Log in:  

Register

Team Time Trials

A place to discuss all things related to current professional road races. Here, you can also touch on the latest news relating to professional road racing. A doping discussion free forum.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Tonton, King Boonen, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky

26 Oct 2012 13:24

abbaskip wrote:Voigt, O'Grady, Julich, Hushovd, Vaughters...hardly slouches now, were they?


Not in their own right, but compared to Disco they were.
User avatar Magnus
Member
 
Posts: 1,237
Joined: 08 Apr 2010 17:47
Location: Denmark

26 Oct 2012 13:35

abbaskip wrote:Yes, but you seem to be missing the point. They should be preparing to have the best individual for the GC, not the best team for a TTT. It's not about preparation, teams fill their teams with specialist TTTers, as it's essentially headstart, without the GC rider having to do the work himself.


itt and ttt have almost nothing to do with each other. ttt is a discpline on it's one and when trained and prepared well you won't lose much time. see androni and colnago this year for instance or acqua en sapone how much they improved without itt monsters
User avatar Ryo Hazuki
Veteran
 
Posts: 16,174
Joined: 31 Mar 2010 13:50
Location: Nijmegen, The Netherlands

26 Oct 2012 15:49

Im deffinetly pro TTT's, its a team sport, lets see which team is the strongest!
Alpehue
Junior Member
 
Posts: 171
Joined: 02 Aug 2012 18:25

26 Oct 2012 17:11

It's daft that they can affect The GC

Let them contribute to the overall team standings only, as that is all they relect, if that?
postmanhat
Member
 
Posts: 716
Joined: 21 Oct 2012 17:47
Location: Derby, UK

26 Oct 2012 17:12

cineteq wrote:One might think a sensitive poster like you would like to see the TTT in a GT, but I was wrong. In the past, your arguments have been weak, and they haven't improved. You don't seem to see the big picture here. Think TEAM.


If it were a once-in-a-while special attraction, I'd probably like it. When it's used in near enough every GT, it has little function.

As I said, the main arguments for appear to be twofold:
1) spectacle
2) balanced teams

2) I think is a fair argument; 1) I don't.

I don't think the TTT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with an ITT, and I think harder rouleur stages would encourage a more balanced team without giving an automatic headstart to the riders who already have the advantages anyway.

Also, while it's nice to think team, most of the most exciting stages we've seen in the last while have been due to the leaders acting as individuals from an early point, rather than being nicely and carefully protected by their teams. I favour doing things to prevent the strong teams being overly advantaged, and to try to prevent the USPS/Banesto/Sky template from taking hold, because in my opinion, it is better for the spectacle not to have these controlling influences, because racing is more exciting and interesting when there is a lack of control.

Therefore, giving the advantage, and therefore the reason to want to maintain control, to the teams who are best at keeping control and preventing unpredictability and excitement, is in my opinion detrimental to the spectacle.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,054
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

26 Oct 2012 18:21

Libertine Seguros wrote:I don't think the TTT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with an ITT, and I think harder rouleur stages would encourage a more balanced team without giving an automatic headstart to the riders who already have the advantages anyway.
Fairer? Is life fair? By the same argument I can say "I don't think the ITT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with mountain stages". See what I mean jelly bean?

Libertine Seguros wrote:Also, while it's nice to think team, most of the most exciting stages we've seen in the last while have been due to the leaders acting as individuals from an early point, rather than being nicely and carefully protected by their teams.
Ok one of the most exciting stages this year...let's see...Fuente Dè. It seems to me your argument doesn't work there.

Libertine Seguros wrote:I favour doing things to prevent the strong teams being overly advantaged, and to try to prevent the USPS/Banesto/Sky template from taking hold, because in my opinion, it is better for the spectacle not to have these controlling influences, because racing is more exciting and interesting when there is a lack of control.


Katusha this year is a god example on why your argument doesn't work. Its GC leader had a handicap and they came prepared and delivered. To prevent the UK Postals template other measures need to be taken, but nothing to do with TTTs.

