Future of grand tours

[DominicDecoco]

get rid of race radio and power meters.

Yep. It's was exellent to see Voeckler just riding without race radio and power meters. He knew himself enough to know how to ride and to eventually win.

 

[cineteq]

- Smaller teams of maybe 6 riders, this makes it harder to control a race by 1 team.

- Shorter distance for the flat stages, this in combination with the smaller teams maybe make it less predictable.

- At least 2 MTF with the climb being Hors Category (or shorter but steeper).

- I also enjoyed the shorter, very mountainous stages, these in combination with a MTF would make it very attractive to attack I think.

- Without a doubt bonifications on the top of a MTF.

- There's no need for +-100km of ITT (this years tdf)

- 1 hilly course/climb ITT or TTT instead of 2 relatively flat ITT

Whatever encourage racing and add to tactics to it, I'm for

1. Agree, but I unlikely to happen
2. Flat stages should be eliminated altogether
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes, but bonus should be for every stage at the finish, as well as every cat 1 and HC along the stages
6. It's ok as long there are more hilly/MTF stages to compensate
7. Ban team radios and power meters

 

[Bavarianrider]

Each GT should be done only once all 4 years!
So it's one year Giro, the next year Tour, the nest year Vuelta, the next year California ( no one is forced to compete there)
There would be the best possible fields at all GT.
Imagine this! Then you wouldn't see any soft pedelaing or anything. It would be crazy, every stuge would be a ****ing slug fest. Nobody would want to waste a single km as each G>t comes only once in four years. I think it would be aweseome.
As there would be only one GT a year, this GT could see a difficult pacour s with many kilometres, many mountains and many T kilometres.
I know it won't haben but it would be friggin awesome.

 

[taiwan]

Each GT should be done only once all 4 years!
Imagine this! Then you wouldn't see any soft pedelaing or anything. It would be crazy, every stuge would be a ****ing slug fest.

That's a pretty original idea, it must be said.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

terrible idea, we already have riders riding stupid and nervous crashing all over the place because of the stakes of the tour. Imagine one GT a year, it would be a crap-shoot each year.

It was also mean more controlled racing because it would be every teams main objective. This would never equate to proper racing or a slug fest. More like a GT full of sky/ups trains and tempo.

It would be the complete opposite of awesome, terrible idea.

 

[Magnus]

very long mountain stages should never finish on a HC. The last climb should always be easier than the others, otherwise it's true the riders will wait for the final climb (though this holds true for any kind of stage, not only long ones)

What's wrong with variety?


I think all this micro designing of things is kind of ridiculous. You can never ensure a certain outcome of things.

Take this year's GdI. The Alpe di Pampiaggio stage should be perfect to attack on the second last ascent. Nothing happened. On the Stelvio stage everybody said there was way to much valley after the Mortirolo, but it turned out that the valley was practically the most entertaining part of the race and where DeGendt got his gap.

I also don't get why there is so much discussion about stage length. What's wrong with having stage with 180 km flat and then ending with a mtf? That is not to say that all stages should be like that. But that there should also be stages like that. Different types of stages suit different riders.

Another thing that some posters seems to neglect: GC riders tend to chose the one or two stages that suits them the best to make their move. Making more stages that suits GC-action doesn't necessarily cause more GC action. It might as well just be more spread out (as in this year's GdI).

 

[Another_Dutch_Guy]

...HRM and power meters.

This.

In my opinion the ability to assess whether it makes sense to make or follow a move is one key characteristics of a good cyclist. These times knowing how to read a power meter is sufficient.

The tactical part of cycling has been reduced to nearly zero this way; from every GC contender you can tell beforehand what they will do leading to a great loss of excitement.

Oh, and smaller teams of course.

 

[Eshnar]

What's wrong with variety?

nothing ofc. My point was: if you wanna see early attacks, stages should never end on a HC. Probly I didn't make it clear, sorry.

I think all this micro designing of things is kind of ridiculous. You can never ensure a certain outcome of things.

indeed. This is why the more good stages you have, the higher is the chance to see something good.

