Grand Depart 2017 in Germany?

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 13, 2015
18
0
0
I really cant understand why so many people think that next years Tour route would be perfect if there was a 50 km time trail. If they were to do that it would be a disaster because Froome would gain over 3 minuets on Quintana and the race would be over. And whenever riders who lost time in the TT try to attack Froome in the mountains team Sky will just bring every single attack back and it will make for another frustrating and boring Tour like this year...This years Tour only had a 37km TT and Froome put in over 2 minuets into Quintana and the race was over after that, imagine how big the time gaps would be if there was a 50km TT!! I think a long TT would be the worst thing possible for the Tour if they want a decent race.
 
Jun 11, 2014
304
0
0
Re:

yaco said:
Two ITT's will strangle the race if Froome is in form - Expect lots of whinging from posters.
So our problem is: too many MTF's anf ITT's kill the race. For a radical problem we need a radical solution
Actionlist:
1) Transform top 3-4 MTF's stages into descent finishes: DONE (Chat, Galibier, Peguere)
2) Kill of ITT's: PENDING, prologue is ok then we shouldn't have any more ITT's
3) Only medium mountain uphill finishes on hill of soft climb finishes: PENDING, longwy & rousses ok, but take PLBF and Peyragudes out FFS
4) Change layout of other 2-3 mountain stages to either a Tourmalet-Cauterets layout (poor man's Mortirolo-Aprica) or Pamplona 1996 stages.
in total 8-10 stages in above format
Rest of stages should be breakaway, windy and pure sprinter stages.

This is the only way to develop BALANCED tour while Vroom Vroom is around AND FORCING Bertie/Nairo/Chavie etc. to attack from afar on the GC stages. Nibali would love this, and I believe it would be the most attacked GT ever.

Heck, even Crashweak might race as a dark dark dark horse!

But by sticking in 2 ITT's, Peyragudes, PLBF & Izoard ASO just burns all brigdes
 
Re:

Ashhutch97 said:
I really cant understand why so many people think that next years Tour route would be perfect if there was a 50 km time trail. If they were to do that it would be a disaster because Froome would gain over 3 minuets on Quintana and the race would be over. And whenever riders who lost time in the TT try to attack Froome in the mountains team Sky will just bring every single attack back and it will make for another frustrating and boring Tour like this year...This years Tour only had a 37km TT and Froome put in over 2 minuets into Quintana and the race was over after that, imagine how big the time gaps would be if there was a 50km TT!! I think a long TT would be the worst thing possible for the Tour if they want a decent race.
The point is people want a balanced route. I prefer a balanced routé over a route which is designed to try and prevent one person from winning or designed specifically for one person. For example I did not like the very top heavy TT route of 2012 which did not have sufficient tough mountain stages to compensate. Conversely a tour with as few a TT km as 2015 or even 2016 in my view is not balanced and not befitting of the race even if it was designed to allow pure climbers a chance to win.

I want a hard, fair but balanced route- a GT should be won by someone with all round ability. If Froome is strongest so be it.

In my view a GT should test every aspect of cycling- flat stages for sprinters (with wind), puncheur stages, hilly stages, medium mountain, high mountain (summit and descent finishes) and at least 2 TTs (1 long (50-60km 1 short)
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
I really think two 40+km TTs and a prologue are a perfect way to get a worse Tour than this year if Quintana (and Contador) were to miss their peak. Apart from these two, nobody even believes in winning against Sky.
The route wouldn't really matter in terms of ITT miles if Quintana missed his peak tho. They could have 14 km and he would be run down in his 2016-form anyways. But chances of that happening 2 years in a row?

It basically comes down to whether you bank on Dumoulin as a GC-contender and Quintana showing up in godlike form so he actually still can contest the win with say 80 km of ITT. That would be a great scenario.

In terms of Contador, Froome is a little better climber and a better time trialist. Same with Porte - no contest on equal terms.
 
I also think that too many TT kilometers might make the race even worse, since Froome could dominate. Nevertheless it seems unfair to make a route without TT'ing. Froome has a strength which riders like Quintana don't have and he should be able to use this strength in a gt. However I think the ASO should make enough TT kilometers to not make the route unfair, but not too many to endanger a good race. IMO more than 60k of ITT would be too much for next years route, less than 40 would be too few.
 
