cycling4freaks.com

I fixed some rules for the design and the vote of the December Tour.

Tour limits:
10-14 days with maximal 1 rest day.
max. 1 day with half-races.

No extrem tour
( no Anden or Pavés Tour or extrem flat one)

Design Time :
until 31.October.

Vote:
1st vote from 1.-15. Nov.

if the best placed after the 1st vote doesn´t have a clear majotity,(10% majority : it means by 30 votes for the tour 3 more than the second one),
A second vote will occur from 15.-22. nov., if necessary, with the best placed tour designers who have at least 50%.of the winner votes (min. 15 by 30 votes for the 1st.).

lesossies wrote: if the best placed after the 1st vote doesn´t have a clear majotity,(10% majority : it means by 30 votes for the tour 3 more than the second one),
A second vote will occur from 15.-22. nov., if necessary, with the best placed tour designers who have at least 50%.of the winner votes (min. 15 by 30 votes for the 1st.).

smart

cool je fabrique le tour le plus vite possible

I could be interested. Is there a special topic for it, or should we post our race in our own races topic ?
Or maybe every candidat has to create a new topic especially for the December Tour ?

07-09 we usually had all in one thread, every tour one post, no comments, comments (I like to comment ) in another thread. So I think the best probably would be if the first who wants to post his tour just opens a new thread... Or leso opens one, then the designers post their tour there.

Puh, had nearly forgotten it. Have to end my work on this tour...

where can i show my December tour now?

Good question.

Since you're the first one probably up to you to make a new thread. Where all the contestants post their tours, 1 post per contestant, we will criticize it here then

Or wait for leso to make the thread?

Only one stage missing and some correction works plus presentation

I like to present my tour as well.

Yes, yes, post your tours. The first one just make a big topic Dec tour 2010 presentation or something and everybody who participates gets to post his tour there.

Can't wait to start criticizing your tours!!!

I started the presentation thread. Stages will follow during this day.

First you cant wait and now nothing? I'm waiting Roby
Or do you want to wait for my last stage? This can last a moment now...

Of course I'm waiting....how do you expect anybody to write anything about a tour when only 6 stages are there? Which was the case when you started leaving me messages in the chat.... Now only one missing, still, I'll talk when I see the whole thing. And maybe not the same day, but 1 day later. or 2. Depending on mood, time and erections.

The Ape now starts criticizing the Tours!


Vuelta do Brasil:

1: Like the presentation! Ok, at least the beginning ,towards the end there is less and less text, but I like the nice little infos in the beginning, like the first Railway line in Brazil going to Tres Rios. Not that it will ever be helpful, probably will forget it soon again, still like to read stuff like that. Too bad Gala stopped giving those infos after a while. Other thing, an overview would have been nice. But presentation-wise the nr 1 so far. Technical side of the race, good infos with last hills, last 10 km etc most of the time. Missing the km tact and either I'm blind or the classification of the stage itself isn't there. HC, middle mountain, flat etc.

The Tour fulfils all the small, kind of unimportant but still important criteria that I have to vote for a Tour. Not decisive, but when I'm undecided I will certainly vote for the Tour that fulfils those criteria.

- A designer that design real races too.
- Climate
- Realism (road surface, transfers (yes yes, I know SPIH 09 failed miserably at that last year) Mmh, since I don't see the map actually not sure about the transfers... maybe that one is only half fulfilled, with the early long transfer...

The race itself:

1 Prolog
1 TTT
4 sprint
4 middle mountain
3 mountain top arrivals

At least my analysis, don't know what Gala made..


I think probably not enough sprint, especially since not all the sprint stages are that easy either. I'd rather have seen one more sprint stage and one less middle mountain, but then that's me. Difficult sprints yes, but need more sprints to get the sprinters there. Like this you risk simply not having them there. Why come and be the punching bag for the classic riders/hill sprinters if it gets a bit difficult and the flat riders on the easy ones, since you risk having to do all by yourself?

Prolog: Ok, usually prefer a stage to start, but since there is no ITT give the TT guys something, the leaders jersey to start the tour. Good.

Next stage, a middle mountain stage, no chance for the sprinters I think, even the Hill sprinters probably will have no chance with the 7 so close to the goal. Nice stage actually, the jersey should change too.

2: Flat stage, with a 5 near the end that can eliminate some of the weaker sprinters. Good. BUT good in this tour? Don't think so, already there are only 4 chances for sprinters, meaning fewer sprinters starting probably, then with a 5 there, if a fit climber siebs it will hurt a lot, fewer teams, harder to come back. Cool stage if there are enough chances for sprinters, in this tour I would have preferred the 5 further away from the finish.

3: Mountain. Naked basically, ok for a first mountain arrival. good stage, good pictures, does the winner get a samba girl?

4: Mountain: Like the graphic with the climb to Petropolis in the middle.. But, finally it's naked again, the early climb won't do anything. In a way probably another lap to Petropolis would have been better, but even then, the flat road to the final climb is just very long... Mmh, maybe Petropolis Petropolis? 4 times that lap and that's it? Otherwise good idea with the 2 early mountain stages, unusual, but good for having a few teams get the leaders jersey during the race.

5: This one shoudl be a sure sprint. If sprinters actually show up

6: middle mountain: Cool graphic again, my second favorite, so better than nr 4 as well. Here not sure I have enough info for the end of the stage... any more +5? Last 10 km? But basically a nice stage, like it.

7: The second and last clear sprint. Good, maybe almost too easy, but then sprinters need the easy ones here.

8: TTT. HA! UCI rule 2.6.003 or maybe 2.3.006 says: TTTs should be in the first third of a race. FAIL!!!! Unacceptable!!! Horrible. Shoot Gala! Ok, maybe not. But that's actually a UCI rule that makes sense. In reality for different reasons then for RSF. REality, make sure that most teams still have all their riders. Not a problem at RSF, with our brilliant "Karenzzeit" the chances of getting an additional rider are almost bigger than losing one... Here it's more that it blocks the race, for a few days. How many? Difficult to say but more than 1. Every rider with not so good reg has to be fit that day, so a 35 reg helper in fact can never go under 500 until this day... he will help the whole day the next day too, if he starts at 850 he can't be used at all or he's under reg again. And again. Here in this Tour it's actually not that bad, still don't really like the late TTT, but with 2 easy stages in the 3 days before could be ok. Of course the sprint teams are kind of fucked, but ok. IMO too late, but rideable here.

