climbing Vs. ITT

[Angliru]

People who think the joy of cycling lies purely in mountain attacks are enjoying the sport on a similar level to Nascar fans, and missing a whole world of statistical enjoyment.

Additionally I don't think TSF was saying that he enjoys cycling primarily for the attacks in the mountains, but simply put, that ITT's are acceptable to him but not for extended periods of time. I'm sure if I've interpreted the meaning in his posts incorrectly that he'll correct me. Keep in mind too that the team that he's built a website for is strongly dependent upon their own success versus the clock when it comes to grand tours so I'm certain he has an appreciation for that discipline, of course to a certain degree.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

Statistical enjoyment??? Are you serious? Could you elaborate on how the stats from an ITT are favorable to the stats from a rider or rider's ascent of lengthy mountain (from the standpoint of a fans enjoyment)? How is one favorable or better than the other, from a statistical standpoint?

Because in a time trial the statistics are generated officially and distributed whilst the event is in mid-flow. And they accrue over the full length of the event.

For a TDF TT there is real value and interest in following all 4 or 5 hours, which is more than you can say for almost any road stage.

 

[biokemguy]

TT Placement is key

I think that ITT's on the last or second to last stage of a GT are boring. When they're placed earlier in the race and the people who lost time are forced try and make it back they become more exciting.

Watching a 21 stage GT decided on a stage 20 ITT is like watching the world cup decided with a penalty shootout. A huge let down IMHO.

 

[Angliru]

Because in a time trial the statistics are generated officially and distributed whilst the event is in mid-flow. And they accrue over the full length of the event.

For a TDF TT there is real value and interest in following all 4 or 5 hours, which is more than you can say for almost any road stage.

...and you equate the inability or lack of willingness to "appreciate" this statistical buffet as evidence of the viewer's "childlike mind"? Is it that simple for you to come to that conclusion without weighing what other factors may come into play?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The statistical value of the ITT (which I can appreciate given my love of and interest in events like biathlon and endurance motor racing) does not necessarily mean that it thereby follows that it is an interesting visual spectacle, however.

Part of the fun of Le Mans is being able to pore over the timing screens as well as the footage. Watching an Individual in biathlon can mean that the cameras are following completely the wrong people around the course, same as with an ITT. They are fun to follow, but it does not necessarily "follow" from that that they are fun to watch.

 

[Waterloo Sunrise]

The statistical value of the ITT (which I can appreciate given my love of and interest in events like biathlon and endurance motor racing) does not necessarily mean that it thereby follows that it is an interesting visual spectacle, however.

Part of the fun of Le Mans is being able to pore over the timing screens as well as the footage. Watching an Individual in biathlon can mean that the cameras are following completely the wrong people around the course, same as with an ITT. They are fun to follow, but it does not necessarily "follow" from that that they are fun to watch.

What a thoroughly moot distinction. I'll grant it follows from TSF's post, but not from the overall discussion.

 

[AngusW]

I think that ITT's on the last or second to last stage of a GT are boring. When they're placed earlier in the race and the people who lost time are forced try and make it back they become more exciting.

Watching a 21 stage GT decided on a stage 20 ITT is like watching the world cup decided with a penalty shootout. A huge let down IMHO.

You mean like this year's Tour? Or the 1989 tour?

I thought both Tours were far more exciting than most other Tours in the past 20 years, simply because the GC was undecided before the final TT. If the result of the Tour no longer in doubt at the start of the final TT (think all of Indurain's wins, Ullrich's win and most of Armstrong's wins) then the result of the final TT is irrelevant and the only interest is in who wins the stage.

 

[AngusW]

In a 1979 context probably not, but that's not particularly relevant to today.

From reading Maxiton's link to the 1979 Tour, it seems as though Hinault and Zootemelk were pretty close in the GC up until the final TT, so it may have been an exciting Tour to follow (maybe not as exciting as 1978 with Pollentier in the mix). This is despite so many individual TT kms with a great TT rider like Hinault - you'd think the Tour would end up much more one-sided (granted Hinault did win 7 stages and his team won every classification bar the KOM).