Sep 13, 2015
18
0
0
Re: Re:

Jan the Man said:
Ashhutch97 said:
I really cant understand why so many people think that next years Tour route would be perfect if there was a 50 km time trail. If they were to do that it would be a disaster because Froome would gain over 3 minuets on Quintana and the race would be over. And whenever riders who lost time in the TT try to attack Froome in the mountains team Sky will just bring every single attack back and it will make for another frustrating and boring Tour like this year...This years Tour only had a 37km TT and Froome put in over 2 minuets into Quintana and the race was over after that, imagine how big the time gaps would be if there was a 50km TT!! I think a long TT would be the worst thing possible for the Tour if they want a decent race.
The point is people want a balanced route. I prefer a balanced routé over a route which is designed to try and prevent one person from winning or designed specifically for one person. For example I did not like the very top heavy TT route of 2012 which did not have sufficient tough mountain stages to compensate. Conversely a tour with as few a TT km as 2015 or even 2016 in my view is not balanced and not befitting of the race even if it was designed to allow pure climbers a chance to win.

I want a hard, fair but balanced route- a GT should be won by someone with all round ability. If Froome is strongest so be it.

In my view a GT should test every aspect of cycling- flat stages for sprinters (with wind), puncheur stages, hilly stages, medium mountain, high mountain (summit and descent finishes) and at least 2 TTs (1 long (50-60km 1 short)
Yes a balanced route does mean that the best all round rider wins, but I feel with Froome around a Tour with a 50-60km TT would be tragic because it would destroy the race as a spectacle. At least in 2015 we had a little bit of hope that Quintana might get back some of his time in the last few days, but If there was a 50km TT he would have been completely out of the race. I think they should create a route with the current GC riders in mind, in a Tour like 2011, a long TT early on might have forced the Schlecks to attack in the Pyrenees to make up time. But with Froome around if the Tour want a close race they need to create a Tour less TT friendly otherwise the other GC riders will have no chance.
 
Aug 6, 2015
4,139
2
0
Froome is the best climber and he is by far the best time trialist of the gc guys so le tour will be boring until he start to decline his shape.
 
Re:

portugal11 said:
Froome is the best climber and he is by far the best time trialist of the gc guys so le tour will be boring until he start to decline his shape.
Then again the 2015 tour would have been extremely close without the crosswind. In a race without an ITT and without Quintana stupidly losing time somewhere I would give both almost equal chances.
 
Re: Re:

Valv.Piti said:
Red Rick said:
I really think two 40+km TTs and a prologue are a perfect way to get a worse Tour than this year if Quintana (and Contador) were to miss their peak. Apart from these two, nobody even believes in winning against Sky.
The route wouldn't really matter in terms of ITT miles if Quintana missed his peak tho. They could have 14 km and he would be run down in his 2016-form anyways. But chances of that happening 2 years in a row?

It basically comes down to whether you bank on Dumoulin as a GC-contender and Quintana showing up in godlike form so he actually still can contest the win with say 80 km of ITT. That would be a great scenario.

In terms of Contador, Froome is a little better climber and a better time trialist. Same with Porte - no contest on equal terms.
80km of tt'ing would make it inevitably worse. At no point this year did Froome drop all his competitors uphill, and he still won without anoyone contesting it. He didn't even have to work for it. Contador was a force to be reckoned with this spring, crashes in GT's dont' change that. His attack in the Dauphine was the toughest thing the Sky Train had to deal with. Younger rider could also make a step, but if Froome is 5 minutes ahead because of tt's, they're not gonna risk it in the mountains, because a podium means something to them. Hell, Yates didn't even risk his 4th place
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Valv.Piti said:
Red Rick said:
I really think two 40+km TTs and a prologue are a perfect way to get a worse Tour than this year if Quintana (and Contador) were to miss their peak. Apart from these two, nobody even believes in winning against Sky.
The route wouldn't really matter in terms of ITT miles if Quintana missed his peak tho. They could have 14 km and he would be run down in his 2016-form anyways. But chances of that happening 2 years in a row?

It basically comes down to whether you bank on Dumoulin as a GC-contender and Quintana showing up in godlike form so he actually still can contest the win with say 80 km of ITT. That would be a great scenario.

In terms of Contador, Froome is a little better climber and a better time trialist. Same with Porte - no contest on equal terms.
80km of tt'ing would make it inevitably worse. At no point this year did Froome drop all his competitors uphill, and he still won without anoyone contesting it. He didn't even have to work for it. Contador was a force to be reckoned with this spring, crashes in GT's dont' change that. His attack in the Dauphine was the toughest thing the Sky Train had to deal with. Younger rider could also make a step, but if Froome is 5 minutes ahead because of tt's, they're not gonna risk it in the mountains, because a podium means something to them. Hell, Yates didn't even risk his 4th place
You mean this one?
 
Re: Re:

Alexandre B. said:
Red Rick said:
Valv.Piti said:
Red Rick said:
I really think two 40+km TTs and a prologue are a perfect way to get a worse Tour than this year if Quintana (and Contador) were to miss their peak. Apart from these two, nobody even believes in winning against Sky.
The route wouldn't really matter in terms of ITT miles if Quintana missed his peak tho. They could have 14 km and he would be run down in his 2016-form anyways. But chances of that happening 2 years in a row?

