more traction we'll see it happen as we seem to be selling incredibly talented athletes short a bit at the moment.

Are those not Sportives or Fondo’s rather than races. I know people will race them but they are different kettle of fish.

You'll get some people doing them professionally, but the point is that the very existence of grand tours was because they're the ultimate physical test. If you're getting amateurs doing longer and tougher routes than the pros do in grand tours it feels a bit wrong. When Emma Pooley rode the Swissman triathlon, for instance, the bike leg on its own was harder than any route she did as a professional cyclist.

The UCI just seems massively out of touch (who knew?) by limiting both the number of stages and the length of the stages for women.

It’s not just about the distance and the amount of climbing. It’s more about the speed they go up the climbs etc, generally that’s what will make a race harder that a sportive regardless of the distance.

This is completely false (no offense). Longer races add more attrition and going to your threshold effort after 2500 kJ, 3500 kJ or 4500 kJ (etc.) of work is completely different. This metric is referred to as fatigue resistance and is one of the key metrics that define pro's.
Shorter races make allround athletes perform better than specialized ones which can result in singular athletes winning much more. Everything just bunches in the middle and puncheurs can hang with pure climbers etc.
Attrition from distance is one of the core components of road cycling.
The big European fondo races are won by professionals who are usually sponsored entirely and at pro conti level (mostly) and are raced as seriously as WT pro's race monuments. I agree with @phreak that it's quite silly that amateurs race harder stages/races than those meant to be the best in the world.

No offence, but this is bollocks. Gran Fondos are won by those who can't cut it at pro level, or have retired and fancy a new challenge. They are also, almost without exception, one day races, not seven stages over seven days, where the accumulated fatigue is an enormous factor in the result.

If the best female Fondo riders were so good, they'd be in the pro ranks because teams are always on the lookout for new (and cheap) talent.

webboo

m.r.m. said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

andyp said:

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

Don't get me wrong, they're bloody quick and the speed Vollering went up the final climb yesterday was incredible. But that's still an hour shorter than the quickest woman rode the Maratona and 3 hours shorter than the fastest woman to complete the Marmotte. It just seems a bit of a shame that amateur races provide a tougher parcours than the biggest professional races.

Hopefully now the sport is gaining more traction we'll see it happen as we seem to be selling incredibly talented athletes short a bit at the moment.

Are those not Sportives or Fondo’s rather than races. I know people will race them but they are different kettle of fish.

You'll get some people doing them professionally, but the point is that the very existence of grand tours was because they're the ultimate physical test. If you're getting amateurs doing longer and tougher routes than the pros do in grand tours it feels a bit wrong. When Emma Pooley rode the Swissman triathlon, for instance, the bike leg on its own was harder than any route she did as a professional cyclist.

The UCI just seems massively out of touch (who knew?) by limiting both the number of stages and the length of the stages for women.

It’s not just about the distance and the amount of climbing. It’s more about the speed they go up the climbs etc, generally that’s what will make a race harder that a sportive regardless of the distance.

This is completely false (no offense). Longer races add more attrition and going to your threshold effort after 2500 kJ, 3500 kJ or 4500 kJ (etc.) of work is completely different. This metric is referred to as fatigue resistance and is one of the key metrics that define pro's.
Shorter races make allround athletes perform better than specialized ones which can result in singular athletes winning much more. Everything just bunches in the middle and puncheurs can hang with pure climbers etc.
Attrition from distance is one of the core components of road cycling.
The big European fondo races are won by professionals who are usually sponsored entirely and at pro conti level (mostly) and are raced as seriously as WT pro's race monuments. I agree with @phreak that it's quite silly that amateurs race harder stages/races than those meant to be the best in the world.

I get what you are saying but how does it work with track races, Mountainbike xco and cyclocross. These are usually won by specialists rather than all rounders and these are short races.