My point was that even with that much TTing in a Tour, it could still be an exciting race. IMO, it's the riders, not the parcours, that will make an exciting race.

 

[Tank Engine]

You mean like this year's Tour? Or the 1989 tour?

Ah, but the 1989 ITT was on the final stage, which also got rid of one of those dire sprint finishes, so it was completely different .

To be serious, I agree with your point. I like the mano a mano of a final ITT. Possibly the whole thing would be decided before the final ITT a la LA/Big Mig, but then if it were replaced by an MTF that wouldn't be a showdown either.

Put in an ITT before the mountains, so that Andy knows he has to start riding before the final two mountain stages and you're sorted.

 

[AngusW]

In my view they need to get a lot more imaginative with GT parcours. That's what was so exciting to fans about the work of Zomegan. He was eager to mix it up, break out of the mold (or moldy, rather), try new stuff. Often, trying new stuff simply means dusting off things that haven't been done in such a long time that, today, they seem fresh.

Take this parcours from 1979 for example. No less than two team time trials and five, count 'em, five individual TTs. Mix in an appropriate number of MTFs - and, oh yeah, tell the riders that for some or all of this year's TTs we're going to allow only your regular road bikes - and you might have a really exciting race. Certainly you'd have a different race.

PS. The action begins at 00:51

http://youtu.be/6toi9X1t3Z4

and, strictly for the anthropologically curious, I'll add this, which continues approximately where the above leaves off:

http://youtu.be/i6pvcW54bWw

You'll notice that Hinault goes directly from his bike to the podium, still coughing up little bits of blood and without washing up. The victor's maillot jaune is put on directly over the maillot jaune he'd just won the stage in. That, my friends, is authenticity.

Here's a great stage-by-stage blow-by-blow of that race:

[b]http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1979.html[/b]

Thanks for the link, Maxiton. Good reading and an interesting site.

 

[biokemguy]

Yes

You mean like this year's Tour? Or the 1989 tour?

To be clear, I don't really like watching a TT on TV.

Put in an ITT before the mountains, so that Andy knows he has to start riding before the final two mountain stages and you're sorted.

I'd rather see this type of placement for an ITT in a GT.

To me the most exciting finish to a GT would be a classics type course where the top GC guys are close enough on time to be battling for time bonuses.
Given the way races are raced, this is probably a fantasy.

 

[roundabout]

From reading Maxiton's link to the 1979 Tour, it seems as though Hinault and Zootemelk were pretty close in the GC up until the final TT, so it may have been an exciting Tour to follow (maybe not as exciting as 1978 with Pollentier in the mix). This is despite so many individual TT kms with a great TT rider like Hinault - you'd think the Tour would end up much more one-sided (granted Hinault did win 7 stages and his team won every classification bar the KOM).

My point was that even with that much TTing in a Tour, it could still be an exciting race. IMO, it's the riders, not the parcours, that will make an exciting race.

Hinault won by "3" minutes despite a "poor" first TTT by Renault and bad luck on the stage to Roubaix. Zootemelk's problems on the stage to Morzine probably cost him less time.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You mean like this year's Tour? Or the 1989 tour?

I thought both Tours were far more exciting than most other Tours in the past 20 years, simply because the GC was undecided before the final TT. If the result of the Tour no longer in doubt at the start of the final TT (think all of Indurain's wins, Ullrich's win and most of Armstrong's wins) then the result of the final TT is irrelevant and the only interest is in who wins the stage.

I think it depends on the race that we've had until that point. If it's been an exciting, nip-and-tuck battle, then it ending with a final (competitive) stage ITT is a tense, dramatic and exciting spectacle.

