• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

2017 Bergen WC ITT, 31km with hilltop finish

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Max Rockatansky said:
Is there a reason why people are doing their usual crying about the route today? The course is known for six months. Lisbon 2001 was also very short, difficult and entertaining. Won by Ulle, who was a worthy world champion. So I am happy with the short distance and and interesting approach. That's far more entertaining then 50-60 boring Panzerwagen kilometers.

Would love to see Froomey to go for it and then win Innsbruck road race. ;) Just kidding.
Absolutely. It looks like an interesting and dynamic course. And if anything, there should be no unwritten rules that forbids trying out new concepts in world championships.
 
I don't get the complaing here, especially about the climb. If Road Race World Championships could have been won by as different types of riders as Cavendish and Rui Costa, I see no reason to give climbers a shot at becoming an ITT World Champion every few years. And it's not like a 3,5km climb automatically puts riders like Tony Martin out of contention.
 
Re:

Anderis said:
I don't get the complaing here, especially about the climb. If Road Race World Championships could have been won by as different types of riders as Cavendish and Rui Costa, I see no reason to give climbers a shot at becoming an ITT World Champion every few years. And it's not like a 3,5km climb automatically puts riders like Tony Martin out of contention.
Not a normal 3.5k climb but an irregular climb at almost 10% does. It's a mountain.
 
There are many different types of time trials spread throughout the season. Why should the World's course only favor those who can ride well on a 50 kilometer, flattish parcours, every single year? Why is the road race allowed to change so that it suits different types of riders, but not the time trial?

Is it just because of traditions or is the 50 kilometer, flattish parcours the only type of route that you guys consider a proper time trial?

I have a very hard time of understanding how there can be so much arguing, whining and moaning over the slightest deviations from tradition.

To me, the WCITT is often a really boring race, and I find it very interesting that they have chosen to mix things up.

I don't think they should make a prologue-like TT but if they did, that would just suit more explosive riders who are also considered time trial specialists (a guy like Jos van Emden springs to mind). As it has been now, it is only the diesel engines who have stood a chance in the World's TT but they only cover one end of the time trial specialist spectrum, and since other skills are often very relevant in time trials in the rest of the season, I don't understand why the more explosive time trialists should not have their chances at the World's once in a while.
 
Re:

tobydawq said:
There are many different types of time trials spread throughout the season. Why should the World's course only favor those who can ride well on a 50 kilometer, flattish parcours, every single year? Why is the road race allowed to change so that it suits different types of riders, but not the time trial?

Is it just because of traditions or is the 50 kilometer, flattish parcours the only type of route that you guys consider a proper time trial?

I have a very hard time of understanding how there can be so much arguing, whining and moaning over the slightest deviations from tradition.

To me, the WCITT is often a really boring race, and I find it very interesting that they have chosen to mix things up.

I don't think they should make a prologue-like TT but if they did, that would just suit more explosive riders who are also considered time trial specialists (a guy like Jos van Emden springs to mind). As it has been now, it is only the diesel engines who have stood a chance in the World's TT but they only cover one end of the time trial specialist spectrum, and since other skills are often very relevant in time trials in the rest of the season, I don't understand why the more explosive time trialists should not have their chances at the World's once in a while.

Cycling as it is now offers many opportunities to riders who are excellent over shorter distances. Tirreno has one or two every year; Eneco and Dauphine also and many others also have mid length ITTs, from Pais Vasco to Suisse, from Algarve to Poland. In a GT, we very rarely see a long ITT (at least 40km, preferably 45 or more). Since 2010, there have only been 12 or 13 ITTs longer than 40km in GTs - all 24 of them. When you consider that these races are the most likely to have a long ITT, you see that there is a dearth of long ITTs. In the WC, there has only ever been one TT shorter than 40km (the one in Doha was 40.0 on the dot). It would be the shortest ever, by 7km, or 18%. That's almost a fifth shorter. The WC is one of the only opportunities every year to have a properly long ITT, and now that has been taken away from us too as it's 'boring' and not commercially attractive enough. You don't like them? Fine, there are plenty other ITTs that you can watch which are short and under 30km. But to those of us who enjoy the longer format, this is a real blow - especially when you consider that the GP des Nations, effectively the unofficial WC, was never really shorter than 70km. We only get two or three of these a year, and now they are being reduced. Furthermore, a properly long ITT is a proper test of a rider, not just 20km.
 