Think of a TTT stage as another hurdle. From the tactical standpoint, teams instead of bringing just mountain helpers, now they have to replace them with 2 or 3 TTers or good overall riders to cut their possible losses.
Do you want to watch better bike racing? => Team radios (not race radio) must go!
User avatar cineteq
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,783
Joined: 20 May 2009 00:52
Location: Montreal, Canada

26 Oct 2012 20:21

Love watching the TTT's. Just keep them short enough (25-35km) that it won't decide the race in a GT.
peloton
Member
 
Posts: 1,934
Joined: 12 Mar 2009 11:20

26 Oct 2012 21:46

Less TTT, more cobblestones. 2010 Tour, stage 3 - yes please.

By the way I hate how garmin places so much emphasis on winning the TTT. Who the phuck cares.
"... because he set an amazing example. He has more courage than anyone I ever rode with and that's why he got respect from his team-mates. A great leader makes you want to go beyond the limits."

Andrea Noè on Di Luca, "Il Killer di Spoltore"
User avatar Altitude
Member
 
Posts: 738
Joined: 11 Oct 2010 17:12

26 Oct 2012 21:52

cineteq wrote:Fairer? Is life fair? By the same argument I can say "I don't think the ITT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with mountain stages". See what I mean jelly bean?

Life isn't fair, so we should allow Armstrong to keep his TDF wins, since the other guys can suck it up and deal with the unfairness.

Are you seriously arguing "life isn't fair" as a reason to justify an inherently unfair format?

Ok one of the most exciting stages this year...let's see...Fuente Dè. It seems to me your argument doesn't work there.

Except for where the reason it was exciting was that Saxo's and Movistar's tactics meant that Rodríguez was isolated from his team early, and his was the team that had been controlling the race. So actually, it fits the template pretty well - big stars riding alone or in small groups early because of an inability of strong teams to control the race.

Katusha this year is a god example on why your argument doesn't work. Its GC leader had a handicap and they came prepared and delivered. To prevent the UK Postals template other measures need to be taken, but nothing to do with TTTs.

Think of a TTT stage as another hurdle. From the tactical standpoint, teams instead of bringing just mountain helpers, now they have to replace them with 2 or 3 TTers or good overall riders to cut their possible losses.

I have acknowledged that the "need to have a more balanced team" aspect is the one pro-TTT argument I've ever heard that makes some sense to me.

I just think harder rouleur stages, echelon-baiting stages, some cobbles or strade bianche here and there and so on is a better way to do it than by some silly gimmickry that skews the GC in favour of those who already have the advantages.

I mean, do we start NFL games by giving the favourites an easy field goal try, to try to encourage the weaker team to play more aggressively? Since Greece won Euro 2004, a lot of smaller nations in football have built a team around holding for 0-0 or stealing a goal from a set piece to win 1-0. Do we start the game with a penalty to the better team, to try to encourage those teams from putting such a defensive side out?

After all, life isn't fair, right?
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,054
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

26 Oct 2012 22:09

Libertine Seguros wrote:If it were a once-in-a-while special attraction, I'd probably like it. When it's used in near enough every GT, it has little function.

As I said, the main arguments for appear to be twofold:
1) spectacle
2) balanced teams

2) I think is a fair argument; 1) I don't.

I don't think the TTT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with an ITT, and I think harder rouleur stages would encourage a more balanced team without giving an automatic headstart to the riders who already have the advantages anyway.

Also, while it's nice to think team, most of the most exciting stages we've seen in the last while have been due to the leaders acting as individuals from an early point, rather than being nicely and carefully protected by their teams. I favour doing things to prevent the strong teams being overly advantaged, and to try to prevent the USPS/Banesto/Sky template from taking hold, because in my opinion, it is better for the spectacle not to have these controlling influences, because racing is more exciting and interesting when there is a lack of control.

