Bonus Seconds in Grand Tours

[FrontHeadlock]

I don't like them. They are a bit random, and there is already a benefit to winning a stage. Riders will give just as much effort to win a stage regardless of whether there are 10 bonus seconds or not.

 

[RedheadDane]

Bonus seconds on mountain stages for sprinters only.
Bonus seconds on flat stages for GC riders only.
Bonus seconds on hilly stages, every man for themselves.

Bonus sprints for the grupetto? What if the grupetto misses the time cut by 9 seconds? Would that mean the guy winning the sprint would be allowed to continue, due to having won 10 bonus seconds?
That could cause some dangerous situations.

 

[Mayomaniac]

The none at all option should be called "cero, cero, cero"

 

[FrontHeadlock]

The problem here is no one remembers how many bonus seconds went to make up any victory. In others words, no, a victory won by bonus seconds is no less valuable, you still won, it's still your name in the history books.

Look, it's a bit like American politics: you can win the popular vote, but if you don't play to how the system actually works - the electoral college - that's your fault, no one else's.

As a tennis fan, this actually reminds me of a situation where someone wins lots of tiebreakers but no breaks of serve (but the other player DOES get a break): something like 7-6, 4-6, 3-6, 7-6, 7-6.

And yes, I do remember those and consider them less valuable.

 

[IndianCyclist]

The probability that bonus seconds will influence the final GC is very low. So it does not matter for the GC but it does provide some excitement or different tactics in an other wise dull stage

 

[fmk_RoI]

The probability that bonus seconds will influence the final GC is very low.

I wouldn't say it's low. And in terms of actual influence ... every bonus second won today influences how the race will be run tomorrow, and so on. Whether the margin of victory in a race is likely to be down to how many more or less bonus seconds the winner had over the runner up, the probability of that may be low, but every second won or lost will have influenced the race.

 

[fmk_RoI]

If we're worried about bonus seconds influencing the outcome of a race, we should also be worried about time penalties influencing the outcome of a race. Ban one, you really have to ban the other.

 

[rallybanana]

Does anyone have a list of GTs won on bonus seconds?

If finish line bonus seconds with the current values were there in 1989, Fignon would have won the Tour de France by 2 seconds.

Fignon
1st Villard-de-Lans (10s), 2nd Aix les Bains (6s), 3rd Alpe d'Huez (4s)

LeMond
1st Aix les Bains (10s)

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Honestly I couldn't give an F about bonus seconds . Who cares. It's Friday night and maybe or maybe not i partying. Put them in or dont put them in. I will however do a protest if anyone win a gt on bonus seconds. Hopefully primoz gerrans attacks in this la vuelta 2023

 

[Nick2413]

I wouldn't say it's low. And in terms of actual influence ... every bonus second won today influences how the race will be run tomorrow, and so on. Whether the margin of victory in a race is likely to be down to how many more or less bonus seconds the winner had over the runner up, the probability of that may be low, but every second won or lost will have influenced the race.

That’s fair, although if the seconds themselves have no direct impact it comes down to whether the teams actually believe that or not. For ex in this Tour even if UAE was always going for them, JV could’ve played some stages differently if they truly weren’t worried about them.

 

[RedheadDane]

Chaotic option.
Only on some stages, and it should only be decided - by random draw - partway through the stage.

 

[KZD]

I still think stage winners should be rewarded so I support bonus seconds at the finish line. But I think they should have a different distribution to the current one because as we saw in the Tour sometimes is better to get third than to get second which doesn't make sense. 10-5-2 seconds would be my choice, it rewards the winner a bit more but there is still an incentive to get second instead of third.

Regarding bonus seconds at the top of climbs, I don't think 8-5-2 is a good idea, its almost as many bonus seconds than at the finish line and these uphill sprints in crowded climbs can be random at times as we saw at this year's TDF. 3-2-1 seconds in intermediate sprints which could be hold in different kinds of terrain its better at least in my view.

 

[Red Rick]

I still think stage winners should be rewarded so I support bonus seconds at the finish line. But I think they should have a different distribution to the current one because as we saw in the Tour sometimes is better to get third than to get second which doesn't make sense. 10-5-2 seconds would be my choice, it rewards the winner a bit more but there is still an incentive to get second instead of third.

Regarding bonus seconds at the top of climbs, I don't think 8-5-2 is a good idea, its almost as many bonus seconds than at the finish line and these uphill sprints in crowded climbs can be random at times as we saw at this year's TDF. 3-2-1 seconds in intermediate sprints which could be hold in different kinds of terrain its better at least in my view.

