What a load of ill-informed clueless comments. The last stage was scheduled for central London, long before Mr Pope decided to come. It was moved because the security extended right through the city, and so an alternative had to be found in London. Newham, being the borough for the Olympics, came up with the route (which incidentally has mostly been used for the London triathlon), including some bumpy roads in a 12 km circuit.
Did it have to go to Newham? Couldn't they have gone for a circuit in somewhere like Bushy Park or Peckham Rye? Or if you want Olympic proximity, Wanstead Flats Park? They had a prologue in Crystal Palace Park a few years ago, could that have been turned into a race circuit? Was that lifeless circuit
really the best solution? (Maybe it was, I don't know.)
The Tour of Britain is usually an awful, boring race with a rubbish route. This year's race was a step in the right direction - the organisers deserve a lot of credit for the stage to Swansea which was excellently planned - but it was only a step. About halfway through I actually found myself thinking it was quite interesting, but then I realised that was only compared to the low expectations I have of the race - compared to any other stage race of its level it was standard at best. Even the more interesting stages were usually more down to the weather than a selective parcours. Fairer conditions could easily have seen six bunch sprints.
I started a
topic on this issue last year in which andy_wrx made some excellent points about things to bear in mind when designing stages.
I feel that this year's inclusion of Constitution Hill undermines the argument that Porlock Hill could be too steep for team cars, so I think that would be good to go. Perhaps a stronger case against it is that the A39 is a fairly major road, but then the race used the stretch between Porlock and Lynmouth in 2007 so that doesn't seem to wash either. The race organisers still have a fetish for the West Country (very welcome
chez Skip) and for that reason I came up with a stage along these lines:
128km from Chard to Lynton, taking in two major climbs (Exford Common and Porlock Hill) and then running down into Lynmouth before the final kilometre steeply uphill to Lynton. If necessary, Exford Common could easily be removed and/or Porlock Hill replaced with Porlock Toll Road. A stage like that would put the racers under genuine pressure in the final 40km (especially Porlock Hill), and the finish would be both sportingly and visually spectacular. On top of it all, that stretch of the A39 is quite
beautiful and would have a good touristic attraction as well as a racing one, and the finish is in an area of historical and touristic note (Lynmouth flood in the 1950s, and also home of the Lynton-Lynmouth railway). There should be enough room in Lynton to mount the race vehicles.
It's so easy to criticise isn't it, when you have no idea of the work involved in running a major one-day race, let alone a UCI ranked 8 day event which must cost at least £200,000 a day, and have to negotiate all the road closure orders, book the hotels, get 350 support staff, etc., etc., etc.
We're cycling fans. When cycling fans get boring cycle races, it's normal and healthy to complain and ask for better. The Tour of Britain makes itself easy to criticise.
So can we all take a more reasoned look and be pleased that there is a national tour at all, because we didn't have one for some years after the Milk Race, Kelloggs and Prutours finished, so all power to the organisers, they deserve support and constructive ideas, and anyway my info is that the Westminster finish is already sorted out for 2011 (popes allowing!!).
There is constructiveness in complaining - it should encourage the organisers to take a fresh look at what they are doing. People
should be aware of the limitations that are in place when organising a major bike race, but that shouldn't stop them calling a turd a turd, nor let them accept the polishing of such.