9 middle mountain? You could almost call it HC too. Favorite a climber probably. And IMO an unnecessary stage. Actually hate this one, early favorite for title of worst stage of all tours. Climbers already have 3 stages, a fourth here, but not one of the interesting or nice stages, really something fairly boring to ride I always think. Here would have been the place to have another sprint stage IMO. Or even another real middle mountain stage.

10 Classified this as sprint, but don't think it will be one. In most groups. nr 1 a risk, 2 and 3 easy, 4 difficult, especially because of the last 6. As a one day race, yes, good chances for sprint. Here? I'm afraid that not enough sprinter teams will be there to make it a sprint. A nice stage in theory, not too easy for sprinters but possible, but as I said, looking at the other stages... doubt it will be a sprint.

11. Coolest profile. Except the passages through the atlantic ocean of course... You really need to correct that. The problem though is again that it will be ridden like a naked mountain arrival. The third one

12. Nice stage, not sure why not all hills are GPMs, but ok. Much easier climbs get a GPM in other stages. Cool stage, that could change the GC maybe, hard stage to ride, very very nice. Like it. middle mountain I said, not sure what Gala says, but could even be for climbers maybe.


Overall: I think Gala failed in his stated goal "My goal was to create a tour which can be won by climbers, but only if they have a strong team behind them."
Don't really think a strong team will be that important for climbers. The mountains are just to "naked" But nothing to do, that's what Gala found in Brasil, that's the way it is, he can't invent mountains where there are none. But then a strong team is not really needed. Strong TT team, of course, but otherwise? In the last stage a good classic rider, 75-80 or 2 70-80 are probably necessary, for the rest, not really, you could ride it without 70-80 as well actually. Strong TTT team, a few good 60-80, strong climber.
The length of the TTT is good though, fits the overall toughness of the Tour, which IMO isn't so tough. Favorite: Climber with TTT Team and 2 70-80 or 1 75-80. Chances for classic riders only with a really strong team and if possible a clear GC favorite from the climbers, best chances if there is a fairly new and unexperienced climber with a superb TTT team, then the old popular tactic to destroy the race by telling everybody not ride because that would be like giving the win to the favorite might work. Don't gift the GC to Team A, gift it to me basically
Then as I said I think: not enough sprint. Just a bit more would have been enough, a 5th stage, or maybe even an easier 2. stage might have been enough. But probably no, think a balanced Tour where we get all the best teams, all the good teams in 13 racing days needs 5 sprints. 5 possible ones.

If that sounds too negative, pah... I can imagine voting for this Tour, it has it's faults I think, too easy mountains, sprints, all said above, but finally it's not a bad tour.

Hope I'm not the only one commenting on the tours though... boring if only Roby writes something...

About Gala's Tour:
- I don't like the profiles. Well, some of them, the mountain stages especially. But that's not his fault, the terrains used are strange, that's all. And that's the case almost everywhere outside europe. More or less completely flat and then a simple hillrace, I don't like that much. Stage 3 is ok since the hill could be nice, but then you need a little more action on the other HC stages. But again, you can't create roads as you want them to be.
- Not much things difficult to handle, where you need to make a big choice. For example, I don't see 2-3 following stages where someone (I mean a GC leader) can have reg problems. Ok the TTT of course. But with flat stages the day before and after it, should be just fine for the leaders (ok a small climb which makes the next stage annoying, but don't think that's a problem). I'd like to see 2 exhausting stages following each other, where you might have to choose on which one you ride "defensively" and on which one you attack. Could be more interesting.
- 2 time trials, as usual. But since all 3 GTs have been been decided by the timetrials, the fantasy tour could advantage the non TT specialists perhaps. At least in my opinion.

Final words: I don't have a climber, I'm not a GT specialist, and I surely don't want to blame someones work when he puts a lot of effort in it. The job is nice, the presentation is great, but I'm simply not a fan of this tour. This is just my two pennies. Good luck for the competition though


About OL's tour:
With the voting, it's difficult to get a real tour. The result is not too bad though. I personnaly like it, because there are many things we don't see too often (a very long climb, some easy and long climbs, downhill arrivals) . Although I have to agree with those who say it's pretty difficult. One more really easy stage could be nice. But not sure that's really in the spirit.

For Roby's information:
I classified it like that...
5 middle mountain
3 flat
3 HC
1 TTT
1 TT

The early transfer should be no real problem when you take the plane. About my texts, at the beginning i had enough time and the interesting informations became less when you go more to the South unfortunately. Same big problem for the names of mountains. Really difficult here.

3: For sure the winner will get his Samba Girl!!
6: Added the informations, simply forgot them.
9: Middle mountain! I admit, completely stupid stage. My thought was to give the 80-70 a chance, then i had the final but havent found any good climbs before that. Boring²
We can delete the last km without a problem
10: Middle mountain!
11: Hmm you mean before the last mountain? Dont know how this could happen?
12: Not all hills are GPM; because i dont want to have a fight for money there, so i only selected some. Still 30 points on the road so that there is hopefully a fight for climbers jersey and for GC as well. Hope to see some nice agreements. Something like that. Middle mountain!


Biggest problem are the mountain stages for me as well, and thats why I agree with you that i failed my goal. They are not good. I really sat hours over hours on the last mountain stage. There are mountains, but the brazilian dont like to ride over them. Always they take the way around where it is possible. Implementing it into rounds is quite impossible as well. Reasons: less streets, and big distances between the mountains.
First mountain stage was planned like it is, naked but a spectacular climb i think.
For the Petropolis stage i dont really remember but basically the same problem as the Caratuba stage. The country was clear to me so i tried to make the best out of it.

Now i will try to get into the Petropolis stage to tell you what was the problem with it...

I continue with my criticism!

Gala, yep, stage 11 before the last mountain. How it could happen? My guess is the usual way... the 10 times 5 meters down that if you put it in like down make it -60 meters instead of minus 30...

Now to BEARCLAW

Will be hard to get my vote... it's in Europe, and that's still kind of a dealbreaker for me, I like the dec tour exotic. Presentation nothing special, as he said himself too. Problem is that we don't get the infos how much the last climbs etc are, which would be really useful, just to see what kind of stage it is. Stage 1 for example. Ok, we're told it's a semi mountain stage, so I guess the last hill is too hard for the sprinters. Still, would have been nice to get the exact data. Because for those that are less fanatic about the dec tour having to be outside Europe, this Tour could look really good.

