Ape destroys this creation!
Negative:
1: The name on the designer. Alworld. A multi! (Yes, yes, he had a second account that never rode even a single race, but to check the spectators chat after the race!!! Multi, Multi!= He should be banned, not let design the Andes. Banned until he's 20'000 points behind Petit Singe in the eternal classification! Mmhh, ok maybe that's a bit too long, let's say 5000. Otherwise the poor guy will have to wait too long)
2: 16 days, thought the Andes standard was 15? 14 and 1 rest day? But ok, will survive that
3: The TTT: a) IMO a TTT is not necessary every year in the Andes. Now third year in a row with one. Ok, as a superb TTT specialist I won the last 2 editions (but not the TTTs, grr), so.... But still, IMO the Andes don't need a TTT every year. IMO a TT would have been better.
b) Especially after the TTT last year this year one wasn't necessary. The one last year was superb, most interesting, hard to manage TTT I ever rode. Was brilliant. So this year a TTT can only lose the comparison, this one does too.
c) Too late. Yes, everybody will tell me that the UCI rules sucks, but this one actually makes lots of sense. A TTT has to be in the first x days of the race. 5 maybe? Don't remember. Here on day 11, stage 10, after the rest day. And with the stages we had before quite a few teams risk not having 9 riders anymore. With that Alk basically favors old and big teams a lot. A new, newish team simply can't put up a team like Petit Singe can for exampe. 3 climbers, probably 2 classics, around or just below 70, maybe a third one, then 2 60-80. 1-2 riders left won't be too low in mountain either. A guy with 100 races can't afford a team like that. 2 climbers, 2 classics, then... .50-80... Which will be out sooner or later I guess. If there is no TTT after, that's still ok, but with the TTT... Some teams will very likely have 9 riders left. Other teams will start with 6.
Positive about the TTT is that it's after the rest day, in TTTs at RSF energy is sooo important ,that otherwise it would kind of kill the stages directly ahead. Like that too, some guys will have to pay attention, only double reg, not triple, Rakhat M. can't go under 300, but that's ok.
4: The last stage. A circuit with 9 8.. ok, why not. But IMO the risk is there that finally this will be the decisive stage. Everybody waiting, and waiting, then go all out the last day... decsion on the last day, no problem, but then would be nice to have a 'real' GC stage somehow, profile wise.
My biggest problem is 3 clearly, followed by 4 and 2, while ok, 1 isn't such a big problem, if that dude at least shows up in the afternoon for it! After 2 years it gets boring beating BW in the Andes, rather lose against Alk
Stages:
1 Like it ok. Pretty tough last hill, then not too long to the finish. That's good. Negative maybe that the beginning is kind of hard too. IDEAL for a team like me to sieb, keep riding, control for Tasman, already weaken other teams with less mountain than me. If a group rides in the back, won't be hors delai, but the guys without reg will never be fit again, until they are kicked in a few days. Like the finish, looks good, the start for me would have been better a bit easier. Make it so that the peloton comes to the decisive hill pretty much all together.
2 LIke it too... only thing I don't like is the flat km at the end.. IMO more interesting with the finish directly at the downhill. Makes it an easier GC stage. Like that it still can be one but... 43 km for the top of the last climb to the finish. 33 downhill is long already, add 10 basically flat ones and... in many groups any GC attack in the climbs will most likely be pointless. IN the 10 flat Km any attacker will most likely die. Groups very likely too, if there is a cute litte idiotic 80-70 or a superclassic in the chasing group. So.. finally looks like another classic stage almost. Which is ok, but with that profile a GC stage would have been nice
3 Ok, a transition stage, for escapers or for something like sprinters, classic ones, maybe hill sprinters. A GC stage for the big RSF morons fraction of course.
4 Down, sieb, recovery. For me in this build up here misplaced. 2 in a row? IF the TTT was the next day.. ok, like it, for recovery purposes, here... not really, let's not have a 2 day GC break. Ok, we want have since in the last years the most dangerous Andes attacks in most groups use to happen in flat stages.... Yeah, A is off, lets go kind of SM tactic... other negative thing, we'll have 2 days in a row of that. For me here one easy stage too many. And one more ciriticism, due to the high risk of GC attacks, especially in the Andes where usually there is nobody who wants to control, help control those stages I'd have liked a longer mintact. NOt just 10 km. I would have gone for my usual 30 of course, but here IMO would even make sense. Just give somebody who misses the oh so brillant GC attack because he's smoking, on the toilet, listening to something his wife has to say, masturbating, actually working in the office for a few minutes a smaller "penalty". Only miss 3 km in 3 minutes, not 6.
The general concept, very likely a classic in yellow (is it yellow?) after 4 days, ok, (despite my wish to have nr 2 more climbers friendly), but maybe another stage similar to stage 1 for stage 4 would have been nicer.
5: First mountain top arrival, ok, not much before for a first real GC fight is ok too IMO. One doubt about the last climb? Sure about those percentages, looks like a regular not too steep climb, then all of the sudden 15 0 9 15 6? Looks kind of "suspicious", but can be like that, don't know.
6: Don't really like this one. Another long one, which is ok, but looks like a transition stage with a shirt mountain in the end, Due to the length hard to control, yes, helpers need reg, yes, but... just doesn't excite me really this one. Rather have had something more like a mountain stage.