I've no problem with an occasional experiment with length. Nor do I think a WCITT must be pan flat. I have a problem with a parcours that seems designed to help a stage racer rather than an ITT specialist to win. GC type riders have many of their own important competitions to win every year. ITT guys have essentially one, after that we are talking about a few GT stages or the Chrono des Nations. This year they probably don't even get the one.
 
Well, but who are you to say what a proper test of a rider is? Couldn't the 50 km experts just be required to be more anaerobic? Why aren't a 20 km TT a proper test? Just because different riders do well on different lengths doesn't make neither length improper tests. It's just that some are good at short distances, others are good at long distances (and it's not like the others can't ride the longer distances) and I don't see why the former shouldn't get their occasional chance to call themselves world champion now that what they excel at has become so important during the season.

Because it's true that the longer ITT's are on the brink of extinction in stage races. That is probably because they tend to skew races more than what is desirable because it has become increasingly more difficult to make real differences in the mountains, making gaps gained in very long time trials practically insurmountable.

And perhaps I was a little imprecise with my sentiments regarding the WCITT. I find it boring that it is always the same type of parcours - I don't find the individual race boring per se - but the whole concept has stalled a little (which I know some people appreciate) and I wouldn't mind it changing once in a while. I'm not advocating having these radically different types of parcours every year but to me it wouldn't be unnatural to let the type of time trial vary, just like the type of one day race varies from year to year in the WCRR.

And why would the Norwegian organisers design the route specifically for Froome? That doesn't really make any sense, now, does it?
 
Not the Norwegian organisers who would be trying to attract Froome ;)

Anyhow, look at the last GT with two properly long TTs - the 2007 TDF - with both over 50kms. There was a mix of GT contenders and TT specialists there in contention with Vino and Leipheimer winning, Evans second on both and Contador and Rasmussen both doing well. The Giro's monster TTs in 2009 and 2013 were the same as well.

GT contenders should be competent at ITTs at the MINIMUM, ITTs shouldn't need to be butchered to get certain riders competitive.

From your post I take it that it's fine to have Rohan Dennis smash everyone over a technical prologue length TT for the rainbow jersey too?
 
If people want to do shorter distances then there's always the track WC ;)

You're right that I can't say whether a long time trial is harder, but I consider it to be because of pacing and everything else that goes on. I may be wrong, but this is my point of view.

I'm fine with them changing the parcours, from hilly to pan flat every now and then, but I don't appreciate the length being changed. Although, as Zinoviev said, TT specialists have little glory in the year compared to Froome and co. But every three or so years a hilly time trial wouldn't be out of place at all, I agree.

Wonga. Norway doesn't have any TT specialists, but everyone knows who Froome is and who wins the Tour de France. Publicity. First winner of TDF and WC ITT in the same year since etc.
 
Okay, I get where you're coming from with the Froome point, and if he decides to race, it really does look like a difficult race to lose for him, I will give you that. But I still belong to the viewpoint that the principle of changing the type of parcours is fine - however, if it is done single-handedly to play to the strengths of one particular rider, it's not desirable. But I remain doubtful that that is the case here given that there should be ample prestige in just hosting the World's - whether or not Froome is attending.

Regarding the Dennis point in 42x1ss's post, I wouldn't love it, but as he is the world's best at that type of time trial, I can't see why he shouldn't have the chance to showcase those skills in a world championships time trial and become the world champion because of them.

It is called the world championships in individual time trialing, not the world championships in individual time trialing on an approximately flat route of 45 to 55 kilometres.
 
Considering the horrible lack of ITT kms in the TDF in recent years, I'm not so sure that organisers of cycling courses feel obligated at all to try to assist Chris Froome....