The stages

1: Stage for classic riders/hill sprinters probably. Good, another kind of start to a Tour than usual, not a prolog, not a flat stage, like it. At least I think... REally depends a lot on the last hill. if it's 6, definetly not for sprinters. if it's max 5 like it actually looks, maybe it could still be for sprinters, but hard. I guess the one small climb at around 140 is a 6 or more. Plus the difficult beginning. Nice stage anyway, like it for the beginning of a Tour, even if I don't really know what it is....

2: A clear Sprint, but not an automatic with the Ballon. Good, like sprints, but shouldn't always be too easy. This one is good.

3: Clear stage for strong classic riders, here there should be a change of leader. Nice. Like the stage

4: semi mountain, but could be a sprint as Bear nottes. Marchairuz not too hard if I remember correctly. STrong sprinterteams could manage to come back, after all they don't have to save energy for the next day. Wil really depend on how many sprinterteams are there. The one thing that I sort of don't like after 4 stages: All 4 stages roughly the same length, 160-165 km. Ok, make reg important by having short stages (yep, I'm going off on a tangent again, it's really really stupid that if you want to make a tour where riders need a good reg, you have to make the stages short, not long) but a bit more variation would not hurt either. 180-140-160-160, much better already...

5: First mountain stage, not difficult passes but 3 in a row, short stage 140, will guarantee a fast and hard race. Good. Looks good, on the 5th day the fight for the GC really starts, with a cool stage

6: ITT over the Col des Plances, excellent. Ok, I would have preffered a nice mountain stage with 3 passes here, Planches, Orsières and then La Fouly or Verbier basically this stage instead of the one the day before, but ok, it's Bears tour, bah. A long mountain ITT, good. SEcond way to make Reg relevant used nicely, 3 hard stages in a row with a TT in the middle. Excellent.

7 Third hard stage in a row, Grimsel and then Engstlenalp, longest day so far. After the 2 stages before here some reg weak riders will suffer. at least I hope they will.

8. Not sure what to think of this stage... really need more infos, bumpy... how hard are the climbs? Here IMO a sprint stage would be necessary, it is one, just hope it's not too hard.

9. Ok, don't like this stage. NOt at all. Serfaus, again? Already the TdS has this love affair with that boring finish, now in dec as well. No thanks. Couldn't find anything else?? Will be for strong classic riders, which is ok, but Serfaus? Brrr.

10: Sprint stage, good. Nr 3 declared one, could be nr 4

11 HC, short, hard, like it but not the middle and the end. Why go down to Caprile from the Pordoi? Why not just take the route that doesn't go all the way down? Then why not add the Fedaia in the end and go to Canazei? Would have been a nicer stage like that IMO. What's nice is that it's a nice dolomites stage, something the Giro seems to ignore in the last years, Zoncolan, Kronplatz, MOrtirolo is all we get, they are harder and nicer (with the exception of the Kronplatz who is not nice at all but a monumental waste of time) but a nice classical dolomite stage is always good too. Like this one.

12 Another sprint, nr 4 maybe 5 now. Basically enough, but I would have liked to see at least once 2 sprint stage in a row. Not the constant change from sprint to something else and back that we have from day 8 on.

13 TTT, ha, the same UCI rule that Gala ignored. AS I said there one that makes sense in reality and for different reasons at RSF too. Here I think it's a bigger problem than in Galas tour. The short stages, ridden at high intensitiy will weaken the strong teams, not sure if they can recover in time. And don't really like to decide a tour by saving energy on the days before

Generally: You almost get the impression that Bear does everything not to get votes. As little infos as possible, not extra glamour etc at the presentation. Even though it's actually a nice Tour. The individual stages, all rather short, but all potentially very energy costing, high pace for 13 days, or 12, on the second to last day the pace could be slower for once. Then 4 easier days to start, 3 hard days, excellent, almost perfect. After that I personnally like the "Verteilung" a bit less. Bumpy sprint, classic, sprint, HC, sprint, TTT... second part IMO would be better something like this, sprint, bumpy sprint, HC HC, easy sprint. Or if you want only one HC and one middle mountain more, then sprint, bumpy sprint, middle mountain HC easy sprint. To make the reg more important on the last HC, like this the reg will only be important because of the TTT on the last day, but with a fairly easy stage the next day even a 35 reg guy can go to 500 or even a bit less. Make the stage to Bolzano longer and add some climbs if it's still ok with the distance for example Monte Giovo and Pennes, then the looong downhill. A middle mountain stage that if will probably end in a HS sprint or if you want it harder. Or add the Mendola in the end. Ok, then you need to make the day before a sprint, which is not necessarily easy, but possible, just do the Arlberg instead of the detour over Hochtannberg (and why did you use this Faschinajoch when there was the much nicer Furkajoch?????) then go on until Sölden, should be easy enough for a sprint. And the next day to Bolzano you have Timmelsjoch, Jaufen and Pennes. Or even go to Innsbruck on the flat day then add Kühtai to the middle mountain/HC stage. Ok, with 4 passes over 2000 hard to call it middle mountain, even if it ends after a long downhill.... maybe just Kühtai, Timmelsjoch then Merano-Bolzano, add the Mendola somehow at the end and you have a second series of GC fight. Like that you really have one from 5-7, then just single days in the end. So what I'm trying to say is: Really excellent start, not so brillant end of the Tour. Won't get my vote, 1 Europe, 2 Serfaus, but actually like it, the beginning more than the end. Sprintstages ok, 5 possible, 4 announced, none really easy easy easy, which is ok. But maybe making it 5 likely ones instead of 4+1 would have been better. Good tour in the wrong continent for me.

Just some words to Robys criticism:

The stages:

1: 6% at 139 and the last km are 5/-5/-6/0 Good guess Roby.

4: Yap, the same length. I was not focusing on that. Just had an idea where to go, which climbs I want to have and how hard the stage should be.

8: km141-143 it's 6/7/8, km150 it's 7, km172-174 it's 5/5/5, with a total length of 200k it should be possible to create a mass sprint, not easy, but with good Sprintteams possible.

9: Serfaus. I don't think this is that boring, especially in RSF. Stage is way not perfect because there is a lot of flat before that. But I actually like the profile of Serfaus. Bad of the TdS to copy my idea. I thought of Serfaus for the finsish because of the profile, first steep, then flat, like that for RSF. Strong Classics and flatstrong climbers have not that much stages, so I took Serfaus.