If everybody is happy to wait for the ITT, and we get timid, tentative racing throughout, then that ITT is still exciting, but the race isn't an exciting one. It's the equivalent of comparing, say, a 3-3 draw that goes to penalties like the Liverpool-AC Milan CL final a few years ago, and a 0-0 draw that goes to penalties like the Italy-France world cup final.

This year's Tour straddles them both. It was like a match that was a dull 0-0 draw at full time, but in extra time both teams realised they didn't fancy penalties and so started actually being entertaining.

 

[greenedge]

And then Cadel thundered home the last penalty.

 

[The Hitch]

And then Cadel thundered home the last penalty.

Cadel's penalty went in, but it was more like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab3WF_e-J8M

 

[roundabout]

Cadel's penalty went in, but it was more like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab3WF_e-J8M

Nice video, but that would be like Andy doing a Delgado in the last TT.

 

[benpounder]

MTF vs ITT

Combine them! (Too bad Zomegnan is gone...)

We might have seen a 5km flat ITT that finishes on a 200m stretch of 15%,

 

[gustienordic]

I'm trying to figure out who would win a GT that looked like this: or the top 10 for that matter

Stage 1: 15km TTT
Stage 2: 200km + hill top finish
Stage 3: 20km ITT
Stage 4: 150km + 10% finish grade
Stage 5: 200km + flat finish
Stage 6: 200km + Cobbles
Stage 7: 150km + Cobbles
Stage 8: MTF w/ 4 climbs
Stage 9: MTF last climb +10% grade
Stage 10: 70 km ITT
Stage 11: Hilly stage w/ mountain 50km from end
Stage 12: Pure hilly stage
Stage 13: MTF Uphill ITT
Stage 14: MTF w/ 3 or 4 climbs
Stage 15: Hilly stage
Stage 16: Mountain stage w last climb 20 km from end
Stage 17: MTF w/ 5 climbs
Stage 18: 40 km ITT
Stage 19: MTF last climb +15% grade
Stage 20: Hilly stage with finish +20% grade
Stage 21: Circuit race on hilly course

Almost all hills/climbs/TT But other than Contador, I can't think of anyone who would do well on this course, but it would be super fun to watch IF:

There were time bonuses for the top 3,
The climbers attacked every chance they had to put time into TTers like Tony Martin
JROD + Samu attacked on everything.

 

[phanatic]

5 ITT stages Vs. 5 mountain stages...

don't U want to see it in grand tours??

Not five ITTs but a prologue, two ITTs, one MTT, and one TTT seems right to me. I mean, isn't this the standard from which GT's vary?

 

[gregrowlerson]

Wow! That 1979 TDF was incredible with the amount of time trialling.

Even myself, Nikoloz and Waterloo Sunrise would acknowledge that, and we are bonafide Triallers (like with Star Trek nerds you have your Trekers).

Hey! Maybe the organisers are just getting started on the TTT's for 2013. Maybe they are taking a peep back at '79?! I'd like to see 177 kms of TTT, just to enjoy the conversation on the forum

 

[Ripper]

The reasoning is often that the ITT itself "does not make exciting TV", which I do not completely agree with.

I think 2 ITT would be enough, but in the range of 50-80 km each, and one flatter, with the other hilly and windy (like from the Giro a couple of years ago). So one is a drag race - all about aero and power for 1-2 hours. The other is about individual power, effort, technique and likely would not be TT bike friendly, again over an hour or 2.

Of course, I also like the MTFs to be tough MTFs!