The minor outrage with this course is both a) due to the tradition of the event as being a long ITT event, and b) due to the almost recent extinction of long ITT's (which is wrong IMO) from GT's.

The point about the WC RR being able to be won by anyone from a climber to a sprinter is a good one. Why should the WC ITT always be 50+ kms? Could you have an edition that was like stage 1 of the 2009 TDF for example? Very short, yes. But still won by the best time trialler of that time (Cancellera), with Contador (at his best against the clock that season) in second.

If there was still always at least one 50+ km ITT in the TDF (as their should be in 9 out of 10 editions) then there wouldn't be this outrage.

As it is, I think that this course gives Valverde an outside chance. He has been fantastic in mid length time trials this season, and the climb at the end should also help. If you were to compare him to Froome for example, Chris would prefer at least an extra 10kms of flat before the climb (although the more of this, the better chance for Dumoulin, Martin etc obviously).

I wouldn't be calling Valverde the favourite, but I'd be interested to see him target it. IF he were to win this after also winning the TDF (well, a lot of if's!) would it be the greatest season from a cyclist in recent memory?
 
Jun 15, 2015
273
0
0
Visit site
Re:

Brullnux said:
Why didn't they include this climb in the RR.

Oh yeah because they made it for Kristoff, who is now not really the same now as the 2015 version. Now they make the TT for Froome.

The climb is only one way up, so it would have to finish there to be part of the RR. In addition the finish area is way too small to be able to have the RR finish up there.
 
Re: Re:

Supimilian said:
Brullnux said:
Why didn't they include this climb in the RR.

Oh yeah because they made it for Kristoff, who is now not really the same now as the 2015 version. Now they make the TT for Froome.

The climb is only one way up, so it would have to finish there to be part of the RR. In addition the finish area is way too small to be able to have the RR finish up there.

Thanks for the information
 
Dunno what the fuss is about...
Even if there were 5 more kms of 10% gradient at the end, Froomey still wouldn't ride the WCs. His energy would be focussed on the Vuelta
Must be sick of so many second places even after being the strongest gt rider of his generation
 
I'm getting confused. Why is it that more than one person has now said that Froome needs to rest before the Vuelta and therefore won't ride the time trial?

Do you guys think that the World's have suddenly moved to before the Vuelta?

I can inform you that they haven't...
 
Re:

tobydawq said:
I'm getting confused. Why is it that more than one person has now said that Froome needs to rest before the Vuelta and therefore won't ride the time trial?

Do you guys think that the World's have suddenly moved to before the Vuelta?

I can inform you that they haven't...

People are confusing the Olympics with the WC.

That said, your man Bala should ride it. Good chance of a top 5 result, maybe podium.
 
I already have a problem with the WC in general, this makes it even worst.

The road race doesn't choose the best cyclist of the year, it just randomly atributes the WC to the cyclist that wins a 1 day race. While Sagan is a guy that really deserves the jersey, guys like Costa or Gilbert were not the best during the year they won.

The time trial was the competition that I always regarded as fair. The guy that wins is usually the strongest time-trialist of the year. Not only that, but the top 10 gives a very good and true reference of where each cyclist stands.

Let's imagine Valverde wins this, can we really say that Valverde is the best time-trialist in the world? Of course not.
 
Re: Re:

WheelofGear said:
tobydawq said:
I'm getting confused. Why is it that more than one person has now said that Froome needs to rest before the Vuelta and therefore won't ride the time trial?

Do you guys think that the World's have suddenly moved to before the Vuelta?

I can inform you that they haven't...

People are confusing the Olympics with the WC.

That said, your man Bala should ride it. Good chance of a top 5 result, maybe podium.
Yes sorry for the confusion.
Given the timeline of the WC TT any rider who does the Vuelta will be in very very good shape 10 days after the Vuelta. Will be similar to what Domoulin what to do at the Tour and then take the next peak/ hold peak for the Olympics.
We'll probably see a lot of good TT specialists riding the Vuelta