11: I wanted to have the final Giau - Falzarego, because I like this combination. First the harder Giau, after that a steep downhill, then the not so steep Falzarego, long and not so steep downhill. If a climber wants to win here or make a big difference in the GC, he has to attack early, at the Giau. That's what I was thinking about. The climbers have to try something, not just waiting for the final call. Middle part - had to go Caprile from the Pordoi because of the final part which was clear. I could have take out the Pordoi and go a bit south. But wanted the Pordoi as well.

12: The constant change - maybe you are right. But like it is now, the sprinter teams can kill there team for one stage, then rest one, go ahead the other day. Most sprinters don't take part at these stage races. So they get their stages and with a fit team they can manage every mass sprint which is possible to create.

13: Ok. TTT at the end maybe not so clever. But I didn't want two ITTs. Could have done the TTT in Martigny. But didn't like that idea.


Generally I am really ok with the criticism... Really like the first part of the Tour, too. Second part was more about the queens stage... should have made more thoughts about the other stages...

You almost get the impression that Bear does everything not to get votes.

I like this one.

Don't get why you have to go down to Caprile before the Giau. Actually didn't even know you can without having to take the same road up again to get to the Giau. Ok, checked, got it now. But not why you want to get down, but ok.

Giau Falzarego makes sense. First the hard one then the easy one, yeah.

Serfaus, bah I just don't like the climb in real life, the stupid TdS tried to sell us that as a "mountain arrival" in 09. Pah. Then I don't like Austrians. Hihi.. .no no, but what I really don't like is: Serfaus for the TdS, Mayrhofen, Lienz, Giro, Tirol for the Deutschland Tour. Austrian cities spend lots of money for foreign tours. At the same time the Tour of Austria in real life almost had to be cancelled in 08 or 09 or 10. Of course it's not an elite race, will never be one, but it's still a race worth supporting. Instead of paying to get Giro/TdS/Deutschlandtour stages the sponsors (I assume sponsors pay as well to get a stage, not only the cities) should help their own tour. Cycling doesn't only need the big races, it needs the small ones too. So I just don't like Serfaus finally, didn't even look closely at the stage or think how it could end, I just dislike Serfaus and that's it. Anybody who puts Serfaus in a stage finish will be criticized to death by me!

Ok, next one, I like criticizing after all.

Kurdistan Tour.

Bah, no video, pff... but ok, the "make your own tour" was a very good, but in the end it didn't really work I think... got people involved, looking at the stages, but the result IMO is not a balanced Tour. But more about that later. The presentation not really spectacular, info there, but often not really enough.. flat at the end, yep, that's what I can see too, but when does the flat start, which km? Stuff like this... Geography ok, outside Europe, good, infrastructure probably too, weather not really, so no bonus there.

But now the stages:

1 Good, sprint. Well, if there are sprinters there.. But ignoring the rest, good start.
2 Sprinters no chance. 155 a 6, 163 another one, the whole tour is hilly and mountainous, lots of climbers and classic guys around. There is no way to come back. Not even if the rest of the stage was flat, which it isn't either. Just not a sprint. As a middle mountain stage, for 60+ mountain sprinters vs classic sprinters, it's interesting.
3 long flat climb, 2 5, interesting stage, Maybe even more interesting with more than 2 5 actually. Here the chances for sprinters are bigger, some will probably stay on. Good stage for attacks, interesting, like this one, could be a sprint, but probably not.
4 HC, 10? Km flat or so in the end, interesting, good
5 Easy flat, agree, second sprint stage
6 Same problem as stage 2, no way for sprinters to come back. 6 followed by 10 km up just kills sprinters. So the third middle mountain stage. IMO too similar to nr 2 anyway, even if there wasn't the problem with too few sprints.
7 Can't say much, since the infos we get are fairly useless here. Long climb with 5-7%. At RSF 5 or 7 is important, how many 5, 6 and 7? And when is what? Probably more 5-6 than 7 since OL says maybe classic sprinters can do it. But ok, so classic sprinters/70-80/80-70 and climbers with chances?
8 Next middle mountain stage. With IMO classic sprinters/70-80/80-70 and climbers with chances. The same as the day before, but this time very short. Ok, with the 6 in the second to last km more mountain is needed than maybe the day before where the top looks flatter. Still, don't really like this one, fourth middle mountain stage in 8 days, too much actually you could say it's the fifth one, IMO nr 3 is more of a middle mountain stage with chances for sprinter, than a sprint stage with chances for escapes. Just way too many middle mountain stages so far. Not always for the same kind of rider, true, but still.. too much.
9 Next middle mountain stage.. last mountain might be steep, but then it goes down and flat, no doubt it's for a classic rider or classic sprinter (for me the 70-70-70 not 70-60-85+, those have less chances unless they have 70-85 or so as support rider) So we are at 6 middle mountain stages out of 9 stages...
10 HC stage, nice one, hard to control, resp. you need a second climber. Good stage
11 HC, decides the race, reg from the day before, long climb that will be very tactic.
12 The end, hard circuit for the sprinters with the 5 in the circuit. If sprinters are there, it's still a sprint for 50-60 sprinters I think. Problem of course is the sprinters have no reason to show up...

Overall: Just not balanced, The december tour in my opinion should be a small GT, a bit of everything, something for everybody. Which of course isn't easy, since a GT has 21 days we only have 12-14.. So maybe one can be a bit mountain heavy, one a bit sprint heavy, one TT heavy, one middle mountain stage heavy, but still a little for everybody. Here it's:

0 TT
3 sprints, chance for a fourth.
6 middle mountain stages (one actually might be a HC stage, depending on how the long climb is exactly)
3 HC stages.