The problem I have is that I think GC teams will actually let the break win more often when there's bonus seconds on bigger mountain stages. Typically the defending team will always wanna let the break go.

On the contrary, I think it does work very well for hilly stages, in that it raises the stakes there quite a bit.

 

[fmk_RoI]

If finish line bonus seconds with the current values were there in 1989, Fignon would have won the Tour de France by 2 seconds.

They weren't.

 

[Rob5091]

My 2 cents worth, no to bonus seconds.
Why should someone who comes second by a couple of millimeters be penalized? With all the new technological gizmos and gadgets why not have the actual times that riders cross the line and ditch the "everyone gets the same time" norm?

 

[tobydawq]

Chaotic option.
Only on some stages, and it should only be decided - by random draw - partway through the stage.

I think it should be decided after the race by a partial (as opposed to impartial) jury.

 

[RedheadDane]

I think it should be decided after the race by a partial (as opposed to impartial) jury.

"The rider we like won. 100 bonus seconds!"

 

[Ricco']

My 2 cents worth, no to bonus seconds.
Why should someone who comes second by a couple of millimeters be penalized? With all the new technological gizmos and gadgets why not have the actual times that riders cross the line and ditch the "everyone gets the same time" norm?

Because that would make sprint stages a minefield.

If it is what it is with GC fighting the sprinters teams to lead the bunch into the final 3km, with that suggestion it would be carnage with them trying to get their GC hopeful into the first positions up into the final metres.

 

[Kaptain Kool]

I'd also like to see negative bonus intermediate sprints. After the stage, 1st rider in the sprint can select another rider to receive a 2 minute penalty, 2nd place selects a 1 minute penalty, 3rd selects a 30 second penalty.

 

[fmk_RoI]

With all the new technological gizmos and gadgets why not have the actual times that riders cross the line and ditch the "everyone gets the same time" norm?

Because many riders trying to squeeze into few spaces is a recipe for disaster.

Listen to riders as it is at the moment, how the pressure for everyone with hopes of the stage/GC has to try to be in the first 15 or so during the stage, look at the chaos as everyone with hopes of the stage/GC is fighting for position approaching climbs, or changes of direction where echelons will likely form.

The current system for bunch finishes works, why *** with it? You want more crashes?

 

[fmk_RoI]

My 12 cents:

Harry Potter it. On each rest day, Prudhomme dons his Dumbledore cloak (you know he has one - he looks the sort) and awards the different 'houses' (teams) merit seconds. Or demerit seconds. And then on the eve of the final stage, the last set of merit and seconds, turning the final stage into a real race and not just a procession. "All the riders on Team FDJ - 100 merit seconds for being French! All the riders on Team Jumbo - 500 demerit seconds because no one likes you! Thibaut Pinto will wear the yellow jersey onto the Champs Élysées!"

Just think how that's going to work on Netflix! (Do they have Harry Potter? Or just Benjamin Sniddlegrass and the Cauldron of Penguins?)

 

[Tonton]

None. And no intermediate sprints points either. Your time is your time, your points are your points,

 

[houtdffan]

Because many riders trying to squeeze into few spaces is a recipe for disaster.

Listen to riders as it is at the moment, how the pressure for everyone with hopes of the stage/GC has to try to be in the first 15 or so during the stage, look at the chaos as everyone with hopes of the stage/GC is fighting for position approaching climbs, or changes of direction where echelons will likely form.

The current system for bunch finishes works, why *** with it? You want more crashes?

I'd suspect you'd have less crashes with no 3km rule and real times at the line.

GC teams simply will not tolerate reckless sprinting, just as dangerous run ins were not tolerated under the old 1km rule.

Also, a GC rider who can sprint like a Pog or Remco should be able to gain a few seconds over a snail like a Contador or Vingegaard

 

[Netserk]

Because that would make sprint stages a minefield.

If it is what it is with GC fighting the sprinters teams to lead the bunch into the final 3km, with that suggestion it would be carnage with them trying to get their GC hopeful into the first positions up into the final metres.

I have previously proposed individual timing (down to one hundredth of a second) for stages where the 3 km rule is not in effect, i.e. uphill finishes.

In stage races without TTs, I’d much prefer that as the tiebreaker.

 

[Rob5091]

Off topic I know, but I think this is interesting in regards to the argument about the 3km rule -(has there really been less crashes since the 3km was introduced? )

https://inrng.com/2013/02/cycling-race-three-kilometre-rule-history/
"If a group passes the three kilometre point together it can still fragment on the way to the line and so you’ll often see the overall candidates for a race near the front even in the sprint, sitting in, say, 20th place so that if there’s a gap behind it doesn’t catch them out."