7 Similar, don't really like that one too much either. Another classic stage, some up and down. It has the potential for GC riding too, but with what follows not that much really.
8 Great stage, possibilites for attacks everywhere. Great.
9 Another great stage, kind of like that the camino de la muerte for once is a bit further away from the finish. Circuit in the end will be decisive One problem with this nice double header here is: Most likely the first one (who I actually like even better) will suffer enormously from the second one. much less action than if it was more isolated. Good though to have 2 hard ones in a row too, it will make those non reg guys suffer automatically. Which the ape approves of. Rakhat can say whatever he wants.
Generally 5-9: Here.... somehow too little happening after 5, then almost too much at once at 8-9. Yes, there needs to be a hard 2 days somewhere, because otherwise we have idiots like Fahrny winning in the end, no reg, but winning. But one thing I learned from the Aix Andes in 11 is that: hard, easy, hard easy hard in the end is more likely to give 3 stages ridden hard than easy hard hard easy hard, which will have 2. But ok, the double hard stuff needs to be there, so good. Just a shame about stage 8 somehow. Other thing I miss here is the downhill arrival. IMO in 9 stages one should have been there.
10 TTT, as I said, don't like it here, don't like it in the Andes at all this year. Stage 1-2 could already kick out some riders. Stage 8+9 will kick out some for sure, just gives a too big advantage to old teams I think. Somewhere a TT, or 2 TTs would have been better.
11 YES! A real Andes stage like I like them. Looong climb, followed by flat, downhill. Ok, here the flat downhill is a bit too long maybe. But there has to be a stage like this in every Andes, so like it. And after the TTT which will cost energy, some GC stuff is not completely out of the question either. Although unfortunately what follows will be too hard. I'd have liked this here a bit more GC friendly, so somehow shorter after the top and no hard hard stage the next day. But ok that's me.... like these type of Andes stages, try the GC attack each year and fail each time, but they are fun! And how they shold be. The first Cerro edition had 3 or 4 stages roughly in this type, so historically it has to be here, at least one. Done, so this stage gets a 10 regardless
12 Finally the downhill arrival. But ape still not completely happy.. .downhill maybe too long? Hihi. Basically a question of reg. We're in the middle of a long series of GC stages, by having the downhill this long, costs more energy, that risks missing the next day, so it makes big GC fights more unlikely. Plus the climb itself is not that hard, so it makes attacks even more unlikely. In the end it becomes a "don't lose time stage". Still prevents 11 from being ridden hard, because if you do on 12 you'll lose more than you gained on 11 (most likely 0 anyway), but isn't too inviting as a attacking stage either really. Most likely either 1 big group, or 2, depending on the size of the whole group 3 groups that then either collaborate or don't.
13: Great stage. Nothing to complain about that one really.
14: Fits here, an "easier" stage with a hard finish, fits nicely after 13 I think. Long term attacks still possible with fit classics and fitter climbers, but just a final fight on the climb possible too. Good.
15: As I said, don't like this end too much, risks becoming another GC stage somehow, which with this profile, compared to the ones before it shouldn't really be. But ok.
10-15... A bit clustered, but somehow due to the profiles AND the clustering 11-12 risk being just some sort of transition stages. Here for example I would have like to see the hard, easy, hard thing. Or since I have the fix idea that 11 should be a GC stage, make it more GC like, keeping the general idea, long up, followed by flat-down, long, but a bit shorter, which offers the GC possibilty if you're ready to invest, then an easier 12, followed by the great 13 and the well fitting 14.
Your questions, my answers in red:
Alkworld wrote:- Is it too much? Yes, one day too many!!!!! Otherwise, no, the Andes should be like this
- Are the real highlights already too early? No. 8+9+13, then 14 are the highlights IMO. 8-9 will suffer from each other, especially 8. 13 will not suffer from much, 14 IMO fits nicely.
- Not enough stages for classic riders / sprinters / climbers?Fits IMO. What I don't like too much is the "clustering". Stage 1-4 risk all being for some sort of classic. 1 sprint, 2 superclassic, 3 escape or sprint classic, 4 the same. Then transition stage clustering, 6+7 maybe I judge them too hard, but somehow they don't really inspire me. 6 probably can be opened up, but to me looks like 2 transition stages used to get north more than stages with a deeper meaning. (why don't kangaroos have pockets on their back?) Then the final "clustering" around stage 13. Here a bit more change would have been nice. Different kind of riders have their opportunities, don't see a problem there at all.
- Too many transfers? Probably yes... A map[ like Cerro used to post, google earth stuff or so would have been nice. Ape just checked a bit with google maps, yep, lots of transfers. Your problem here only that you wanted to put in 5 countries. 3 or 4 would have done it too I think. We had the north, Colombia and Ecuador last year, 2 years ago the south, Chile and Argentina, just focusing on Bolivia-Peru this year would have been ok I think. Or start in Salta, just cut one country, but 3 stages (doing something like stage one, which is a very good start, around Salta, then start and continue north, with less transfers. But ok, in the end doesn't really matter since we don't have the effects of the transfers in the game. But seems you wanted to put everything in... you could have spread that out over 3 or so years, don't think anybody will demand a new designer next year, so..