No TT, I usually hate them when I have to ride them, always lose time on everybody, but in a 12-14 day tour one should be in IMO. Small tours, good without TT I think, often think some small fantasy tours we have would be much better without a TT, but 12 stages, there needs to be one to be a complete tour.
3 sprints.. not enough to get the sprinter teams there I think. So we have a few isolated sprinters, maybe a 60+ mountain sprinter, because he can have 4 sprints, but then needs a strong strong strong team, since he won't have much help on the other sprint stages either. But 3 sprints in 12 days, 1 of them not clear depending on your sprinter.. simply not enough. Needs to be 5 possible sprints, and by possible I don't mean things like stage 2. More like the last one. Classified as flat, where sprinters are the favorite but can lose it. Something like 3 sure sprints, 2 a bit harder, but not too hard. Or 3 sure, 1 a bit harder, 2 fairly hard, then 6 possible, might only get 5 or 4. But here just 2 that seem sure, 1 likely, one possible. Not enough to get them here. Not enough for a mini GT
6 middle mountains: too many. Ok, we have the whole range, hill followed by flat, for classic riders strong in the mountains, and one that is maybe even HC.. but 50%. Too much, that's the one category that IMO needs the least stages specially for them, after all they can compete on all terrains, flat sprint, a hill sprinter can win, HC, a classic rider can win. Something that the other types of riders really can't, they are confined to their terrain much more. Flat rider winning a HC stage with an escape much more difficult (normal and correct) climber winning a middle mountain stage very difficult too. So giving the general rider type who can compete a bit everywhere the most specialized stages? Not good.
3 HC good, all 3 HC stages are nice, 1 downhill followed by flat, so possible for super classics to come back maybe, no problem (ok, in this tour maybe yes since there is too much for classic riders anyway..) one downhill, one long steep climb. Very good and very nice. 2 possibilites (maybe) on the harder middle mountain stages. Balanced for climbers, need to be complete. The best part of the tour IMo.

Here a climber should normally win, the middle mountain stages not flat enough in the end for classic riders to get enough time, time that's they lose on the way to hell.. The biggest danger for climbers though comes from the not necessarily controlled flat stages, no sprinters there, there the classic riders could gain a lot of time.

Finally as I said, the "make your own tour" experiment failed. NOt a tour I can imagine voting for. Probably a more guided "make your own tour" would have worked better... I'll put in at least one, max 2 TT, so if no TT goes in, I'll put in the TT who got most votes, if 3 days have a tt I'll cut the tt who got the least votes, And something similar for sprints maybe, but here what was offered already was a bit thin... max 6 sprintstages offered, and for each of those sprint stages only 1 possibility was the sprint, except on the last day. And finally some misleading info too.. stage 6, possible for sprinters not steep.. but now we know there are 2 6, one far down, which of course will sieb away the sprinters and they'll never come back, no way to come back...if it was max 5, and lots of 4, yes, possible for sprinters, like that... no. Needed either a "sprint minimum" like I said above for TTs, or then more stages where the choice is only a sprint stage. Like HC got on day 10+11, was sure to be for climbers, only that as a choice, or 7 for classic riders with strong mountain, without the exact numbers the stages offered there look to cater to the same kind of rider finally. But like this in the end IMO just not balanced enough for a little GT.

The presentation not really spectacular, info there, but often not really enough.. flat at the end, yep, that's what I can see too, but when does the flat start, which km?

I will complete the details later, when the official competition with the votes will start

Next:

Johannesburg-Capetown

LCB wrote:

I don't really intend to win it, as I think it should be someone who regularly rides at RSF and who will enjoy riding his own tour

That's my biggest problem with the tour as well.. until last year the designing master LCB (not ironic, I think he is probably our best designer) at least had a team.. not really active, but.. now not even that. So another excuse not to vote for him... until now it was: in Europe. Now it's not active... But, he might get the vote anyway, I like this tour a lot.

Presentation no show as usual, just pure dry LCB info, which I like too, since he writes down everything I like to know. Excellent.
Location top, Geography, infrastructure all top too.

The stages: Start with a short TTT, with a small hill downhill, good, not huge differences, but probably still too big to have leader changes later. Still good start.
1b: Sprint, but maybe not with all sprinters. Sprinters with low reg and not good team might be dropped at the last hill. Chances for hill sprinters too. Good
2 Medium mountain, but possible for sprinters too maybe. But normally expect the hill sprinters, if there aren't any, the classic sprinters, to win it. Still, the sprinters have their chance, 25 km to get back the time lost in 4 km, good easier medium mountain stage, one of those that I never manage to design.
3 Sprint, easy one normally.
4 Excellent first GC stage. Not too hard, the climbers will probably not manage to stay away, cooperation etc, some riding for their super classics, but for sure the leaders jersey will change. Win for a climber, 80-70, super classic all possible, hill sprinter probably not, but depending on the group even that maybe, but needs to be a really good one. With a strong team. LIke it a lot, not too hard, but will sort the GC after 4 days.
5 Medium mountain, long stage, but IMO all will be decided in the last hill, probably not much will happen before, long escape of course. Which has a chance if there are too many favorites, too many similar classic riders that all can win, and all want the others to do the work. I probably would have like a bit more hills, so that the action in the main bunch could maybe start earlier, but like this ok too.
6 Typical flat stage that might scare away some sprinter teams... even though normally it should be a sprint, 30 km from the last mountain. But often our sprinters are sheep, and scared of every difficulty, too scared to show up, while it would be easy. Good stage, not automatic but very likely, if the sprinters have the brains to show up.
7 Good stage. Not really sure if it's in the right place in the whole build up of the tour, but otherwise good. All decided in the end, and I don't really know who'll win it. Strong climbers can win it, but they need to invest something early in the climb, 2 climbers almost necessary. Maurer-Chatelain for example, Maurer preparing, Chatelain then winning at the end. If not, again 80-70 might come back, super classics as well and have a chance to "düpieren" the climbers with an attack in the flat. But more likely probably a climber still.
8 Sprint again I think, not many chances for an escape IMO, sprinters fresh after the day before where they should have an easy day in the back of the peloton. Good, 4th sprint in 8 days, some chances on a 5th, they really should show up for this tour.
9 HC. Too bad that the downhill from the Sanipass is so long, will be very difficult to make a hard hard selection there. But, it's should be fairly easy to get a medium selection, only climbers and 70-80s there. So a potential winner of the tour really needs a team. Or a really strong TT then here even without support riders he will maybe sweat a bit, be isolated, lose more time than he should in the last climb, but not enough to lose the tour. Good 2 climbs, good finish.
10 HC.like this one less. IMO would have been better to have the finish at the bottom of the mountain, like this IMO it will be too far, just no chance for some climbers who try to go alone. Mmh, or maybe not? Here not enough LCB info for my taste, only the last 11 km, but would have liked to have it from where the downhill stops... so the last 20? or so km. But I think will be very hard to get differences between the contenders here, There will be classic riders coming back to cover everything I think. Could be wrong. So this stage.. IMO a bit too soft in the end, without the flat part at the end, or a shorter one, would have been nicer. At RSF.
11: TT Not too long, good, I think the balance TT mountain finally quite good, A longer TT, more than 25 would have been too decisive, here still ok. Actually probably 15-20 would have been better, but that just looks stupid, a main TT with 18 Km.... So I'm ok with 23. The climbers without TT will have a lot of work to do to win the tour, but don't think it's impossible. Hubers with a good team, clear favorites though. But has to be a good team, an isolated Huber, without 70-80 will be very attackable.
12 Sprint to finish, easy, should be sprint, good, don't like it when on sprint stages at the end there are GC attacks...