Take this year's GdI. The Alpe di Pampiaggio stage should be perfect to attack on the second last ascent. Nothing happened. On the Stelvio stage everybody said there was way to much valley after the Mortirolo, but it turned out that the valley was practically the most entertaining part of the race and where DeGendt got his gap.

This year's Giro had its route problems too. The single stages were fine, but the route, as a whole, was too backloaded and lacked ITT. That way everyone just waited until they realized it was too late. The stage to Pampeago is the biggest deception of the year imho The Stelvio stage indeed had too much valley between the climbs, has shown by the fact that no one really attacked on the Mortirolo, except for De Gendt who gave a little dig on the top, but in the end took advantage only because no one bothered to chase.

I also don't get why there is so much discussion about stage length. What's wrong with having stage with 180 km flat and then ending with a mtf? That is not to say that all stages should be like that. But that there should also be stages like that. Different types of stages suit different riders.

the problem of lenght is that shorter stages help teams to control the race. It's not fine for me. Tastes. As I said, I can bear one of them, all in the name of variety.

Another thing that some posters seems to neglect: GC riders tend to chose the one or two stages that suits them the best to make their move. Making more stages that suits GC-action doesn't necessarily cause more GC action. It might as well just be more spread out (as in this year's GdI).

No one talked about MORE gc stages (at least not me)... but we need to improve those stages. Not to make more of them

 

[Magnus]

This.

In my opinion the ability to assess whether it makes sense to make or follow a move is one key characteristics of a good cyclist. These times knowing how to read a power meter is sufficient.

The tactical part of cycling has been reduced to nearly zero this way; from every GC contender you can tell beforehand what they will do leading to a great loss of excitement.

Oh, and smaller teams of course.

I think people over estimates HRM and power meters impact on races. Especially in GT's as riders will have very little data on how they perform after 7-10 days of TdF. Besides: this is professional we're talking about. They know their own bodies. HRM and power meters is surely very good tools in training (at least for some riders). I can't really see that they should affect the outcome of races.

And if you have a watch you should be able to find your heart rate pretty quickly by putting your hand to the chest for five seconds.

 

[cineteq]

I think people over estimates HRM and power meters impact on races. Especially in GT's as riders will have very little data on how they perform after 7-10 days of TdF. Besides: this is professional we're talking about. They know their own bodies. HRM and power meters is surely very good tools in training (at least for some riders). I can't really see that they should affect the outcome of races.

It's not overrated, it's a cancer: "When we were riding on the front at 450 watts (of power) or whatever, someone would attack and Mick Rogers would say ‘just leave him, he can’t sustain it’." Wiggins said.

 

[Magnus]

It's not overrated, it's a cancer: "When we were riding on the front at 450 watts (of power) or whatever, someone would attack and Mick Rogers would say ‘just leave him, he can’t sustain it’." Wiggins said.

I don't think the powermeter is instrumental in this. Wiggins said "at 450 watts or whatever". It's a paraphrase for riding hard. I think Wiggins point is that Rogers was a really good Capitane de Route. You could see it a few times where somebody attacked and the sky train got confused. Then Rogers would say what to do and they continued their work.

 

[Bavarianrider]

In general, i think there should be regulations concerning gear boxes. I think today riders have so many gears, that in the mountains they have the right gear to pedal at the same cadence almost all the time. I think this is a reason why we don't see many long attacks anymore. Climbers can't really play out tehir strength when everybody has a zillion gears. If we would limit the amount of gears i think climbers would benefit. So that would be a rule change i would agree to in favor of the climbers.
Powersmeters should be banned , too. No doubt.

 

[Kellys Big Sprocket]

Get rid of Skoda and bring back Renault.

Bring back the Team Time Trial.

Bring back the red Jersey for the sprints.

Bring back the combine jersey for the lucky all rounder.

Bring back Mt Ventoux TT.

Introduce the prologue sponsored by NASA on the moon or where ever they filmed moonraker and says it the moon.

 

[hiero2]

they need to find a way to stop so many crashes in the first week. it's a rough one to fix too. maybe a nice hard hilly stage 2 (hmmm Corsica) to tire out some riders

They definitely need to fix the crashes. The ONLY OP idea that I think would work toward the desired effect would be the reduced peloton. I'll vote a definite yes to reduced team size.

