It did not ruin the Giro and gives the sprinters a shot at the yellow jersey. The TDF organisers seem to use them every so often. Time bonuses are more preferable than the horrible team time trial.
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. 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!
online-rider said:What ClashBo2 is saying is that, a sprinter who is good enough to win 2 stages in the first four days or or four 2nd places in the first week (or whatever) probably merits the yellow jersey as being the best rider at that stage of the race. And thats incontestable.....If M. Cavendish wins four stages while while F. Cancellara has only won one, after 5 days of racing then don't you think Cavendish should have the jersey?
Anyone who remembers it will agree, the TdF was alot more exciting 5 or 6 years ago when the sprinters could duel for Yellow in the first week.
Then in the second week you could scrap the bonifications, why not?
guncha said:Real time only. What is the point to give extra 20 seconds to a rider who has the same time at the finish?
dsut4392 said:The sprinters go all-out for the wins anyway, and get the credit of winning the stage. I don't see why sprinters should get the MJ as well as stage wins and the green jersey by rigging the actual time with bonifications.
Cav may win the more stages, but are you honestly suggesting this makes him more worthy of the MJ than Canc? In any test of greater than 2km, Canc would eat Cav on toast!
The tour being more exciting years ago was nothing to do with time bonuses.
sherer said:true but if we had time bonues we might have seen AC attack more in earlier stages, pull out a minute and then all he would need is to finish with AS on the other stages
kurtinsc said:Yes, but you can bet he'd race to the line to avoid Andy picking up an additional 5-10 seconds for finishing at the same time. That minute would start getting eaten away if he didn't try to actually beat Andy to the tape. And Saxo would be making sure all the mountain stages had a race to the tape... so Andy could try to get that time. Less breakaway success... more GC guys trying to actually win the stages.
online-rider said:Does anybody get my point or am I talking to myself?
powerste said:Well this is an online forum after all. I never assume I'm actually reaching anyone else
kurtinsc said:Yes, but you can bet he'd race to the line to avoid Andy picking up an additional 5-10 seconds for finishing at the same time. That minute would start getting eaten away if he didn't try to actually beat Andy to the tape. And Saxo would be making sure all the mountain stages had a race to the tape... so Andy could try to get that time. Less breakaway success... more GC guys trying to actually win the stages.
clashb02 said:Time bonuses certainly would have made the stage today a lot more interesting. Why'd they do away with them? On other stages it would make someone like Leipheimer actually have to try to do something...at least in the last 50 meters.
I also think that if a sprinter, who is just a couple seconds out of yellow after the prologue, wins the next 2 stages in a bunch sprint, while the yellow jersey finishes at the back in the pack, the sprinter should be in yellow.
They don't have to be 20, 12, 6 second bonuses, but even 6, 4, 2 would make people actually work for the top 3 places instead of sitting on whoever doesn't have a teammate up the road and coasting to the finish. Let's see some racing!
Dekker_Tifosi said:No time bonusses, they make a GC artificial. I don't like them at all.
Dekker_Tifosi said:Wheel sucking doesn't help you anything uphill.
Ninety5rpm said:You can't decide what effect time bonuses would have had on a race by adjusting existing times as if there were bonuses and looking at that outcome. That doesn't work because it does not account for how different the behaviors might have been had their been bonuses.
For example, for the Tourmalet stage you can't just assume that Andy would have gotten the bigger time bonus, because, had their been time bonuses, Alberto might not have gifted him the stage win.
Without time bonuses the best man wins by the margin actually earned. With time bonuses, especially the intermediate ones, that's distorted, and it's unclear if the time margin accurately reflects differences in ability, and even if the best man wins.
Just say no to time bonuses.
Because somebody has to do it. And people who lose morale need teammates with them.kurtinsc said:Really? Then why all the hate towards riders who don't ride at the front of a group going up a climb? People were saying they'd be mad if Contador won the stage after Andy "did all the work" at the front. Gesink was given credit for "setting the pace" at the front of the chase.
If riding at the front doesn't matter uphill... then why do people seem to think that it does matter? Why does having Kloden go back to "help" armstrong on Verbier last year matter? Why does Evans not having teammates on the climbs matter?
kurtinsc said:But that's the point.
Their behaviors now... with "gifting" stages NEEDS TO CHANGE.
Mambo95 said:The winner should be the guy who did the course in the shortest time. I don't think time bonuses make that much difference to the racing. Riders still want to win stages. Contador didn't sprint because he's too cosy with Schleck and he was trying to redeem himself in the eyes of some.
The bonuses were abolished after the 2007 Tour, and with good reason. In that Tour Contador beat Evans by 23 seconds - 20 of which were for bonuses. This was also a race in which Rasmussen was withdrawn and Vino was kicked out. I think the organisers could forsee a situation where a positive test, verified after the Tour, might re-jig the bonuses and even change the winner (despite 1st and 2nd not being involved).
I'd support bonuses for the first week though, as it's a bit of a Cancellara testimonial each year at the moment.