Dauphine Route leaked

[Dazed and Confused]

Sky leader would be alone after/on Fedaia.

nah, they would have controlled the stage until the last few kms.
Dream on.

 

[The Hitch]

Sky leader would be alone after/on Fedaia.

In your dreams.

 

[Netserk]

I didn't see it. I missed everything from stage 12 to stage 19.

Whut?

Why?

It was awesome

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Okay I don't agree but whatever. Attacks from over 2 km out are not possible anymore in mountain stages.

Sure they are. You just need organisers to not keep going for Cuitu Negru style climbs where the last 2-3k are so steep they scare people away from attacking elsewhere, enough difficulties earlier in the stage to ensure people have enough in their legs to mean they have to pause before responding to moves.

And if you have a time trial long enough to have a deficit, then people will need to attack earlier than 2k to go in order to try to win.

That doesn't mean they'll necessarily be successful, but at least they'll have to give it a go. The Sky train seems to have destroyed your will to enjoy cycling, if you consider that it's impossible to balance 40km of time trialling in a race taking place in the biggest mountain range in Europe and that any attack from more than 2km out is stupid. If the Sky train still control it, then so be it. The length of the time trial is irrelevant if you're that pessimistic, because nobody will be able to take any time outside the last 2km even if the stage somehow bent the time-space continuum to be able to produce a stage with Finestre, Mont du Chat, Mortirolo, Crostis and Zoncolán before finishing with an MTF at Anglirú.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

with Finestre, Mont du Chat, Mortirolo, Crostis and Zoncolán before finishing with an MTF at Anglirú.

The Motirolo - Stevio stage was dull last year and that was without the Sky train.

It will take 8 x 2km @ 15-20% to derail a serious GC sky train.

Sorry LS, dream on.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The Motirolo - Stevio stage was dull last year and that was without the Sky train.

It will take 8 x 2km @ 15-20% to derail a serious GC sky train.

Sorry LS, dream on.

But would that balance out a 40km time trial? Easily. When the best climbers and best time triallists are the same people, the length of the time trial is irrelevant, so LaFlo needn't complain about the TT being too long.

If the mountain stages are well-designed, the TT can become longer to balance it out. It's the basics of course design. If one team is that much stronger than the rest, they will win anyway, so we may as well toughen the course up, make the ITT a reasonable length to balance it and at least entice people to try to make it fun. Shortening the ITT and designing the courses around 2km sprints is basically throwing your hands in the air and giving up on even trying to make races more interesting.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

But would that balance out a 40km time trial? Easily. When the best climbers and best time triallists are the same people, the length of the time trial is irrelevant, so LaFlo needn't complain about the TT being too long.

If the mountain stages are well-designed, the TT can become longer to balance it out. It's the basics of course design. If one team is that much stronger than the rest, they will win anyway, so we may as well toughen the course up, make the ITT a reasonable length to balance it and at least entice people to try to make it fun. Shortening the ITT and designing the courses around 2km sprints is basically throwing your hands in the air and giving up on even trying to make races more interesting.

Sounds like an attempt to prolong the pain rather than making it more fun. Sorry, I am no buying it with the current setup of the teams and peloton.

Anyway lets just see how action unfolds on some of the tougher stages this year (until TdF).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Well, f*** it, let's just have a series of 2km stages and not waste the time of having 170km of group riding first then. Prologues, flat stages and hill climbs. After all, if we're going to give up on getting anything of interest outside the last 2km we may as well not bother with the rest of the stage, and broadcast a local tourist board promotional footage video instead.

Half the fans wouldn't even notice.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Well, f*** it, let's just have a series of 2km stages and not waste the time of having 170km of group riding first then. Prologues, flat stages and hill climbs. After all, if we're going to give up on getting anything of interest outside the last 2km we may as well not bother with the rest of the stage, and broadcast a local tourist board promotional footage video instead.

Half the fans wouldn't even notice.

The core problem has not been addressed yet. Team strength. Unless the balance between individual performance vs team get "better", we will continue to see controlled stages almost independent of hardness. It will take something like the recent T-A stage to get us close to a prolonged GC battle.

Last year almost 70 riders came within 2 minutes of the leader in MSR. And there were crashes. Ridiculous. Make it 400km? Action will still be 10 minutes.