Therefore, giving the advantage, and therefore the reason to want to maintain control, to the teams who are best at keeping control and preventing unpredictability and excitement, is in my opinion detrimental to the spectacle.


I still like the TTT. But on reflection, if it is to be included include some serious inclines in it.
User avatar ferryman
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,072
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 23:43
Location: LostinFife

26 Oct 2012 22:25

cineteq wrote:Fairer? Is life fair? By the same argument I can say "I don't think the ITT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with mountain stages". See what I mean jelly bean?

.


Itts are unfair:confused:

Think of a TTT stage as another hurdle. From the tactical standpoint, teams instead of bringing just mountain helpers, now they have to replace them with 2 or 3 TTers or good overall riders to cut their possible losses


Typical old boys club bull****. Absolutely no considerations for teams that dont have 15 million to spend on riders and just pluck out a team of tters for a time trial at will.

Also btw favors teams who can dope their climbers to overperform tts, but i do see a bit of a correlation between those who take the hedonistic - "i want carnage NOW, whatever the price" approach to 1 issue, and the other.
The Hitch: Winner 2013 Vuelta cq game. Winner, Velorooms prediction game 2012, 2013. 2nd all time cq rankings.
The Father of Clean Cycling, Christophe Bassons wrote:When I look at cycling today, I get the impression that history is repeating itself: riders who are supposed to be rouleurs are climbing passes at the front of the race, and those who are supposed to be climbers are riding time trials at more than 50 kilometres per hour.

The story is beginning again, just as it did 14 years ago


journalist with integrity.
User avatar The Hitch
Veteran
 
Posts: 28,786
Joined: 14 Jun 2010 10:58
Location: London.

27 Oct 2012 01:24

Libertine Seguros wrote:Life isn't fair, so we should allow Armstrong to keep his TDF wins, since the other guys can suck it up and deal with the unfairness.

Are you seriously arguing "life isn't fair" as a reason to justify an inherently unfair format?


Your analogy doesn't work since Armstrong did something illegal, thus he cheated. TTTs are not illegal, having money to have the best team is NOT illegal. Doping aside, having the team healthy is not illegal, neither is having the riders getting the best nutrition. Having the best preparation is not illegal. Money is not everything to get a good result, read on.

Libertine Seguros wrote:Except for where the reason it was exciting was that Saxo's and Movistar's tactics meant that Rodríguez was isolated from his team early, and his was the team that had been controlling the race. So actually, it fits the template pretty well - big stars riding alone or in small groups early because of an inability of strong teams to control the race.
Wut? How is this UK postal? I was expecting more of you here. :(

Libertine Seguros wrote:I just think harder rouleur stages, echelon-baiting stages, some cobbles or strade bianche here and there and so on is a better way to do it than by some silly gimmickry that skews the GC in favour of those who already have the advantages.

I mean, do we start NFL games by giving the favourites an easy field goal try, to try to encourage the weaker team to play more aggressively? Since Greece won Euro 2004, a lot of smaller nations in football have built a team around holding for 0-0 or stealing a goal from a set piece to win 1-0. Do we start the game with a penalty to the better team, to try to encourage those teams from putting such a defensive side out?
The favorite NFL team having a field goal advantage is not fair. Your premise that TTTs are unfair is the issue here, thus your analogy doesn't work because I don't think TTTs are unfair. For me it's just another stage, a unique stage, similar a cobbles stage or strade bianche. It's also not unfair since teams know well in advance what to expect. We've seen few times how low budget teams prepared and performed well, and got close to the best times. And we've seen also strong teams, on paper, to have under performed.

Anyway, again, we agree to disagree.