Reduce the number or distance of TT? Nonsense - the TT's made it MORE competitive this year. The race organizers do a good job year-to-year mixing up the races. IMO.

Reduce the stage length? Again nonsense - if the stage length is shorter the escape has no more chance of making it - they'll just get caught sooner. The breaks rarely get away because they CAN - they usually get away because the peloton lets them. In smaller races, where you have less powerful riders overall, you see breaks get away in an actual escape, but this is also not that common. Again, IMO.

But reducing the team size? Brilliant. The organizers need to do something. That might do it. Front-end loading a couple of mountains might work, but somehow I doubt it. If that would work, I think we would be seeing it.

 

[hiero2]

I don't think the powermeter is instrumental in this. Wiggins said "at 450 watts or whatever". It's a paraphrase for riding hard. I think Wiggins point is that Rogers was a really good Capitane de Route. You could see it a few times where somebody attacked and the sky train got confused. Then Rogers would say what to do and they continued their work.

Excellent observation - very interesting thought. It fits. I like it. I disagree about the power meter - I think it is instrumental, but I also think you have added something to the mix with this observation.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But reducing the team size? Brilliant. The organizers need to do something. That might do it. Front-end loading a couple of mountains might work, but somehow I doubt it. If that would work, I think we would be seeing it.

But we don't mean front-end loading with huge climbs or anything... just something to separate the GC men from the boys. Right now we have, come the end of week 1, 15 teams all trying to protect their leader's GC ambitions, and the other 7 wanting to compete for the sprint. There's only so much room the roads can have and only so many riders who can actually be at the front. There needs to be something that forces people to re-appraise things partway through week 1 to make the péloton less nervous. That can be a gradual or short-medium mountain climb (like a Montevergine stage), which can spell the end of the fight for yellow for some guys and lead to them being less bothered about being at the front, or it can be a wind-battered stage like Middelburg 2010 in the Giro, or it can be a taste of the Classics like Porte d'Arenberg in the 2010 Tour, or it can be a legitimate Ardennes style stage - not the tameness of the stage to Seraing, but more like the aborted Spa stage in 2010. Or it can be a mid-length ITT like the 25km-or-so Cholet one in 2008. Something to give the GC a bit of an early shakedown.

It's actually one of the few things I think the 2012 Vuelta has done right - there's the dreaded TTT, a flat stage, then Arrate. Arrate is only about 7km long, and the steep parts little more than 3km; enough to remove the chaff, but not enough to create big gaps among the wheat. The Valdezcaray stage could have a similar function in that it could remove through attrition the pretenders whilst not creating gaps among the heads of state. However, having both is OTT, Arrate is better than Valdezcaray, and I am highly critical of the stage design leading up to Eibar too.

The Tour was doing this until last year - Cholet 2008 (and Super-Besse was in week 1 too to fulfil that front), Le-Grand-Motte and the TTT in 2009, Ardennes (albeit aborted) and cobbles in 2010. I suspect Mur-de-Bretagne was supposed to fulfil the same function last year, but the stage leading up to it wasn't hard enough, and at 2km it wasn't long enough to open any sizeable gaps.

 

[King Of The Wolds]

All of the above from LS. Furthermore, to reduce the carnage early on, there needs to be some thought to the roads they're riding on. The Breton roads last year were asking for trouble. Get rid of one team (would anybody have missed Saur these last 2 year's?) and reduce to 8 man teams and you are well on your way to a safer race.

 

[ilmaffe]

They definitely need to fix the crashes. The ONLY OP idea that I think would work toward the desired effect would be the reduced peloton. I'll vote a definite yes to reduced team size.

Reduce the number or distance of TT? Nonsense - the TT's made it MORE competitive this year. The race organizers do a good job year-to-year mixing up the races. IMO.

Reduce the stage length? Again nonsense - if the stage length is shorter the escape has no more chance of making it - they'll just get caught sooner. The breaks rarely get away because they CAN - they usually get away because the peloton lets them. In smaller races, where you have less powerful riders overall, you see breaks get away in an actual escape, but this is also not that common. Again, IMO.