 

[Roninho]

So what would have happend in the past 15 years of TDF's to the results if:
A) much more ITT's (or at least more km's) where included
B) much less ITT's (or at least less km's) where included

1996 Riis; Maybe to Ullrich if more ITT's were included
1997 Ullrich: No change
1998 Pantani: yes, to ullrich if more ITT's were included
1999-2005 Armstrong: Maybe the edition with Ullrich riding for bianchi if more ITT's where included
2006 Perreiro: Yes, this TDF could have been won by 5 many riders anyhow
2007 Contador: Maybe if more ITT's where included that Evans or LL had won it
2008 Sastre: Yes, this TDF could have been won by many riders anyhow
2009 Contador: No change
2010 Contador: Probably since it was such a close one
2011 Evans: Probably since it was such a close one

So yeah, we would have seen some changes, but imo not earthshocking. Or at least not in the cases in which there was a clear winner (Armstrong, Ullrich, Contador).

I don't like ITT's on TV (or watching it 'live' actually) so in that regard i wouldn't be in favour. However, i wouldn't be surprised that adding an extra very long ITT would be very beneficial for the excitement in the other stages: Imo the climbers will as a result attack way way earlier which increases the excitement, and you'd get the added bonus of guys like Martin fighting to keep some of minutes they have won in the ITTS.
Actually a bit like the Giro of a few years ago where Arroyo & porte won like half an hour in a stage and kept fighting to keep their pink jersey, with the other guys having to attack them. This obviously wont work when you have a guy like Armstrong who was the best at both disciplines though.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

That 'half an hour' was about 12 minutes.

The problem is, too much TT mileage and the strong TT guys can just limit losses, cos they can just wheelsuck to victory; you need to be able to induce the long-range attacks. Where the 2010 Giro worked was that the guy who got the time was a climber, of just the right level. Arroyo is good enough as a climber (and a genuine one who can deal with accelerations, not a pure diesel grinder) to make the big guns sweat over catching him, but not good enough to actually hold them off.

It's a difficult balance, because we do now have teams who can effectively control the race for diesel contenders, so we have a proliferation of that type of contender. The climbers have only set the race alight in the Tour when their backs were absolutely to the wall, and those strong TT challenger teams were decimated by injuries. The type of tactic developed by Banesto and perfected by US Postal is (sometimes unfortunately for the spectacle) incredibly successful. Too many mountain stages come down to just the final climb, because the leaders' teams are just too strong to have the race already shredded by then; usually, especially in the Tour but often in the other two GTs too, if a contender decides to attack way out, the GC men just hang them out to dry and let them toast themselves, because too many domestiques are still fresh enough to pull things back.

I agree that there needs to be more TT mileage - the 2010 and 2011 GTs seemed determined to all but kill it off as a format - but in this era of race radios and 9-man team time trialling through mountain stages to deposit the leader at the base of the final climb we need to look at the design of the mountain stages AS WELL AS the design of the TTs; perhaps include TTs like Cinque Terre or the 2014 Worlds course, where the rouleurs will have plenty of time to gain but the climbers will be able to limit those losses, or at least using more Giro-like climbs, with the kind of ramps riders need to make those blistering attacks; trying to cut down on the 5% tempo grinding.

 

[Netserk]

I agree that there needs to be more TT mileage - the 2010 and 2011 GTs seemed determined to all but kill it off as a format - but in this era of race radios and 9-man team time trialling through mountain stages to deposit the leader at the base of the final climb we need to look at the design of the mountain stages AS WELL AS the design of the TTs; perhaps include TTs like Cinque Terre or the 2014 Worlds course, where the rouleurs will have plenty of time to gain but the climbers will be able to limit those losses, or at least using more Giro-like climbs, with the kind of ramps riders need to make those blistering attacks; trying to cut down on the 5% tempo grinding.

If I may say so, I think my version of the TdF did that pretty well, with plenty of ITT km, and long multiple mountain stages

 

[Libertine Seguros]

If I may say so, I think my version of the TdF did that pretty well, with plenty of ITT km, and long multiple mountain stages

190km of TT mileage wasn't it? Bavarianrider would love you (except for the mountain stages, which would frighten Tony off). Andy Schleck would have to be taken away to the funny farm.

Joaquím Rodríguez could feasibly win the lanterne rouge, even after taking a ten minute victory on every MTF