Seriously, are we all fighting over these gaps? :
2011 TdF TTT (23km)
1 TEAM GARMIN - CERVELO 24:48
2 BMC RACING TEAM 24:53 + 00:04
3 SKY PROCYCLING 24:53 + 00:04
4 TEAM LEOPARD-TREK 24:53 + 00:05
5 HTC - HIGHROAD 24:54 + 00:05
6 TEAM RADIOSHACK 24:59 + 00:10
7 RABOBANK CYCLING TEAM 25:00 + 00:12
8 SAXO BANK SUNGARD 25:16 + 00:28
9 PRO TEAM ASTANA 25:20 + 00:32
10 OMEGA PHARMA - LOTTO 25:28 + 00:39
Do you want to watch better bike racing? => Team radios (not race radio) must go!
User avatar cineteq
Veteran
 
Posts: 7,783
Joined: 20 May 2009 00:52
Location: Montreal, Canada

27 Oct 2012 01:24

Libertine Seguros wrote:If it were a once-in-a-while special attraction, I'd probably like it. When it's used in near enough every GT, it has little function.

As I said, the main arguments for appear to be twofold:
1) spectacle
2) balanced teams

2) I think is a fair argument; 1) I don't.

I don't think the TTT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with an ITT, and I think harder rouleur stages would encourage a more balanced team without giving an automatic headstart to the riders who already have the advantages anyway.

Also, while it's nice to think team, most of the most exciting stages we've seen in the last while have been due to the leaders acting as individuals from an early point, rather than being nicely and carefully protected by their teams. I favour doing things to prevent the strong teams being overly advantaged, and to try to prevent the USPS/Banesto/Sky template from taking hold, because in my opinion, it is better for the spectacle not to have these controlling influences, because racing is more exciting and interesting when there is a lack of control.

Therefore, giving the advantage, and therefore the reason to want to maintain control, to the teams who are best at keeping control and preventing unpredictability and excitement, is in my opinion detrimental to the spectacle.


I came here to post pretty much that. Thanks for taking care of it for me. Plus Hitch's comment about TTTs just rewarding the teams with enough money to blow the small teams all over the road.

Also, ITTs and mountain stages can do radically different things. For example, Le Tour 2011. No final ITT: Schleck wins.

TTTs are stupid. They make for decent pictures. Whatever. I like watching races, not stylized processionals.
User avatar mr. tibbs
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,161
Joined: 10 Mar 2009 19:48
Location: Austin, TX

27 Oct 2012 08:17

cineteq wrote:So it's okay for Evans, BMC to lose 1.30 min. in Nice's TTT. He'll get it back later. Gotcha.


No, it's not. I'm completely against that, which is my whole point, and why I started this thread? Where am I not clear?
abbaskip
Member
 
Posts: 365
Joined: 07 Jul 2010 16:48

27 Oct 2012 08:23

Ryo Hazuki wrote:itt and ttt have almost nothing to do with each other. ttt is a discpline on it's one and when trained and prepared well you won't lose much time. see androni and colnago this year for instance or acqua en sapone how much they improved without itt monsters


Yes TTT is it's own discipline. Read all of my posts, I've acknowledged that. But just practicing doesn't make you the best team. Having a team of guys who are good TTTers does.
abbaskip
Member
 
Posts: 365
Joined: 07 Jul 2010 16:48

27 Oct 2012 08:26

cineteq wrote:Fairer? Is life fair? By the same argument I can say "I don't think the ITT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with mountain stages". See what I mean jelly bean?

You've gone on to say Armstrong doping is a separate argument, as he broke the rules - fair enough. What you have failed to acknowledge in your post above though is that mountain stages and ITTs are still based on an individual skill. Not your team mates being the strongest and making you up time. TTTs aren't fair because it's not your result, it's your team's you can be a passenger. ITT and Mountains are both much more individual silks. Team mates can help in the mountains, but it's still your time that counts.
abbaskip
Member
 
Posts: 365
Joined: 07 Jul 2010 16:48

27 Oct 2012 08:29

cineteq wrote:Your analogy doesn't work since Armstrong did something illegal, thus he cheated. TTTs are not illegal, having money to have the best team is NOT illegal. Doping aside, having the team healthy is not illegal, neither is having the riders getting the best nutrition. Having the best preparation is not illegal. Money is not everything to get a good result, read on.