 

[Netserk]

Last year almost 70 riders came within 2 minutes of the leader in MSR. And there were crashes. Ridiculous. Make it 400km? Action will still be 10 minutes.

I don't think so. The extra kms will take it's toll on doms, so it will be harder to pull back attacks.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

I don't think so. The extra kms will take it's toll on doms, so it will be harder to pull back attacks.

Nah, they will just go slower. Still 10km of action in the end.

 

[burning]

Well, f*** it, let's just have a series of 2km stages and not waste the time of having 170km of group riding first then. Prologues, flat stages and hill climbs. After all, if we're going to give up on getting anything of interest outside the last 2km we may as well not bother with the rest of the stage, and broadcast a local tourist board promotional footage video instead.

Half the fans wouldn't even notice.

So, what is your ideal mountain stage in a GT (or ideal mountain stage composition in a GT)

I think Mortirolo-Aprica type of finishes seems to be the most exciting ones but Sky made the Toussuire stage obsolete in 2012 so maybe the last climb shouldnt be too shallow?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Sure they are. You just need organisers to not keep going for Cuitu Negru style climbs where the last 2-3k are so steep they scare people away from attacking elsewhere, enough difficulties earlier in the stage to ensure people have enough in their legs to mean they have to pause before responding to moves.

And if you have a time trial long enough to have a deficit, then people will need to attack earlier than 2k to go in order to try to win.

That doesn't mean they'll necessarily be successful, but at least they'll have to give it a go. The Sky train seems to have destroyed your will to enjoy cycling, if you consider that it's impossible to balance 40km of time trialling in a race taking place in the biggest mountain range in Europe and that any attack from more than 2km out is stupid. If the Sky train still control it, then so be it. The length of the time trial is irrelevant if you're that pessimistic, because nobody will be able to take any time outside the last 2km even if the stage somehow bent the time-space continuum to be able to produce a stage with Finestre, Mont du Chat, Mortirolo, Crostis and Zoncolán before finishing with an MTF at Anglirú.

What you don't seem to get is that unsuccessful attacks from further out don't change anything about the fact that the race will be decided in the tt. A successful attack from two km out on two mtfs might be enough to win back the time lost in a shorter tt, however as you said to make up the time lost in a longer tt a rider needs to attack from further out with the sky train still on full power.
And to be honest there is nothing I find exciting about seeing series of futile attempts to attack from far out.

 

[LaFlorecita]

But would that balance out a 40km time trial? Easily. When the best climbers and best time triallists are the same people, the length of the time trial is irrelevant, so LaFlo needn't complain about the TT being too long.

Best climbers and best time trialist the same people. As I see it there is one rider who is by a small margin the best climber (though that margin could still grow) and the best time trialist by a huge margin. He has been beaten this season though by a rider who is a bad time trialist. So on a course with a long tt only the first rider could win and the latter stands no chance because of his bad tt skills.

 

[hoerpi]

Not sure if guys are trolling or not about the sky train but I think both Grand Colombière last year and last tuesday showed that tricky descents is all it takes to derail the sky train. Too bad the Grand Colombière was so far from the finish line...

 

[RownhamHill]

Best climbers and best time trialist the same people. As I see it there is one rider who is by a small margin the best climber (though that margin could still grow) and the best time trialist by a huge margin. He has been beaten this season though by a rider who is a bad time trialist. So on a course with a long tt only the first rider could win and the latter stands no chance because of his bad tt skills.

This has been an interesting discussion, thanks all I've enjoyed reading it - it reminds me why I started coming to this forum in the first place. . .

My two cent's worth, is that I think I side with LS, in that the above post (for example) seems to suggest that courses should be designed that encourage the best rider to be beaten, which kind of goes against my basic conception of sport, but then again, you get into a discussion of who the 'best' rider is in the first place - in GC I guess the classic model is someone who can time-trial and climb (but not necessarily sprint, or win from a break or whatever), but I suppose where you balance the relative importance of both skills effects how you view a balanced course. Or something!

 

[Netserk]

Best climbers and best time trialist the same people. As I see it there is one rider who is by a small margin the best climber (though that margin could still grow) and the best time trialist by a huge margin. He has been beaten this season though by a rider who is a bad time trialist. So on a course with a long tt only the first rider could win and the latter stands no chance because of his bad tt skills.

