Bonification

[Boeing]

Like it or Hate it in the grand tours?

Given this profile in the 09 Tour perhaps Time Bonus would have added to the event. IMHO it might have been enough to break up the 2 week tempo-ride this tour became. The fight for the green has been the best race in the race; fighting for every extra point

Discuss

 

[klodifan]

Yes, the fight for the green jersey has been competitive and fun to watch. But I am glad time bonuses are gone.

 

[Indurrey]

Very glad they're gone.

 

[Hammerhed]

Bonus points

I'm surprised that you guys feel that way. I think that the awarding of time bonuses adds an increased incentive to win the stage or to stay on top of things in general. We have seen how Lance is so attentive of acquiring every available second: To me, the time bonus awards the rider who is most mentally (and physically) engaged. Since the TTT put so many riders in a time deficit, time bonuses would have provided an exciting way for them to earn back the time on an individual level. In fact, I think the bonuses should play an even larger role, one which would reward the stage winner with an even greater margin. Nobody would "gift" stages like Contador did with the Schlecks (or the way Armstrong did with Pantani) if the winning bonus was large enough. Breakaways would or could be even more exciting if the bonus were large enough. Anyway, I miss them.

 

[Boeing]

Why is it though you are glad they are gone?

The purest in me says it is all about true time mano a mano against the clock etc... and in the end I will likely return to that arguement. However one could argue that the bonus gives further incentive for breakaways and attacks....given the tour rout as I suggested, it seems that is what the organizers were after anyway

Then again I am not sure it changes team tactics regardless

Looking back at the Giro one might argue that the only reason DiLuca stayed close (besides the now obvious) was bonification

Although I am against them I found myself wanting them in this tour....

 

[scribe]

Yes. It is better to watch the GC busting their nuts at the line than letting someone 3 hours back in GC going for a stage win.

 

[cyclopeon]

Bringing this thread back up to the top... I'm surprised there wasn't more discussion of it... maybe that can change.

The OP was specific to Grand Tours, but what about the shorter ones?

I thought Paris-Nice was livelier as a result of bonifications, while Castilla y Leon could use the extra incentive (although it might not matter so much after the MTF).

For the Grand Tours my mind is not made up, but I think that when there isn't an early stage which makes a difference amongst the GC contenders the use of bonifications can (but doesn't always) liven things up before mountain or ITT stages start to create differences.

And in moments of complete madness, I wonder what would happen if there was 1 second of bonification for the first rider at every kilometer of the race route?

 

[Jamsque]

I like bonification seconds simply because they move the leader's jersey around more.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

i like time bnonuses also, makes the stages a little more interesting imo.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Having bonuses can lead to exciting mano a mano fights for a small handful of seconds, like Menchov and di Luca at the Giro.

Having bonuses can lead to problems like at the Vuelta, however, where Caisse were happy to let breaks that were no threat to Valverde go, and none of the GC contenders were willing to have their team bring them back because they knew Valverde would beat them if it came to a sprint.

 

[MrContador]

I like them, especially in the Tour. Then the sprinters will battle out for the yellow jersey in the first week, and more riders will take part in the intermediate sprints to gain seconds. Remember Ullrich and Armstrong in 2003? Pure entertainment.

 

[Ferminal]

Better with them.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Time bonuses at KOM points could spice things up from GC perspective.

 

[Boeing]

I am trying to think of an argument against it

 

[jonjungel]

I think there should be big time bonuses at sprint points, say 3 to 4 sprints each giving 40/20/10 sec.

This will hopefully make the flat stages less boring, and give incentive to early attacks in the mountain stages.

No bonification at the finish, since a stage victory is a reward in itself.

 

[Echoes]

Hate it.


The winner of a stage race is the one who rides it the fastest of the pack, that's it. He can't get time bonuses "for free", as if fallen out of the sky. He should pedal for it. The only time adaptation that I can accept is the time of the peloton. When the peloton is packed, I can accept that the last of the peloton should be classified in the same time as the winner in order to prevent accidents. But that's ALL !

Time bonuses lost my favourite rider, Terpstra, a win in the Elektrotoer to Gilbert and I still can't accept it. He rode it FASTER than Gilbert and still lost because of these silly rules. It's totally unfair.