Wut? How is this UK postal? I was expecting more of you here. :(

The favorite NFL team having a field goal advantage is not fair. Your premise that TTTs are unfair is the issue here, thus your analogy doesn't work because I don't think TTTs are unfair. For me it's just another stage, a unique stage, similar a cobbles stage or strade bianche. It's also not unfair since teams know well in advance what to expect. We've seen few times how low budget teams prepared and performed well, and got close to the best times. And we've seen also strong teams, on paper, to have under performed.

Anyway, again, we agree to disagree.

Seriously, are we all fighting over these gaps? :
2011 TdF TTT (23km)
1 TEAM GARMIN - CERVELO 24:48
2 BMC RACING TEAM 24:53 + 00:04
3 SKY PROCYCLING 24:53 + 00:04
4 TEAM LEOPARD-TREK 24:53 + 00:05
5 HTC - HIGHROAD 24:54 + 00:05
6 TEAM RADIOSHACK 24:59 + 00:10
7 RABOBANK CYCLING TEAM 25:00 + 00:12
8 SAXO BANK SUNGARD 25:16 + 00:28
9 PRO TEAM ASTANA 25:20 + 00:32
10 OMEGA PHARMA - LOTTO 25:28 + 00:39

Why are they unfair? Because it's the team's result, not yours. Because 8 good TTTers can give a climber a huge advantage, without the climber having to work too hard. Is it really that unclear?

The gaps above aren't too bad, but you stopped at 10, and this was a short TTT - these are the lesser of two evils
abbaskip
Member
 
Posts: 365
Joined: 07 Jul 2010 16:48

27 Oct 2012 08:47

abbaskip wrote:Yes TTT is it's own discipline. Read all of my posts, I've acknowledged that. But just practicing doesn't make you the best team. Having a team of guys who are good TTTers does.


not the best team but a good team it can make you. again check colnago and acqua sapone this yera how much they improved and they have the same riders
User avatar Ryo Hazuki
Veteran
 
Posts: 16,174
Joined: 31 Mar 2010 13:50
Location: Nijmegen, The Netherlands

27 Oct 2012 08:51

abbaskip wrote:Why are they unfair? Because it's the team's result, not yours. Because 8 good TTTers can give a climber a huge advantage, without the climber having to work too hard. Is it really that unclear?

The gaps above aren't too bad, but you stopped at 10, and this was a short TTT - these are the lesser of two evils


you are obviously clueless about ttt's and have never rode a bike yourself
User avatar Ryo Hazuki
Veteran
 
Posts: 16,174
Joined: 31 Mar 2010 13:50
Location: Nijmegen, The Netherlands

27 Oct 2012 09:08

Androni's huge improvement brought them from 19th @ 2'24" over 33km in the 2010 Giro, to 20th @ 1'44" over 32km in the 2012 Giro. The 2012 course was a little easier, and thus gaps in general were a bit smaller.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of how much Androni have improved as a justification of their inclusion. Oh, and also, Colnago-CSF were 15th in that 2010 TTT, and 19th in the 2012 one, so hardly a major endorsement of their improvements either.

Also, in that 2010 Giro, Michele Scarponi finished 26" behind Basso in individual stages, but because of that TTT, he finished at 2'50" and finished 4th, with Arroyo and Nibali between.

There is no way Michele Scarponi loses 2'24" to Ivan Basso in an ITT. He is much more likely, in fact, to have gained that 26". It is presumptuous to say that the inclusion of the TTT cost Michele Scarponi that Giro, but it most certainly cost him the podium.

Again, if they were a special attraction we saw in one or two races a year, it might be exciting. But instead we see lots of them every year.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Veteran
 
Posts: 19,054
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

PreviousNext

Return to Professional road racing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jakob747, Robert5091 and 14 guests

Back to top