So you are saying that the best all-rounder wins. Seems fair. If the best climber should win despite having a lousy TT, then there is no need for a ITT at all.

 

[LaFlorecita]

So you are saying that the best all-rounder wins. Seems fair. If the best climber should win despite having a lousy TT, then there is no need for a ITT at all.

no what I'm saying is that a rider who is normally a little worse on the climbs that has a good day and puts time in the normally better climber can still not win because of the tt. It doesn't seem fair to me.

 

[airstream]

I'd like to see them try to control a stage like Gardeccia

Or Crostis :drool:

Do you think average grade 9% instead of 6-7% would change situation drastically?

In my view, Pampeago 2008 and 2012 stage clearly show how expectations may not match reality. Minimum of connections between steepness and 'epicness'. Moreover, steepness is rather stuff for guys who like to anticipate.

 

[airstream]

Nah, they will just go slower. Still 10km of action in the end.

Absolutely. No one would hurry to turn on even a medium pace early.

 

[RownhamHill]

So you are saying that the best all-rounder wins. Seems fair. If the best climber should win despite having a lousy TT, then there is no need for a ITT at all.

no what I'm saying is that a rider who is normally a little worse on the climbs that has a good day and puts time in the normally better climber can still not win because of the tt. It doesn't seem fair to me.

If they have a good day and put time into a normally better climber, wouldn't that kind of make them the better climber in that particular race? Which comes back to the question of how you judge the best rider for a stage race - do you want the best all-rounder to win, or the rider who climbs best over the course of the race? I'm not saying either is better, but if you want the latter then why bother with the time trial at all?

 

[LaFlorecita]

If they have a good day and put time into a normally better climber, wouldn't that kind of make them the better climber in that particular race? Which comes back to the question of how you judge the best rider for a stage race - do you want the best all-rounder to win, or the rider who climbs best over the course of the race? I'm not saying either is better, but if you want the latter then why bother with the time trial at all?

The thing is if you want the best all-rounder to win then why bother to race at all? I mean isn't unpredictability part of the fun?

 

[Ferminal]

Do you think average grade 9% instead of 6-7% would change situation drastically?

Probably not, but in theory it costs less for one to be off the front relative to his rivals in the pack.

 

[RownhamHill]

The thing is if you want the best all-rounder to win then why bother to race at all? I mean isn't unpredictability part of the fun?

For me the unpredictability and suspense comes in seeing who will actually prove to be the best all-rounder/climber/whateverattributethecourse is testing over the course of the week/three weeks - is Cadel a better all rounder than Contador? According to the 2011 tour he is. Is Froome a better all rounder than Wiggins? According to the 2011 Vuelta he is, and so on!

Anyway, off home for the weekend, thanks for the discussion!

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The thing is if you want the best all-rounder to win then why bother to race at all? I mean isn't unpredictability part of the fun?

Yes, but sometimes somebody is too good, and no matter what you throw at them, they still come out on top. I get bored very easily by domination, but surely giving people deficits that they have to win back incentivises attacking earlier, which means the support riders for the dominant team have to do more work?

At the moment, Sky can more or less soft-pedal to the bottom of the final climb, then do their thing. I don't see how minimising the GC-relevant parts of the race as you seem to want to do (reduce time trial mileage, cultivate this current fad for 2km sprints at the top of mountains) is meant to be progress.

Also, note that I didn't say the long time trial was for every race. Algarve, for example, was ruined by the long ITT, as was Paris-Nice in 2011. The time trial mileage should be balanced against the rest of the parcours.

The Dauphiné takes place in the Alps. I know you're from the Netherlands so you might not be aware of this, but the Alps are very big and go very high. They are a great big mountain range. If you have a week long race through the Alps, and you CAN'T find enough climbing to balance against 40km of time trial, you aren't looking hard enough, sorry. Just because one team is strong all-round doesn't mean that it's impossible to make a balanced route, it just means it's hard to create a route where they won't stand a good chance of coming out on top. But that's not the course designers' fault if they produce a balanced route. Produce a pile of horse dung like the 2012 Dauphiné and sure, blame them. But 40km can EASILY be balanced out against the mountains. Did I mention that there were lots of mountains in the Alps? Because there are.