The distance matters or it doesn't thread

rick_chasey

Given we're in the build up to Milan-San Remo, I thought it was worth setting up a discussion on the topic of race distances.

There seems to be a general trend towards arguing that long races make for worse racing, and obviously I'm here to argue otherwise, but I suspect I am in the minority nowadays.

I'll concede the flag-to-finish coverage has not necessarily helped.

My argument really is as follows: different distances test different parts of a rider's ability, and a long time in the saddle can make even the most trivial obstacles, race defining.

I am quite focused on the quality of the 'finale' and in general of the view that tired legs and tired minds make for more interesting racing.

The example I will offer up is the Poggio. A hill that most of us could probably race up. It's not challenging, it's not long, the run in isn't even that narrow. It would mean nothing for any pro rider, if it wasn't for the fact they're approaching it with 290km in the legs.

As such, it becomes remarkably selective, and provides us with some of the best will-they-won't-they racing - it's not so hard that being in the group doesn't matter. In any other race it would just be a bump for the sprinters to not lose too many places on. But after 290km it becomes *the race*.

Anyway, here's my argument, feel free to shoot it down.

feelgoodlost

I enjoy mountain stages in the GT's that are particularly long and I wouldn't want to see them move away from that trend.

I don't see the point in sprint stages being over 150kms. I find the early parts of MSR a bit dull for the same reason. You could argue that unless there's horrendous conditions on the day, it's a bit of a breeze for the main protagonists to arrive at the Cipressa & Poggio relatively fresh.

hanshotfirst

There was a good Kate Wagner article on escape collective last year that backs up a lot of what you've said. .

https://escapecollective.com/milan-san-remo-is-a-culmination/

pblakeney

My thoughts on long distance races.

In the past they were pretty meaningless as they were just a long procession with the smaller teams getting in a breakaway for exposure, unless Merckx (or similar) decided to ride everyone off his wheel. It was all about the last 50 kms, or the last climb.

These days they seem to be going full gas from the drop of the flag in most races. This will probably be less likely over 170kms (random guess) so smaller teams will most likely enjoy the longer races. For the bigger teams it all depends on race strategy and if they want to go from the off or blow the opposition in the finale.

I suspect MSR will be a bit more attritional than usual this year.

FWIW, I also think racing from the off is as much a cause for the higher average speeds as aero developments.

Pross

It depends on what you think counts as 'worse racing'. Long races are generally more attritional so less immediate action but that doesn't make them worse than a short race where people are fresher and can attack earlier. Races like RVV and PR have challenges with the terrain that make them tough but it is still the distance that raises them to their status. MSR pretty much relies entirely on its length to create the challenge. I think in stage races they can impact the interest for the viewer, if there is a long mountain stage to come riders tend to be more conservative on the previous stage which can make that stage dull when it is often intended to be a short, sharp stage to encourage attacking. The long stages can also end challenges of some riders without there having been any overtly attacking riding by their contenders. We often bemoan the lack of attacks in those sorts of stages without really considering that the riders are still human and probably knackered just completing the stage.

rick_chasey

I guess I think different distances test different things so might as well vary it up for different results.

phreak

https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/13130176/the-distance-matters-or-it-doesnt-thread

MSR may well be a long race in terms of distance, but last year the winners rode it in 6h25m, which isn't much longer than Flanders in terms of time. Compare that to the Arcalis stage that Ullrich won, which took him 7h46m and the autobus 8h30m or so, and I'd argue "that's" a long day in the saddle.

But yes, I get your point, that the likes of Roubaix are just over 5 hours in the saddle and many Tour stages barely over 4 hours. Most of us weekend warriors will be happy riding for that long and wouldn't regard such a ride as super challenging. Indeed, if we rode an Etape or something, I dare say most would be looking at 6-8 hours, so asking pros who are a world away from us to ride for that long shouldn't be too big an ask (and don't get me started on the length of women's races)

phreak

Similarly, Chiapucci's win at Sestriere in 1992 took him 7h44m, so nearly 90 minutes longer than MSR takes.

DeVlaeminck

MSR is an interesting one as without seeing a 150k edition it's hard to know how the finale would play out. I like the idea of it being super long but in my viewing lifetime the Turchino has never been selective and even with new hills added I can't remember a winning move going earlier than the Poggio. Of course it needs to stay 300k to maintain status irrespective.

Re grand tours I've always wanted them to mix it up more and include 1-2 stages that are 7-8 hours. Not 300k of flat but hilly or mountain stages. In return I'd probably cut some of the transition sprint stages and even some of the other climbing stages.

No_Ta_Doctor

Well the bad news is that MSR is shortened this year to 288km. Not sure why.

Distance matters, but it isn't everything. It's what you do with it that counts....

As a follow on from Strade Bianche this year, it's as long as it needs to be, everyone was cooked by the end, there's no reason to make it any longer