But reducing the team size? Brilliant. The organizers need to do something. That might do it. Front-end loading a couple of mountains might work, but somehow I doubt it. If that would work, I think we would be seeing it.

10km neutralization on first week flat stages? May it help?

 

[robert_c]

I think people over estimates HRM and power meters impact on races.

I only disagree because it seemed every interview with Horner was 400 watts this and 400 watts that. I don't know if it impacts races, but Horner sure uses his wattage a lot.

 

[LesDiablesRouges]

Depends how unrealistic/radical you want to get

but they could start the riders based on how much time they are behind on mountain stages

i.e.

1st

then next guy is 52 seconds back he leaves 52 seconds later etc. Lots of logistical issues so the idea is non-starter.


The TT's aren't the problem it's the lack of selection on climbs that's a problem.

I'd love to see a TT with cobbled sections. It could be a bit mad but at least it creates some uneasiness.

One super long mountain queen stage like 270-300km would shake things up.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Depends how unrealistic/radical you want to get

but they could start the riders based on how much time they are behind on mountain stages

i.e.

1st

then next guy is 52 seconds back he leaves 52 seconds later etc. Lots of logistical issues so the idea is non-starter.


The TT's aren't the problem it's the lack of selection on climbs that's a problem.

I'd love to see a TT with cobbled sections. It could be a bit mad but at least it creates some uneasiness.

One super long mountain queen stage like 270-300km would shake things up.

a skiing-style pursuit race isn't really possible in the GTs, no, as you would be going on for four hours between first and last competitors starting, with little motivation for anybody outside the top 10 until you got to the trackstand championships that are the Lanterne Rouge battle. However, in a flattish short stage race like Eneco or the TDU I think it could work if carefully planned. Say laps of a circuit, an appropriate number of laps - probably short, say 30-50km for the TDU and 50-60km for the Eneco, for the riders to set off at. Sprinters are often near the front in these races, but can they afford in such a short distance to wait for their teammates several seconds behind and hope they can reel back the leaders so they can duke out the win or do they go themselves? Do you find a group of sprinters with bonus seconds having to work together to try to pull back the likes of Gerrans and Valverde, who have fewer numbers but both have something to gain from working together?

It's never going to happen, and always gets mooted as a suggestion once in a while, but while it's not an especially sensible suggestion it's also not quite as mad as is sometimes made out - just needs very careful management and planning.

 

[Pippo_San]

In general, i think there should be regulations concerning gear boxes. I think today riders have so many gears, that in the mountains they have the right gear to pedal at the same cadence almost all the time. I think this is a reason why we don't see many long attacks anymore. Climbers can't really play out tehir strength when everybody has a zillion gears. If we would limit the amount of gears i think climbers would benefit. So that would be a rule change i would agree to in favor of the climbers.
Powersmeters should be banned , too. No doubt.

The root of all evil is again UCI. Even concerning the technological advancements they don't follow a clear path.

They permit they use of SRM, yet not the race radios. They permit the use of 11 gears rear cassettes and compact chainring, yet the weight of the bike mustn't be lower than 6.8 kilos. They permit the use of those new ridiculous aero helmets and certain advancements in aerodynamics yet you can't use the so called "spinaci" or the incredible limitations regarding the number of spokes and dimensions of the wheels...and you could go on forever like this.

They should choose a path: either put complete restrictions in order to make cycling a show, obiouvsly the safest possible, or go full gas on new technologies and let every possible enhancement available, and that would surely be helpful also for the components makers.

 

[bicifan]

The root of all evil is again UCI. Even concerning the technological advancements they don't follow a clear path.

They should choose a path: either put complete restrictions in order to make cycling a show, obiouvsly the safest possible, or go full gas on new technologies and let every possible enhancement available, and that would surely be helpful also for the components makers.

+1 Well said, thanks for posting this!

 

[hfer07]

he's the missing link in cycling

 

[gregrowlerson]

Bring back time bonuses.

More hilly, mountain TT's. TDF hasn't had a mountain one since 2004!

Something a bit more decisive in week one to break up the GC. Maybe even throw in Venteoux on occasion late in week one of Tour.