Nice tour, like it, without wanting to insult the others (otherwise I would have called you motherfuckers) for me clearly, without a doubt the best tour that I've looked at closely so far. 5 sprints, spread out, basically I like to have more sprint stages in a row sometimes, but here somehow it doesn't bother me that much, except that I maybe would have changed stage 7 and 8.. sprint sprint mountain mountain mountain TT instead of sprint mountain sprint mountain mountain TT. But well, geography is what it is, can't have everything. 4 HC stages, but they are not all clear for climbers, chances for strong classics too sometimes, good 3 decisive days, with some doubts about stage 10 as I said, a bit afraid that with the TT and energy it will become a GC no action day due to the flat. But riders with good reg might have to take a risk, so ok. 1 TTT, not to long, good, 1 TT, not too long, good, 2 medium mountains, fewer than most others, but very much in line with the monkeylosophy, medium mountain stages the ones that are needed the least in GTs (and I still regard the Dectours as small GTs) Of course not 0, but less than sprint and HC, 2 like here is ok, one easier that might even turn out to be a sprint, one harder but still not very hard, but there are chances in some HC stages too. Maybe one harder, multiclimb medium mountain stage would have been nice, stage 5 a bit harder basically. Overall, just a good tour. Jerseys, points should go to a sprinter IMO, hill sprinter with chances though, mountain don't care, grey the same, GC: Huber fav nr 1, but climbers with TT, climbers without TT and Leupolds (do they still exist?) could have chances too. Would actually like to see no Huber but a Leupold with a strong team here, could be an interesting fight, the climbers can win it, but need to invest a lot, the Leupold can win it, but needs to be good at what he does. With a Huber it might be too hard for climbers, depending on the Huberteam, a weaker Huber or a Huber with a weak team on the other hand very interesting again.

So... 60% chances to get my vote so far. Just convince LCB to restart, he has not so much time, I know, so just ride once a week, prepare for the real season with some races and the chance to get my vote are at 90% basically. Or 100% of the tours I saw so far. LCB himself says that his tours earlier where much better... mmh, actually they probably were better, they were excellent, but I still have this thing about riding in Europe, central Europe, south Europe, where we ride the whole real season... so while just looking at the stages the earliers were better, yes, this one in the end is my favorite of the LCB ones, it's outside Europe and it's still good, balanced, a good tour.

thanks for the compliments, Roby, the last km of the final Mountain Stage (beginning at the top of the final mountain) will be the following:

-10/-12/-10/-9/-10/-9/-7/-10/-12/-11/-6/-4/0/-2/3/-3/-3/-5/-6/5/0/-6/-1/4/3/1/-1/0/0/-1

not too flat in the end, so I hope it should be possible to win for a climber, but I also didn't want it to be a "must-attack-stage", I think it should still be possible to have a GC-fight on this stage, but only if some GC-contenders are willing to invest some energy here.

The ape continues with his criticism. But doesn't really understand the general lack of comments here. Why not mention if you like something in a tour? Or don't. If the designer than feels insulted that's his problem, Why only the ape criticizing? Ok, it's his hobby, criticize others... but more fun if more people post something IMO.

Anyway:

Passau Como München. Not finished, no comment

5 Länder Tour: Weird one. First impression. All mountains or TT.. is he completely crazy? No sprint, no nothing. Second look actually looks better and the monkey thinks the thing even has a certain charm. Weird, but somehow something is there.

The biggest problem: Lack of info. Last sieb km at km x would be nice, like that we're left guessing what is possible.

1: ? Possible sprint? Gets not so steep from what I remember and doesn't look hard on the profile? Ok then. Or if not hill sprint.
2 seems a fairly clear hill sprint classic sprint. Possible to make it hard maybe, but all so far away, so normally hill or classic sprint. Not a big fan of the stage, seems unnecessary here. Want a hard start? Make it shorter in the end. Want a hill sprint on day 2? OK, but why make the early part hard, then soft?
3. 80-70? More info please. Not a big fan either, but see the interest in getting more difficult a bit every day.
4. Excellent. Good stage
5: Sprint, nr 2 or 1. Good, why not a heavy start, then sprints. Problem is it's more like heavy start, then only sprint when not enough heavy stuff was around.
6: Mountain TT 24 KM? Ok.
7 Another Serfaus freak, don't like it in Bears thing, don't like it here. And completely unnecessary stage too, 80-70 have Zermatt it seems, another one for the same type? Why not a S P R I N T.
8 Kitzbühel, After the nice alps parcours on 4, we have the hard mountain top arrival. Good, but why put heavy mountains on stages that end flat, and few mountains on stages that end hard like this? Ok, geography. Kitzbühel still an ok arrival, even though we can have it every year in the Tour of Austria. Why not get another arrival?
9 Sprint? Not sure Obertauern looks a bit steep, and since no sprinters are here no sprint of course, but if there were sprinters? maybe yes, so sprint nr 1-3. Ok
10 Sprint, fairly sure if team are there. Good.
11: Ultralong TT. Mmh, it fits. I think it doesn't. It becomes too TT friendly. Only 2 hard mountain stages, 4+8, the rest is always hard, but not a HC stage, so this here probably too long. For sure too long, especially combined with the 24 Km mountain TT.
12: Infos? HOw steep are the climbs? If it's 5 max, could even be for sprinters. Which would make the tour voteable IMO. But my guess is no.

