You're telling me it's not Ganna happen?I would like to remind you all that the current TT world champion is Italian (and from Piedmont). I can't see that happening in a million years.
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
You're telling me it's not Ganna happen?I would like to remind you all that the current TT world champion is Italian (and from Piedmont). I can't see that happening in a million years.
It depends so much on who shows up. I'd say the lower limit is a lot harder than the upper limit, and the latter one is super dependent on who's actually there. Also think placement of the ITTs is crucial, and earlier ITTs are far better than having the big ITT super late.I think if you were to look at how much TT'ing a route has and how good the race ends up being you'd find next to near correlation. But that's not because TT's don't matter, but you can screw up a route by including too many TT kilometres just as much as you can mess it up by not including enough. The 2012 Tour had two really long, flat TT's and a total of 4 mountain stages you could take somewhat serious, and I'm emphazising the "somewhat" here. That's not a balanced, that's stupid. Meanwhile the 2017 Giro didn't suffer from the amount of TT'ing one bit.
The reason I usually want a lot of TT'ing isn't because TT's are great on their own. They need to come in combination with genuinely tough mountain stages to balance it out. If you don't have those stages little TT'ing is just as balanced, but why would I want a balanced race with no good racing and big attacks when I can have a balanced race with good racing and big attacks.
Also, just want to mention that you simply cannot put the success of the 2010 giro down to any factor any organizer had in hand. Sure, you can maximize the chances of chaos by putting the right stages in the right places, but for the amount of randomness that happened in the first two weeks of that race you simply need the stars to align. One thing that is certain is that it didn't have anything to do with TT's or the lack thereof.
2013 had 65 km.Well, of the eligible GTs, only the 2012 Tour had a great amount of ITT (a notch below 100 km), so it's not surprising that you're not seeing more ITT km in the top. The GT with the 2nd most ITT km (Giro '17, 68 km) was clearly the better for it. I think the 2010 Tour had the 3rd most (~60 km).
You're telling me it's not Ganna happen?
exactly damn it I should have written that...You're telling me it's not Ganna happen?
Well, 5 out the 6 highest rated GT the laste decade by this forum had less than 50 km TT. It's really, really not a prerequiste for an entertaining GT with a lot of action.If they end up with something like 10+20/25/30 with almost all the mountain stages having a MTF a new 2012 is coming...
Well, 5 out the 6 highest rated GT the laste decade by this forum had less than 50 km TT. It's really, really not a prerequiste for an entertaining GT with a lot of action.
Oh yes, it is. The main argument for more TT kms are the they make races more entertaning. And some go so far that it's sounds like they mean that it is a prerequisite for good Grand Tour. But a majority of cycling fans rates Grand Tours with a relatively small amount of TT kms highest. It doesn't mean that more TT kms would be wrong in every case, it just mean that it isn't a necessity with 100+ km of ITT, not even 60-70 km.This is not a great argument. Not many GT's in the previous decade had many ITT km's, and some of those that had at least a half decent amount were won by riders who aren't exactly very popular on this forum.
Oh yes, it is. The main argument for more TT kms are the they make races more entertaning. And some go so far that it's sounds like they mean that it is a prerequisite for good Grand Tour. But a majority of cycling fans rates Grand Tours with a relatively small amount of TT kms highest. It doesn't mean that more TT kms would be wrong in every case, it just mean that it isn't a necessity with 100+ km of ITT, not even 60-70 km.
No, not necessarily. Did the Giros in 2010, 2011, 2015 and 2018 have less high mountains? This forum rated this 4 of the 6 best Grand Tours the last decade. All had 50 km of ITT or less, two of the had less than 30 kms.Well, if you are going to have less than 50 kms of ITT, then there should be less high mountain stages imo.
The 2011 and 2012 TDF's had disappointing impacts on future parcours. A really short mountain stage is great, let's have more of those! And, too much ITT is bad, let's drastically reduce that!
Oh yes, it is. The main argument for more TT kms are the they make races more entertaning. And some go so far that it's sounds like they mean that it is a prerequisite for good Grand Tour. But a majority of cycling fans rates Grand Tours with a relatively small amount of TT kms highest. It doesn't mean that more TT kms would be wrong in every case, it just mean that it isn't a necessity with 100+ km of ITT, not even 60-70 km.
So did 5 out of the 6 lowest ranked GTs. When only 2 GTs out of 30 had more than 60 km of ITT, it doesn't say all that much.Well, 5 out the 6 highest rated GT the laste decade by this forum had less than 50 km TT. It's really, really not a prerequiste for an entertaining GT with a lot of action.
The point is that a large amount of time trialing kms aren't necessary to create a good GT. Several of you argue like that is the case.So did 5 out of the 6 lowest ranked GTs. When only 2 GTs out of 30 had more than 60 km of ITT, it doesn't say all that much.
Did you all know that 20 out of the 20 lowest ranked GTs had less than 100 km of ITT?
I see a correlation there.
Tour 2012 was indeed such a riveting race. And the lowest ranked in the 2010's. And the one with most ITT kilometres.
And the only one with more than 100 kilometres, so your statement is quite confusing.
Still, much ITT is not necessary for a good and entertaining GT. And tough mountain stages are on their own much more interesting and entertaining than a 50+ km flat ITT.GT should crown the best allrounder, not the best murito 140km stage Sprinter. Long ITT plus long and hard MT stages. It is no rocket science but saddly it is not what todays snowflake fans want. It is too complicated for them to follow. They only understand murito finishes and GTs that are decided by seconds.
I don't know I can't remember if Bavarianrider has ever ranted about anything other than more 50km + flat ITTs.I think that everyone who argues in favour of more ITT km than the current norm also argue in favour of big, well designed and well paced mountain stages.