It basically comes down to whether you bank on Dumoulin as a GC-contender and Quintana showing up in godlike form so he actually still can contest the win with say 80 km of ITT. That would be a great scenario.

In terms of Contador, Froome is a little better climber and a better time trialist. Same with Porte - no contest on equal terms.
80km of tt'ing would make it inevitably worse. At no point this year did Froome drop all his competitors uphill, and he still won without anoyone contesting it. He didn't even have to work for it. Contador was a force to be reckoned with this spring, crashes in GT's dont' change that. His attack in the Dauphine was the toughest thing the Sky Train had to deal with. Younger rider could also make a step, but if Froome is 5 minutes ahead because of tt's, they're not gonna risk it in the mountains, because a podium means something to them. Hell, Yates didn't even risk his 4th place
You mean this one?
Contador attacked many times on that climb, obviously he wasn't that strong after big efforts anymore. Anyway I think RedRick was talking about Contadors attacks one day later.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
2
0
Yeah if Sagan keeps on being dominant in the spring classics, I think they should drop the cobbles. With less cobbles maybe some better sprinters can hang unto him and beat him in the sprint. I mean, dominance is so boring........

If you have to mutilate the TDF beyond recognition to get another winner than Froome, the other guys just aren't worthy winners.
 
Re: Re:

Ashhutch97 said:
Jan the Man said:
Ashhutch97 said:
I really cant understand why so many people think that next years Tour route would be perfect if there was a 50 km time trail. If they were to do that it would be a disaster because Froome would gain over 3 minuets on Quintana and the race would be over. And whenever riders who lost time in the TT try to attack Froome in the mountains team Sky will just bring every single attack back and it will make for another frustrating and boring Tour like this year...This years Tour only had a 37km TT and Froome put in over 2 minuets into Quintana and the race was over after that, imagine how big the time gaps would be if there was a 50km TT!! I think a long TT would be the worst thing possible for the Tour if they want a decent race.
The point is people want a balanced route. I prefer a balanced routé over a route which is designed to try and prevent one person from winning or designed specifically for one person. For example I did not like the very top heavy TT route of 2012 which did not have sufficient tough mountain stages to compensate. Conversely a tour with as few a TT km as 2015 or even 2016 in my view is not balanced and not befitting of the race even if it was designed to allow pure climbers a chance to win.

I want a hard, fair but balanced route- a GT should be won by someone with all round ability. If Froome is strongest so be it.

In my view a GT should test every aspect of cycling- flat stages for sprinters (with wind), puncheur stages, hilly stages, medium mountain, high mountain (summit and descent finishes) and at least 2 TTs (1 long (50-60km 1 short)
Yes a balanced route does mean that the best all round rider wins, but I feel with Froome around a Tour with a 50-60km TT would be tragic because it would destroy the race as a spectacle. At least in 2015 we had a little bit of hope that Quintana might get back some of his time in the last few days, but If there was a 50km TT he would have been completely out of the race. I think they should create a route with the current GC riders in mind, in a Tour like 2011, a long TT early on might have forced the Schlecks to attack in the Pyrenees to make up time. But with Froome around if the Tour want a close race they need to create a Tour less TT friendly otherwise the other GC riders will have no chance.

It depends where ITTs are put. According to current predictions ITTs will be on stage 2 and Stage 20 which means there won't be big gaps coming into serious mountains. Therefore, TDF won't be over unless Froome destroys the field in first mountain stages. IMO, it would have been disaster if Quintana, untested for ITT, would have won TDF 15... IMO, ITTs are exciting as mountain stages. There should be around 50km-80km of ITT in every GT in order to test climbers.
 
I think a long TT early would be good for the race because Quintana would have to attack a whole lot more than just picking one or two mountain stages and waiting two weeks for it.

In my opinion it will be 13km ITT on stage 1, and on stage 20 a longer one, say between 25-40km, but not flat for the most so Quintana can limit his losses well.
 
Re:

Maaaaaaaarten said:
Yeah if Sagan keeps on being dominant in the spring classics, I think they should drop the cobbles. With less cobbles maybe some better sprinters can hang unto him and beat him in the sprint. I mean, dominance is so boring........

If you have to mutilate the TDF beyond recognition to get another winner than Froome, the other guys just aren't worthy winners.
This. This. This.

People just don't like Froome.