So:
1-5 sprints. my guess is 3 or 4, don't think he last one is for sprinters.
2 HC stages
2 80 70? (Or climbers or classic)
2 long TT
2-3 HS stage
1 classic escape stage? (Last one)

Not really balanced, HS get a lot, other classic riders much less. GC between Hubers and Hubers and 70-70-80. Could be interesting. Climbers get 2-4 stages. Not as bad as it looks at first, the presentation though is as bad. NO INFO! Probably with just clearer stages for sprinters, and less for HS who just get too many stages here it would be a fairly voteable tour, in the end it's not as hard as it looks already, just make it clearer for the sprint stages, and add one at least and it's ok. Stages 4-6-8-11 the GC stages, a bit weird, last mountain stage on stage 8, very early. But not without a certain appeal. Hubers get an advantage that they then have to defend against the Leupolds who attack in the flat. . And the climbers get the jersey early, but then lose it at 6, not to get it back.

IN Europe, don't like it, no need to mention that I think.

Madrid-Rom

Don't like Europe, that's said, don'0t like the name, should be Madrid Roma not Rom

3 Flat Stages
3 Middle Mountain Stages
3 Hard Mountain Stages
1 TTT
2 ITT´s

Not enough flat, no chance for sprinters to be there like this. But, information here is there at least, good.

Start with a long TTT. 41 Km. Why not, TTT don't always have to be 10-25 Km or then ultralong. 40, big differences, why not. If the parcours allows to make up some of it later.

1: Sprint, good. BUT, the problem with the whole tour starts here. More about it oon stage 2
2: A saw. the whole stage is up down up down up down. Like the whole tour is. In almost every stage you see this little climbs little downhills along the whole route. which means most of the time: Designing error. Get a better system to see the exact altitude.There are places where the profile is like this, but if a whole tour has that characterisc very likely: Designing mistake. The stage otherwise nice, after a sprint a hill sprint, classic good. Not as clearly for HS as the Aston stages in 5 Länder seem, classic riders seem to have more chances. Ok, is a thing like this Greixer rideable? Is it paved? Is it really that steep, seeing the saw every day it's possible that it's overdrawn? But if it's like that paved, without the saws would be good.
3 first mountain top arrival. first climb: 13,2,6,-3,14. 5 km 330 meters up, averabe of 6,6% If it comes out as 13-2-6--3-14 it's a designing mistake in 99% of cases. Road builders aren't idiots. (I wanted to become one, they didn't let me, so I know) They make adapted to the geography, yes (except in China, here they just dig half of the mountains away to get a +/- 5% slope.. ) but if there is a huge canyon somehwere or something in the middle of a road to a pass.... they either build a bridge or go around it. climb 2 the same thing. The arrival, ok, easier at the end, so not clear for climbes, interesting
4 sprint nr 2, good. Again the saw in the climb and downhill though.
5 classic sprint, but... the 17% looks like a designing mistake, again. Up 17, down probably roughly the same. Might be a tunnel there? Or even no road at all?

and here I stop. the designing here IMO is NOT up to RSF standard. Too many downhills in climbs, to many climbs in downhills, to many flat km that go up and down, too many high percentages for whole km that are not that common actually. Sorry Hanse, just not designed well enough, IMO not up to RSF standard. Not worth my time. The whole tour, ignoring the designing thing, not enough sprint. middle mountain stages actually look good. Then 2 TTs in the last three days, not good either IMO.

Unvoteable, just not designed carefully enough.

Sheik.

Entered after the deadline, demand it's taken out of the competiton
3

Ok ok, let's analyze that damned Sheik thing from Falke.

1: .
2:
3

He stole my 2011 tour Well almost, Yemen, one stage almost identical. Already designed it And he really stole 2012, after not winning in 2011 I planned to make Saudi-Arabia to Yemen in 2012. Stage to Taif? Cool climb where you can go up by cable car too? Yes? MY FUCKING EARLY CLIMB for 2012!!!! AND HE MISSED THE DEADLINE KICK HIM, KICK HIM

Ok. wää

Presentation: Not good. Infos are there, but: PICTURES DUDE. Just a few pictures or links would be enough. Stage 11:
Near al Mahwit: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/372059
Al Mahwit: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4664785
Al Tawila http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4366955
Kaukaban: http://www.panoramio.com/photo/17077946
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7224189
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/35857350

Or even post a nice google earth screen of Kaukaban, a spectacular arrival like that... Stupid Falke. Too late, thought I was safe, then this. Unfair. GRrr.

REally think the presentation could be "sexier". Google earthed around the region quite a lot in the past year, it's full of really great pictures.

The rest, good, the information part is good. The region is an act of genius, only a real genius could decide on such a good place. Asshole, grrr...

Ok now to the stages:

Stages: 12, classified in 4 flat, 4 middle mountain, 3 HC and 1 ITT

Correct since you classified them, but maybe better to put into the title that some of the middle mountain are ok for sprinter, or possibly ok. Which IMO is one of the strenghts of the tour. Like this 4-4-3 it's a bit sprinter unfriendly, your tour really isn't.

Stage 1: Sprint with 2 early mountains for the boring jersey chasers. Good.
2: Boring flat stage, not a single problem... good. 1: flat stages with a 6 somewhere for mysterious reasons scare away sprinters too. So here they really get a clear sign that they will get the stage. I mean stage one is clearly a sprint stage 2. But somehow 4 stages like this would scare some chicken. Good stage
3: Very nice like it. Excellent. HC, but not clear for climbers or 80-70 or do classic riders get back? Probably not. Only way to make it better would be a minor climb before the final climb. But geography is a bitch, so probably couldn't do it. But really like this stage. Change of leader obviously.
4: middle mountain. classic rider/sprinter as you said, nice stage, more action after day 3. Good. Probably too hard for hill sprinters. Here though a small concern: saws? do I see some saws? Ha! Unvoteble. Seriously, beginning of the stage looks a bit suspicious, possible, unlike Hansa you don't have saws every day everywhere, occasionally though you have them. It's not always a measuring designing error, but often yes. Designed with? google or t4b or the cool analyzer thing?
5: easier middle mountain: Hill sprinter favorite, but sprinters have chances, so have classic sprinters and classic escape artists. Or even the long escape, since the finish is a bit unclear, who should work
6 middle mountain 3 times the same stage, in a row. That's what the profile looks like. and that's the big big disadvantage of designing tours at high altitude for december at RSF. Profile don't look half as cool as if it's 1500 lower. The 3 stages while certainly a bit similar, have big differences,that would be much more obvious at lower altitude. Here for sprinters, I would almost call it a sprinter stage, not middle mountain. 148 the last 5+? over 50 Km time? Ok, interesting to know what is earlier. but IMO looks excellent for sprinters. Good stage

Like the first 6 days a lot: 2 sprints in a row, HC stage, then harder middle mountain soft middle mountain with chances for almost everybody, then easy middle mountain with good sprint chances. Very nice.

7: Long climbing ITT, in the middle of the tour. interesting. Again small sawconcern in the middle, the 4 1 4 0 etc.section looks strange. If your not sure, "schragstellen" with google earth, then you see it. Rivers running through wholes, rivers hanging on the side of the valley etc. Then adapt. Possible that it's that way, but always better to check. And adapt if necessary. Interesting ITT, very long. Could be too long for the difficultys coming later probably would have needed another tough stage to balance that ITT.

8 : easy sprint stage. If you're sprinter had reg. If not, it might be for escapers. Here for once the sprinters reg will be very important. And the downhill. Why the Eiterolloids will recover a bit, the Contis will not. So while it looks like another "boring" sprint stage (that would be welcome by many GC riders) it could turn out to be an interesting battle between escaping regmonsters. Let's just hope for some control in the back... But sprint not impossible either, if the sprinters with the most reg have a strong team. Good again.

9 Next HC stage, again a bit a softie. 80-70 sounds about right, or climber in a sprint, after all 80-70 are not really sure to drop the 85-60.. fairly sure they don't. 85-55 more? Good stage basically, even though here for balance things I would have preferred seeing a tougher stage. Not necessarily arrival, actually this arrival might make bigger differences than a top arrival. Might make smaller ones too. But a few climbs more before could have helped.

10 Short intense, you need reg, which you need the next day. Good. But, not the GC guys will need the energy... it's clearly for classic riders (so if it becomes a GC fight including Leupolds it's still the classic helpers that have to ride. So less good already. In the end risks just being a non factor in the GC, and by stage 10 we should really be in the middle of the GC fight. Soft on 9, not here on 10 is a bit too little compared to the long ITT.

11: Excellent stage. Of course much better to start in Al Hudaida and finish in Al Tawila. As really good tours do in their stage 11 No, Kaubakan of course is cool, really spectacular (open google earth and look for yourself) The advantage of finishing earlier though is: then it's a really hard mountain stage (I had 6 6 for the last 2 km to Al Tawila, grr, badly designed sheik don't vote for it) Getting easier towards the end. The early climbs are harder, each time a bit easier, even when you stop in Al Tawila. Like this, the end even easier, while still not a lot, it's almost the part with most flat of the whole stage. Which can go both ways: The risk: Really controlled until the end. The hope: many different groups chasing each others in the last 50 kms. So in a way this version is the more interesting one, but often those stages at RSF end up with a big waiting race too. Good like this, Kaubakan too cool to leave out almost. But, then I really miss a earlier hard stage with mountain top arrival. Here we have the mountain top arrival, almost, last km -1 but for a mountain top arrival Al Tawaila is just better. Less recovery time before the last climb (but there still is a fair amount of flat their too actually) Despite the criticism here, like this stage, opens many possiblities. But what's missing is. The other stage, the one that end on a mountain after another mountain, the mountain top arrival. Finally in this tour we have only half a mountain top arrival, let's say 3/4. IMO there should be one at least in a 12 day tour. Even more in a 12 day tour with such a long TT,

12: Sprint. The problem for sprinters could be: AFter the hell day the day before over 5000 meters I think) they are not fit again. Especially if the day is ridden hard. Not fit and no support riders. So the risk of this stage is: chaos. another GC day, especially with 5 around there. Mmh, where's the finish. If it's the cool Wadi road that cuts through the old city center, POST A PICTURE.

Generally. I'll vote for this or Capetown, will have to look at both once again and compare. Good tour. Excellent first part, IMO the second part a bit weaker. Either the TT a bit shorter, tp balance the thing more, or another hard mountain stage. Like this the risk is that after the ITT too many riders are out. No chance to get in again. Sprint after TT good, then 9-12 to soft. Not 11 of course, it's excellent really, but 9 soft, 10 not GC, 12 sprint after a hard mountain stage too, a big risk at RSF, that might turn out to be the missing GC stage. For example why not take the climb to the highland further south on stage 9? Noth the one to Huth, but the one just north of the Al Mahvit, al Tawila route, the one to Kulan (another spectacular place) there the 2 climbs are closer together (but the second one not that steep) . Then you would get the GC mountain stage. OK, stage 10 then a bit... where to go? Kulan or 100 other way to write is basically near Amran, road coming to the west.. so what to do? Ok could take the road to Thula to the south instead of going to Amran, nice climb again, over 3000 meters but difficult to get a stage that makes sense going to Sanaa if I remember correctly, you just end up doing rounds and rounds... Mmh, where do you actually go after Amran? Don't really get that, only 3 roads no? One from the north, where you come from, one goes southeast, but there is a small eeasy pass immediately, the other going east direction Kulan and starts climbing soon too... you keep going flat?? Ok, couldn't resist.. went google earthing, hihi, you used the route I just proposed... but sure you didn't write Amran in the wrong place? Looks like it keeps going flat for a while, after Amran it starts climbing fairly soon. Ok short stage, looks more than it is probably. Anyway, stage 10 then you risk riding circles, but why not make it a bit harder too... instead of going to Sanaa and that's it, why not go up the cool 2 lined road on the main Sanaa-Al Hudaida road on the southwest of Sanaa, either go down the other lane (that is separated goes down differently or use the connection to the Sanaa Ibb-Taizz road to get back to Sanaa. Make it a bit harder more possibilites for GC attacks. Anyway, without going too much into details (good, means I haven't done it yet, no?) stage 9 harder, stage 10 more GC chances my mine critic. Plus serious doubts about 12.

Otherwise good especially one of the 2 tours that have enough sprints. 4 officially, might be 6. Might be 2 too after the TT and the last one at risk. But IMO not a really big risk after the TT, and the 2 middle mountain stages look doable, so IMO will be 5-6
HC stages a weakness IMO. 11 cool, 3 cool, 9 mentioned already combined with the TT (ok mountain top there...) not enough IMO. but 3 and 11, excellent. just something more missing.
Middle mountain look good too, 4 seems a lot, but only 2 assured, so it's ok, not too similar too. the 2 possible ones good too.

LIke it, as I said, good chances to get my vote, very probably will, main reason LCB not riding, but might getting it because I prefer it to LCBs too... NOt sure yet, really will have to take another look at LCBs tour...

Still... couldn't you just have done your damned tour somewhere else?