And it's also discriminatory because Niki won the prologue and the winners of ITT's are rarely credited with that time bonus. Why? Less spectacular? Maybe. But an ITT is an individual effort while in a common stage, riders can draft other riders' wheels. He deserved the time bonus more than Gilbert did for his stage win.

There are many other cases in history.

Saronni should never have won the Giro in 1983. He won because of the bonuses. Visentini rode faster than him.

Robic and Fachleitner in the Tour of France 1947. Same.

Hinault won the Dauphiné libéré in 1977 because of the bonuses (his fall should have lost him). Thévenet should have won.


In the Tour of Luxemburg 1993, Van Hooydonck was authoritative leader after his win in the ITT. Only the bonus of the last stage could make Sciandri win. And in this final sprint Eddy Bosberg was tempted to make an irregular sprint, which disqualified him from both the stage and GC (the harshest sanction ever given for this misdeed), while he was the strongest and the fastest.

 

[TRDean]

Hate it.


The winner of a stage race is the one who rides it the fastest of the pack, that's it. He can't get time bonuses "for free", as if fallen out of the sky. He should pedal for it. The only time adaptation that I can accept is the time of the peloton. When the peloton is packed, I can accept that the last of the peloton should be classified in the same time as the winner in order to prevent accidents. But that's ALL !

Time bonuses lost my favourite rider, Terpstra, a win in the Elektrotoer to Gilbert and I still can't accept it. He rode it FASTER than Gilbert and still lost because of these silly rules. It's totally unfair.

And it's also discriminatory because Niki won the prologue and the winners of ITT's are rarely credited with that time bonus. Why? Less spectacular? Maybe. But an ITT is an individual effort while in a common stage, riders can draft other riders' wheels. He deserved the time bonus more than Gilbert did for his stage win.

There are many other cases in history.

Saronni should never have won the Giro in 1983. He won because of the bonuses. Visentini rode faster than him.

Robic and Fachleitner in the Tour of France 1947. Same.

Hinault won the Dauphiné libéré in 1977 because of the bonuses (his fall should have lost him). Thévenet should have won.


In the Tour of Luxemburg 1993, Van Hooydonck was authoritative leader after his win in the ITT. Only the bonus of the last stage could make Sciandri win. And in this final sprint Eddy Bosberg was tempted to make an irregular sprint, which disqualified him from both the stage and GC (the harshest sanction ever given for this misdeed), while he was the strongest and the fastest.

Agree on all points here...I don't like them either.

 

[Jonathan]

If a sprinter wins stage after stage, I think it's fair that this should be reflected in the GC somehow. It makes the prologue more interesting: can the sprinters keep up with the TT specialists enough? Those little duels are always interesting at the beginning of a GT.

 

[simoni]

I like them in the early stages of GTs because they spice things up a bit. If you've got the "classic" TDF profile of prologue + a few flat stages before any mtns/TT then the prologue winner can easily hold yellow for a few days. Nothing wrong with this of course but the bonus seconds for the intermediate sprint points or at the finish animate the race - as well as the stage win you've got chancers going for yellow too which just makes it a better spectacle and opens up the poss of yellow to more than just Cancellara, the GC guys and the one break that gets away in the first week.
Once the first big GC rendezvous takes place the bonuses should be removed and the race fought out on the road.
If used properly they can improve the spectacle without impacting significantly on the final result.

 

[Boeing]

I don't really like them but then again I don't like group tempo rides 19 of 21 stages at a grand tour either

 

[Escarabajo]

I like them.

 

[woodie]

I think they could potentionally make MTF more interesting in that they might not 'gift' stages. It also might let the sprinters get the yellow.

On the other hand I really like the idea of the fastest rider wins the race.

They defiently have a place but where i'm not sure

 

[JA.Tri]

Total elapsed time

I want them gone.

The race organizers should arrange the parcours to maximize the racing.

While I agree bonification animates many stages, surely other incentives could be identified/used to achieve the same objective.

I want to see the rider with the lowest real elapsed time to be awarded the win. (Allowing for appropriate penalties...but no bonification).

 

[spalco]

I don't like time bonuses, but they could have made last year's Tour more interesting.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I hate them, if it 'falsifies' the event then it should not be used.