Indurain kept winning the TDF, and kept getting more than 100kms of ITT, yet 90% of fans want less than 60kms of ITT today because Froome is too good :confused:

We have not been getting anywhere near as much time trialling as it is, but people seem able to get used to things, therefore 40-60 kms is considered the 'norm'. This in itself is a disgrace. Maybe one TDF every five years should have this amount of ITT (because you should still have a little variety in the routes). Imagine if Prudhomme had continued down the 2012 road. We'd now be considering just a couple of high mountain stages to be perfectly reasonable....

Time trials have defined the Tour De France for decades, almost as much as the mountains (and pancake flat boring stages :D ). If Froome is too good than that is just too bad for everyone else.
 
Re: Re:

gregrowlerson said:
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Yeah if Sagan keeps on being dominant in the spring classics, I think they should drop the cobbles. With less cobbles maybe some better sprinters can hang unto him and beat him in the sprint. I mean, dominance is so boring........

If you have to mutilate the TDF beyond recognition to get another winner than Froome, the other guys just aren't worthy winners.
This. This. This.

People just don't like Froome.

Indurain kept winning the TDF, and kept getting more than 100kms of ITT, yet 90% of fans want less than 60kms of ITT today because Froome is too good :confused:

We have not been getting anywhere near as much time trialling as it is, but people seem able to get used to things, therefore 40-60 kms is considered the 'norm'. This in itself is a disgrace. Maybe one TDF every five years should have this amount of ITT (because you should still have a little variety in the routes). Imagine if Prudhomme had continued down the 2012 road. We'd now be considering just a couple of high mountain stages to be perfectly reasonable....

Time trials have defined the Tour De France for decades, almost as much as the mountains (and pancake flat boring stages :D ). If Froome is too good than that is just too bad for everyone else.
Racing has changed as well. Gaps in the mountains are smaller because of teams being stronger in depth. So im absolutely pro tt's , but the mountain stages provided should be hard enough for big gaps.
 
Sep 1, 2015
6
0
0
Re: Re:

Kwibus said:
gregrowlerson said:
Maaaaaaaarten said:
Yeah if Sagan keeps on being dominant in the spring classics, I think they should drop the cobbles. With less cobbles maybe some better sprinters can hang unto him and beat him in the sprint. I mean, dominance is so boring........

If you have to mutilate the TDF beyond recognition to get another winner than Froome, the other guys just aren't worthy winners.
This. This. This.

People just don't like Froome.

Indurain kept winning the TDF, and kept getting more than 100kms of ITT, yet 90% of fans want less than 60kms of ITT today because Froome is too good :confused:

We have not been getting anywhere near as much time trialling as it is, but people seem able to get used to things, therefore 40-60 kms is considered the 'norm'. This in itself is a disgrace. Maybe one TDF every five years should have this amount of ITT (because you should still have a little variety in the routes). Imagine if Prudhomme had continued down the 2012 road. We'd now be considering just a couple of high mountain stages to be perfectly reasonable....

Time trials have defined the Tour De France for decades, almost as much as the mountains (and pancake flat boring stages :D ). If Froome is too good than that is just too bad for everyone else.
Racing has changed as well. Gaps in the mountains are smaller because of teams being stronger in depth. So im absolutely pro tt's , but the mountain stages provided should be hard enough for big gaps.


Agree with both.

The question is...justice and a balanced route....or unbalanced route for an artificial equality?? I am clear: justice and a balanced route. If ITT makes bigger gaps than mountains...is a problem of the climbers. They can protest if they attack every day in the first climb of the stage (no always in the last) and they no make difference. But it is no the case. When it happens, we can speak about make stage mountains harder.

Because it is other topic: the best roads, the best medicine, the best material....and every year softer and softer races. This is the only sport which it happens. This is ridicolous.

The solution for a better show not is less mountains and less ITT. It's the opposite.
 
Re:

Alexandre B. said:
https://twitter.com/LeTour/status/784045565759795200
Bergerac-Périgueux 1961, if I'm not mistaken. It was a 74,5km ITT. :p
Irrelevant to today's cycling - Even up to 20 years ago a GC rider could routinely drop 3 or 4 minutes on a climb but get it back the next day, which doesn't happen today with the nature of cycling - I've called for a longish TTT to balance an ITT - Why not fully test the limits of the teams.
 
Cycling has changed.
In a tour de france with Pantani and Indurain Miquelon gave pantani 7/8 minutes but Pantani gave several minutes to indi on the alps. I think that in the 1998 tour Ulrich gave 6 minutes to pantani in the itt and then Panatani gave Ulrich 9 minutes on the galibier. That cycling doesn't exist anymore.
2016 Tour de france was very boring compered to the vuelta and the giro. So a 30-40 km ITT before the alps or even before the pyrenees would force the climbers to attack from far on the alps. I don't see why there should be more timetrialing than that.
I also don't like long final ITT like the tour used to do. Better the giro tradition with a shorter (minus 20km) final ITT
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY