California

[Fixed]

The tour has not shown the beauty that the state has IMHO
Looks like a place I would not like to go. If I had not been there before and know it to be magnifacent . :bike:
Cheers :)

[pdmtong]

I live here and no one goes to Bakersfield or Clovis either
just saying ...

We could do the whole race in norcal - oceans mountains etc. Too bad theylll never do a stage as a circuit race around san Francisco like the old sf grand prix days

[CaliFly]

I live right near Big Bear and hope to be at the finish line tomorrow afternoon...the visuals should be much greener. :)

[krhea]

I watch the race to see the racing, not to see a "travelogue" of California. I'm quite sure that most viewers realize there's tons of things to see and do in California, or at least they should with the amount of money the Cali Travel&Tourism Board has spent and continues to spend on commercials.

It's the same with the Tour, Giro or whatever race it is. There's a finite amount of time the coverage has and advertisers want the best bang for their "targeted" buck. Cyclists watch racing on TV to see guys racing, not for travel ideas. And of any state in the nation, California is [I]pretty well known[I] you must admit. It's not like folks aren't familiar with the Bay area, LA/Hollywood, San Diego beaches, NorCal rivers and mountains, Yosemite, Joshua Tree, the Redwoods, Sonoma etc etc. California might be the best known state as far as travel/vacation opportunities in the nation.

Even with that said, the coverage still makes a point of mentioning the local "flavor", how scenic the day's route is, how beautiful the weather is etc etc. And you can bet tomorrow's stage will get some "travelogue" time just because of how impressive the Big Bear area is.

If cycling TV coverage became a "travelogue" or began doing the copius "Up Close and Personal" stories like the Ironman does every year I think viewership would drop dramatically. Most of us crave when spring rolls around and we have the classics to watch followed by Amgen, The Giro and the Tour and we want to see guys riding their bikes. We miss enough already with untimely commercial breaks, poor camera work and 2hr condensed shows that all I want is coverage of the racing, that's it. I can Google what to see and do in California if I'm interested in visiting.

[pdmtong]

I live right near Big Bear and hope to be at the finish line tomorrow afternoon...the visuals should be much greener. :)

True true!

[monkeybanana86]

I think the most beautiful places are in the woods which helicopters wouldn't be able to shoot through (are they using helis? I'm only looking at race results and final km's). One cool thing is that the roads get repaved!

Lance was recently riding in the San Francisco peninsula and when I saw a closed road this past tuesday I overheard the construction guy telling some cyclists "we can't have Lance crash here" or at least that's what I think I heard I was more bummed about the closure that day.

Are they not showing highway one and the coast or something?

[thinpin]

I watch the race to see the racing, not to see a "travelogue" of California. I'm quite sure that most viewers realize there's tons of things to see and do in California, or at least they should with the amount of money the Cali Travel&Tourism Board has spent and continues to spend on commercials.

It's the same with the Tour, Giro or whatever race it is. There's a finite amount of time the coverage has and advertisers want the best bang for their "targeted" buck. Cyclists watch racing on TV to see guys racing, not for travel ideas. And of any state in the nation, California is [I]pretty well known[I] you must admit. It's not like folks aren't familiar with the Bay area, LA/Hollywood, San Diego beaches, NorCal rivers and mountains, Yosemite, Joshua Tree, the Redwoods, Sonoma etc etc. California might be the best known state as far as travel/vacation opportunities in the nation.

Even with that said, the coverage still makes a point of mentioning the local "flavor", how scenic the day's route is, how beautiful the weather is etc etc. And you can bet tomorrow's stage will get some "travelogue" time just because of how impressive the Big Bear area is.

If cycling TV coverage became a "travelogue" or began doing the copius "Up Close and Personal" stories like the Ironman does every year I think viewership would drop dramatically. Most of us crave when spring rolls around and we have the classics to watch followed by Amgen, The Giro and the Tour and we want to see guys riding their bikes. We miss enough already with untimely commercial breaks, poor camera work and 2hr condensed shows that all I want is coverage of the racing, that's it. I can Google what to see and do in California if I'm interested in visiting.

I'd disagree with you there krhea. If all we wanted to see were men on bikes (or women for that matter) then we could head down to the track to get our fill. Or watch a bunch flog round a 10km road circuit somewhere.
A lot of folk watch these races to get a glimpse of the country they go through.
How could you not be in awe of the Alps and the cols that are crossed or the beauty of the Loire or Tuscan countryside. The places visited are steeped in history, both conventional and often cycling too. European tours and classics are dripping with culture and history. To ignore all that is to leave out a big part of what its all about.
While races do not need to be exclusively run through picture postcard terrain there is no harm in treating the viewer to the extra bonus.

[bironi]

I'd disagree with you there krhea. If all we wanted to see were men on bikes (or women for that matter) then we could head down to the track to get our fill. Or watch a bunch flog round a 10km road circuit somewhere.
A lot of folk watch these races to get a glimpse of the country they go through.
How could you not be in awe of the Alps and the cols that are crossed or the beauty of the Loire or Tuscan countryside. The places visited are steeped in history, both conventional and often cycling too. European tours and classics are dripping with culture and history. To ignore all that is to leave out a big part of what its all about.
While races do not need to be exclusively run through picture postcard terrain there is no harm in treating the viewer to the extra bonus.

And that is why the TDF is the favorite. I'm with thinpin here. Much of the Vuelta is painful viewing.

[benitosan1972]

I'd disagree with you there krhea. If all we wanted to see were men on bikes (or women for that matter) then we could head down to the track to get our fill. Or watch a bunch flog round a 10km road circuit somewhere.
A lot of folk watch these races to get a glimpse of the country they go through.
How could you not be in awe of the Alps and the cols that are crossed or the beauty of the Loire or Tuscan countryside. The places visited are steeped in history, both conventional and often cycling too. European tours and classics are dripping with culture and history. To ignore all that is to leave out a big part of what its all about.
While races do not need to be exclusively run through picture postcard terrain there is no harm in treating the viewer to the extra bonus.

well said.

the TOC should include sometime: Marin, Napa, Woodside, Monterey, SLO to name a few. these cities are not only beautiful, but have huge cycling communities that would welcome the Tour with open arms... but i guess the picked cities are a result of money, politics, and... just how are the cities/routes picked anyways???

[GuyGadois]

Watch that Santa Cruz Mtn stage again. That was beautiful. The riders going through those mountains was awesome especially through the giant redwood area.

The central valley of CA? No thank you (but I do appreciate the veggies that come from that area).

GG

[54ny77]

Great question.

Yeah, I wanna see aerial shots of Clovis like I want to stick my face in a hot vat of bubbling oil.

There's about 50 different locations that would be better, but....hey, at least the thing is going on which is cool no matter how you slice it, Bakersfield and all.

well said.

the TOC should include sometime: Marin, Napa, Woodside, Monterey, SLO to name a few. these cities are not only beautiful, but have huge cycling communities that would welcome the Tour with open arms... but i guess the picked cities are a result of money, politics, and... just how are the cities/routes picked anyways???

[Uncle Jam's Army]

well said.

the TOC should include sometime: Marin, Napa, Woodside, Monterey, SLO to name a few. these cities are not only beautiful, but have huge cycling communities that would welcome the Tour with open arms... but i guess the picked cities are a result of money, politics, and... just how are the cities/routes picked anyways???

The Tour did go through Tunitas Creek and SLO a few years ago. Also, I thought the Santa Rosa stage was absolutely beautiful. The shots on the coast and going through Coleman Valley Road were amazing, too. For anyone who has done Levi's Gran Fondo, you know how great the riding is there.

[akelman]

(but I do appreciate the veggies that come from that area)

My higher brain function is just fine, thanks.

[tiretrax]

Money, Money, Money. That's also why the TDF doesn't go to certain cities/towns each time. Levi's Gran Fondo charity is to raise funds for the race to go to Santa Rosa. One complaint about the race when it was held in February was that it didn't go through the Sierras. There is some pretty country and a lot of not so picturesque country in the middle of the State. I doubt it goes through Kern County next year. Bakersfield, Palmdale, snooze on scenery, but today's time trial made for a nice shakeup of the GC.

I read that California is called the golden state because that's the predominant color of the hillsides, not because of the gold in them thar hills. 13-23" of rain doesn't allow for much greenery. A fairly good amount of the State is desert. Spain is similar, and a lot of the flatter stages in the TDF are through uninspiring countryside.

The unfortunate part of the coverage is that with two hours of live coverage at the end of the stage that's later condensed to an hour, they haven't shown much of the mountains they've raced through the previous two days.

I don't understand why the relays from the helicopters were so bad the first few days. The soundtrack is abominable, too - and that's from a commentary box at the finish line. I suppose the money for good feeds isn't there yet, like we see in the TDF (although there's lots of time when there's picture breakup in that coverage, too).

[monkeybanana86]

The Tour did go through Tunitas Creek and SLO a few years ago. Also, I thought the Santa Rosa stage was absolutely beautiful. The shots on the coast and going through Coleman Valley Road were amazing, too. For anyone who has done Levi's Gran Fondo, you know how great the riding is there.

and Tunitas was repaved! Cycling heaven.

[Bob Loblaw]

and Tunitas was repaved! Cycling heaven.

That does it. I am moving back!

Personally, I love the desert. I thought Patterson Pass was awesome, and yesterday's TT was fantastic. You could feel the heat. And they finally got the sound straightened out!

BL

[krhea]

I'd disagree with you there krhea. If all we wanted to see were men on bikes (or women for that matter) then we could head down to the track to get our fill. Or watch a bunch flog round a 10km road circuit somewhere.
A lot of folk watch these races to get a glimpse of the country they go through.
How could you not be in awe of the Alps and the cols that are crossed or the beauty of the Loire or Tuscan countryside. The places visited are steeped in history, both conventional and often cycling too. European tours and classics are dripping with culture and history. To ignore all that is to leave out a big part of what its all about.
While races do not need to be exclusively run through picture postcard terrain there is no harm in treating the viewer to the extra bonus.

I think my response was a bit mis-understood. I realize California has incredible and varied places to ride that would offer wonderful vistas for cycling coverage, just think of a race through the Trinity Alps, in the Mt Shasta area, through "Jefferson" etc etc. Incredible places I've travelled, hiked and ridden, however, with the minute amount of televised cycling coverage we get I do not want my precious minutes taken up with "pictorials". If they happen to get a sweeping vista here and there or show a bit of local flavor great.
The beauty of the Grand Tours is the fact that anywhere and everywhere you look on those routes it's a scenic wonder, the Alps, Dolomites etc without any extra effort on the part of the producers.
Money guides everything Amgen does for the tour, as someone mentioned and that's why the race takes place where it does. They are also guided by where they can get volunteers, 100s of hotel rooms, how easy it is for media coverage, what size crowds they'll draw and on and on. Hence the reason the race takes place where it does.
I guess I'm a bit surprised because I've watched everyday of the TOC and each day they make mention of the area they're riding through and even the Clovis stage had a few impressive shots of the landscape, especially those long, winding grades.

It'll be interesting to see the comments after today's stage and see if folks think Big Bear got "shown" or spoken of well enough.

Keep in mind, comparing televised cycling coverage in the US vs Europe is apples to oranges.

[1happygirl]

Okay I admit I do understand just the racing, but as much as I love cycling after a while it gets like watching golf. So I have been home very sick coughing my head off and my sick knee. I have kneemonia. Anyway bought the Giro package to see the racing AND see the beautiful scenery of Italy.

Maybe the traveler in me but have to agree the scenery shots in the ToC are horrible but putting on Phil and Paul like a comfortable old shoe so that helps some. I do understand not wanting to splice the race coverage though. Different strokes