Dorset_Boy

andyp said:

m.r.m. said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

andyp said:

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

Don't get me wrong, they're bloody quick and the speed Vollering went up the final climb yesterday was incredible. But that's still an hour shorter than the quickest woman rode the Maratona and 3 hours shorter than the fastest woman to complete the Marmotte. It just seems a bit of a shame that amateur races provide a tougher parcours than the biggest professional races.

Hopefully now the sport is gaining more traction we'll see it happen as we seem to be selling incredibly talented athletes short a bit at the moment.

Are those not Sportives or Fondo’s rather than races. I know people will race them but they are different kettle of fish.

You'll get some people doing them professionally, but the point is that the very existence of grand tours was because they're the ultimate physical test. If you're getting amateurs doing longer and tougher routes than the pros do in grand tours it feels a bit wrong. When Emma Pooley rode the Swissman triathlon, for instance, the bike leg on its own was harder than any route she did as a professional cyclist.

The UCI just seems massively out of touch (who knew?) by limiting both the number of stages and the length of the stages for women.

It’s not just about the distance and the amount of climbing. It’s more about the speed they go up the climbs etc, generally that’s what will make a race harder that a sportive regardless of the distance.

This is completely false (no offense). Longer races add more attrition and going to your threshold effort after 2500 kJ, 3500 kJ or 4500 kJ (etc.) of work is completely different. This metric is referred to as fatigue resistance and is one of the key metrics that define pro's.
Shorter races make allround athletes perform better than specialized ones which can result in singular athletes winning much more. Everything just bunches in the middle and puncheurs can hang with pure climbers etc.
Attrition from distance is one of the core components of road cycling.
The big European fondo races are won by professionals who are usually sponsored entirely and at pro conti level (mostly) and are raced as seriously as WT pro's race monuments. I agree with @phreak that it's quite silly that amateurs race harder stages/races than those meant to be the best in the world.

No offence, but this is bollocks. Gran Fondos are won by those who can't cut it at pro level, or have retired and fancy a new challenge. They are also, almost without exception, one day races, not seven stages over seven days, where the accumulated fatigue is an enormous factor in the result.

If the best female Fondo riders were so good, they'd be in the pro ranks because teams are always on the lookout for new (and cheap) talent.

Well at least one of the Etapes du Tour I have ridden was won by the then french national road champion, and I know Alice Barnes has ridden the Etape whilst a pro.....

mididoctors

I reckon women's parcours could be a tad more testing

m.r.m.

andyp said:

m.r.m. said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

andyp said:

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

Don't get me wrong, they're bloody quick and the speed Vollering went up the final climb yesterday was incredible. But that's still an hour shorter than the quickest woman rode the Maratona and 3 hours shorter than the fastest woman to complete the Marmotte. It just seems a bit of a shame that amateur races provide a tougher parcours than the biggest professional races.

Hopefully now the sport is gaining more traction we'll see it happen as we seem to be selling incredibly talented athletes short a bit at the moment.

Are those not Sportives or Fondo’s rather than races. I know people will race them but they are different kettle of fish.

You'll get some people doing them professionally, but the point is that the very existence of grand tours was because they're the ultimate physical test. If you're getting amateurs doing longer and tougher routes than the pros do in grand tours it feels a bit wrong. When Emma Pooley rode the Swissman triathlon, for instance, the bike leg on its own was harder than any route she did as a professional cyclist.

The UCI just seems massively out of touch (who knew?) by limiting both the number of stages and the length of the stages for women.

It’s not just about the distance and the amount of climbing. It’s more about the speed they go up the climbs etc, generally that’s what will make a race harder that a sportive regardless of the distance.

This is completely false (no offense). Longer races add more attrition and going to your threshold effort after 2500 kJ, 3500 kJ or 4500 kJ (etc.) of work is completely different. This metric is referred to as fatigue resistance and is one of the key metrics that define pro's.
Shorter races make allround athletes perform better than specialized ones which can result in singular athletes winning much more. Everything just bunches in the middle and puncheurs can hang with pure climbers etc.
Attrition from distance is one of the core components of road cycling.
The big European fondo races are won by professionals who are usually sponsored entirely and at pro conti level (mostly) and are raced as seriously as WT pro's race monuments. I agree with @phreak that it's quite silly that amateurs race harder stages/races than those meant to be the best in the world.

No offence, but this is bollocks. Gran Fondos are won by those who can't cut it at pro level, or have retired and fancy a new challenge. They are also, almost without exception, one day races, not seven stages over seven days, where the accumulated fatigue is an enormous factor in the result.

If the best female Fondo riders were so good, they'd be in the pro ranks because teams are always on the lookout for new (and cheap) talent.

I didn't state anything of what you are refuting. I never said GF racers were better than WT pro's. What are you refuting here exactly?
Gran Fondo's are most definitely won by riders who can't make it to WT level. All I said is that the winners are often comparable to pro conti riders in terms of ability in contrast to not being won by some random punters (especially for the mountainous fondos). And you are making @phreak 's case that less good riders are riding and winning harder stages/races than the best of the best. That was the point I was agreeing with, that the women of the WT could definitely handle more distance since amateurs are able to ride them in decent times and speeds as well.
I also never made the case a single Gran Fondo is harder than an entire GT.

My entire post was relating to distance being an essential part of road racing.

m.r.m.

webboo said:

m.r.m. said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

andyp said:

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

Don't get me wrong, they're bloody quick and the speed Vollering went up the final climb yesterday was incredible. But that's still an hour shorter than the quickest woman rode the Maratona and 3 hours shorter than the fastest woman to complete the Marmotte. It just seems a bit of a shame that amateur races provide a tougher parcours than the biggest professional races.

Hopefully now the sport is gaining more traction we'll see it happen as we seem to be selling incredibly talented athletes short a bit at the moment.

Are those not Sportives or Fondo’s rather than races. I know people will race them but they are different kettle of fish.

You'll get some people doing them professionally, but the point is that the very existence of grand tours was because they're the ultimate physical test. If you're getting amateurs doing longer and tougher routes than the pros do in grand tours it feels a bit wrong. When Emma Pooley rode the Swissman triathlon, for instance, the bike leg on its own was harder than any route she did as a professional cyclist.

The UCI just seems massively out of touch (who knew?) by limiting both the number of stages and the length of the stages for women.

It’s not just about the distance and the amount of climbing. It’s more about the speed they go up the climbs etc, generally that’s what will make a race harder that a sportive regardless of the distance.

This is completely false (no offense). Longer races add more attrition and going to your threshold effort after 2500 kJ, 3500 kJ or 4500 kJ (etc.) of work is completely different. This metric is referred to as fatigue resistance and is one of the key metrics that define pro's.
Shorter races make allround athletes perform better than specialized ones which can result in singular athletes winning much more. Everything just bunches in the middle and puncheurs can hang with pure climbers etc.
Attrition from distance is one of the core components of road cycling.
The big European fondo races are won by professionals who are usually sponsored entirely and at pro conti level (mostly) and are raced as seriously as WT pro's race monuments. I agree with @phreak that it's quite silly that amateurs race harder stages/races than those meant to be the best in the world.

I get what you are saying but how does it work with track races, Mountainbike xco and cyclocross. These are usually won by specialists rather than all rounders and these are short races.

Absolutely, hence my distinction to distance being "a core component of road racing".

There are also exceptions to every rule if you look at Ganna for example. Him having the WR for the 4km individual pursuit as well as the hour record is completely bonkers.

webboo

m.r.m. said:

webboo said:

m.r.m. said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

webboo said:

phreak said:

andyp said:

phreak said:

That was fantastic. Really exciting racing with a gripping finale. Without wishing to sound too much like Rick, I'd love to see some longer stages. It feels a shame that in the supposed grand tours they race less than 3 hours each stage.

That's not quite accurate. Three of the six road stages lasted 3.5 hours, including one which was raced at an average speed of 45.6 km/h, which is fast for the men's peloton, and insanely fast for the women's.

Don't get me wrong, they're bloody quick and the speed Vollering went up the final climb yesterday was incredible. But that's still an hour shorter than the quickest woman rode the Maratona and 3 hours shorter than the fastest woman to complete the Marmotte. It just seems a bit of a shame that amateur races provide a tougher parcours than the biggest professional races.

Hopefully now the sport is gaining more traction we'll see it happen as we seem to be selling incredibly talented athletes short a bit at the moment.

Are those not Sportives or Fondo’s rather than races. I know people will race them but they are different kettle of fish.

You'll get some people doing them professionally, but the point is that the very existence of grand tours was because they're the ultimate physical test. If you're getting amateurs doing longer and tougher routes than the pros do in grand tours it feels a bit wrong. When Emma Pooley rode the Swissman triathlon, for instance, the bike leg on its own was harder than any route she did as a professional cyclist.

The UCI just seems massively out of touch (who knew?) by limiting both the number of stages and the length of the stages for women.

It’s not just about the distance and the amount of climbing. It’s more about the speed they go up the climbs etc, generally that’s what will make a race harder that a sportive regardless of the distance.

This is completely false (no offense). Longer races add more attrition and going to your threshold effort after 2500 kJ, 3500 kJ or 4500 kJ (etc.) of work is completely different. This metric is referred to as fatigue resistance and is one of the key metrics that define pro's.
Shorter races make allround athletes perform better than specialized ones which can result in singular athletes winning much more. Everything just bunches in the middle and puncheurs can hang with pure climbers etc.
Attrition from distance is one of the core components of road cycling.
The big European fondo races are won by professionals who are usually sponsored entirely and at pro conti level (mostly) and are raced as seriously as WT pro's race monuments. I agree with @phreak that it's quite silly that amateurs race harder stages/races than those meant to be the best in the world.

I get what you are saying but how does it work with track races, Mountainbike xco and cyclocross. These are usually won by specialists rather than all rounders and these are short races.

Absolutely, hence my distinction to distance being "a core component of road racing".

There are also exceptions to every rule if you look at Ganna for example. Him having the WR for the 4km individual pursuit as well as the hour record is completely bonkers.

But short race specialists seem able to win these longer races. The two Vans even Cav has won Milan San Remo and he’s a trackie. Never mind one Bradley.

m.r.m.

Question is if their winning is down to them being short race specialists or if they are winning due to other reasons.
I don't think comparing different cycling disciplines makes your case. Pidcock wins XCO races, but has trouble with the long classic races. Others don't.

I think it's more meaningful to stay within the discipline where there are certainly riders who perform significantly better in 1 week races than in GT's (Adam Yates, Richie Porte etc.) and plenty of examples of riders winning semi classics, but coming up short in the monuments. It's also not set in stone in every single case since sometimes a rider just benefits from team tactics or happenstance in the race to get a win that might otherwise be unlikely (Jasper Stuyven's MSR win comes to mind).
(Also, distance is obviously not the only factor. A lack of sprinting ability at the end of a race reduces the chances of winning much more significantly. Sep Vanmarcke or Stefan Küng are good examples).

If you take the case of a 140 km race with 2500 m of altitude, the case can be made a puncheur can manage it (depending on specific climbs) to the finale. That very same puncheur would most likely have much more trouble if you add 100 km to the distance and another 3000 m of climbing.

Look at Pedersen in the Giro stage 3. He was dropped twice (more or less) and was able to come back, but the fatigue had gotten to him in the sprint. Now add some more km's and another two climbs and it's highly unlikely he would still be able to come back to contest the finale.

phreak

Just to clarify, we've had the somewhat bonkers suggestion that professional women can't do long distances because either they're "physiologically different" or need to wee. I'm just pointing out that people who are almost certainly less physically gifted than the pros do much harder events in terms of distance and elevation and seem to manage on both counts.

I'd also like to point out that we've spent all spring debating at length whether Pidcock struggles with longer-distance events, so to discount distance as a factor in road cycling seems equally strange.