GT's 2016 event analysis

[TromleTromle]

It's the time of the year - time for Guillen & Vuelta bashing.
For some people it's the equivalent of Rehangel's "never change a winning team" in 00's.... ....the problem only the team played like s***

But how does the GT's of 2016 stack up against each other ?
I have watched 80% of stages of far and summed up the results here i km action :
GC primary: Real GC action is measured from the move of a relevant GC man still in contention for overall win
GC secondary: Is for neutralized GC moves (Valverde-Bonaigua)
Secondary: Is breakaway's, measured from a critical phase and towards the successfull win - or a Stuyven attack caught close to goal on this years 2nd Tour stage
Sprint is sprint.

GC action: Vuelta is out of contention for now, but the Giro had whooping 181 km's more GC action than the tour, or 10,3 km pr raceday - which is FIVE tv-hours (the bread and butter of the sport)- Non-mountain attacks has been a stage in the Giro and sidewind stage in the Tour. What drives this? We don't know the giro routes are harders, trickier and more in favour of the attacker than the other two GT's
Secondary GC action - there has so far been very limited long-range attacks from the favourites, there is only two relevant events here . Mendolapass in the Giro, and Bonaigua in the Tour, and the latter even fizzled completely out... - So the trend is clear, there is no possibility to with the current racerules to get clear of the peleton...
Secondary events: Measured from when a breakaway enters a critical phase, and you as TV-watcher tunes on your cyclingchannel, even with only 4 stages of the vuelta, we see that the critical phase comes around the 20 km mark - where the big breakaway of the day often splits up, but also that in Tour/Giro hilly/mountain stages at least 6 B+ riders breakaways reach the finish well ahead of the peleton during the GT.
Sprint action - Yes, the sprinters some times leave it late, but ther

Conclusion:
On sprint stages with no rain/wind - turn on your TV at 3 km mark
On sprint stages with rain/wind - turn on your TV at 10 km mark
On hilly stages - turn on your TV at 20 km mark
On mountain stages - turn on your TV at second last mountain if you watch the giro, the last mountain if you watch vuelta, and don't bother with the Tour.... (well or do the same as the vuelta)

What to change ?

In my world there the following elements you can do something about:
1. Route - Giro kindof nails it here allready, but this factor can't stand alone..
2. Racerules - Intermediate bonussecond sprints, "draft system" worst team, gets it's car first in cortage --> still to be explored
3. Team regulations - 7-8 teams pr. rider, no radio, no wattmeter, no resupply last 50 km... --> still to be explored
4. Riders: Tried in the 90's --> The Clinic
5. Weather --> Out of control
6. Material regulations --> the BIG gamechanger, cycling could learn (for good or bad) from Formula 1 racing, and devise rules, with max. 3 bikes pr rider in a GT, and with a limit of x gears etc. Simply to even out the playground and make the strongest rider win, not the best supply chain.

Above statistics will be updated accordingly 2/3 through the vuelta and at finish

 

[Brullnux]

Nice work, really interesting thanks

Remembered Stage 14 and 20 of the Giro to be more exciting than they were, perhaps due to the circumstances I guess

 

[Alexandre B.]

Adam Yates attacked on stage 7 of this year's Tour.

The difference between Giro and Tour seems exaggerated. It's more difficult to drop someone in the Tour.

 

[carton]

Re:

Nice work, really interesting thanks

Yep, very interesting methodology and results.

Remembered Stage 14 and 20 of the Giro to be more exciting than they were, perhaps due to the circumstances I guess

Experimental design is almost inescapably subjective. Tromle seems to be measuring the decisive moves, but moves that turned out not to be decisive can be gripping under the right circumstance. To take Stage 20, since I remember it somewhat well, Atapuma and Dombrowski where trading blows before and after catching Nieve and well before Taramaae attacked the break and got a gap on the last climb. Exciting, to some, but ultimately insignificant -no way to tell at the time. Similarly, the earlier move where Scaponi went and only Nibali and Chaves followed before they regrouped clearly doesn't count in this analysis.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

Nice work, really interesting thanks

Remembered Stage 14 and 20 of the Giro to be more exciting than they were, perhaps due to the circumstances I guess

Stage 14 was great. There were no big attacks before the last climb, but that last climb was superb. I mean every gc rider except Nibali at least almost lost 3 minutes on Kruijswijk and Chaves. Moreover the Giau was also already ridden very hard, the pink jersey dropped there and Amador's descent was really entertaining. Ofc not on the level of stage 19 but still a very good stage.
Stage 20 however was indeed mostly lame, but the last few kilometers alone made it so exciting that I would call one of the most rememberable stages of the year.

 

[Red Rick]

I like this thread

 

[TromleTromle]

Re:

The purpose here is not to bash or look down on a specific GT, but give objective level of when racing happneed, and how much of it there was.

Nice work, really interesting thanks
Remembered Stage 14 and 20 of the Giro to be more exciting than they were, perhaps due to the circumstances I guess

:razz:

Adam Yates attacked on stage 7 of this year's Tour.
The difference between Giro and Tour seems exaggerated. It's more difficult to drop someone in the Tour.

Very FAIR point - but at stage 7 Pinot was a GC contender, while Yates was not... (ok, it's subjective) - On Arcalis, stage i.e. a Yates attack would count as GC - you kind of like have to earn your wings :twisted:
Dropping someone in the tour is indeed harder, due compared with Giro/Vuelta the optimal preparation you can plan for - but also because 1-2 ubermenchs are focusing solely on this race...

Nice work, really interesting thanks

Yep, very interesting methodology and results.

Remembered Stage 14 and 20 of the Giro to be more exciting than they were, perhaps due to the circumstances I guess

Experimental design is almost inescapably subjective. Tromle seems to be measuring the decisive moves, but moves that turned out not to be decisive can be gripping under the right circumstance. To take Stage 20, since I remember it somewhat well, Atapuma and Dombrowski where trading blows before and after catching Nieve and well before Taramaae attacked the break and got a gap on the last climb. Exciting, to some, but ultimately insignificant -no way to tell at the time. Similarly, the earlier move where Scaponi went and only Nibali and Chaves followed before they regrouped clearly doesn't count in this analysis.

1. Basically I start to measure from when when winning break of the day, starts to yoyo/break-up from the first real attack, so some minor events beforehand will not count if the group is reformed.
2. I only count from Isola 2000 - I know Scarponi did a huge pull before - but if I missed anything, that should be corrected :razz:

 

[Eshnar]

You could have also counted Valverde's move on the Col de Vars during stage 20.
Other than that. very nice table but in a year where the Giro has been very good and the Tour has been terrible, it doesn't say much more than we already knew.

 

[TromleTromle]

Re:

You could have also counted Valverde's move on the Col de Vars during stage 20.
Other than that. very nice table but in a year where the Giro has been very good and the Tour has been terrible, it doesn't say much more than we already knew.

I am considering going back to 2013 - will take a few weeks, but eventually produce some results.
Will add Valverde in the update.

One key mesasge was also to show the ratio of action to km in modern GT's - it's is a bit too low for my opinion.

 

[Valv.Piti]

The Vuelta could very well end up with less GC-action than the Tour, couldn't it?

 

[TromleTromle]

Re:

The Vuelta could very well end up with less GC-action than the Tour, couldn't it?

I kind of fear it will with the design (end up with much less action ~90km) - complete anti week 3 of 2015 Vuelta.
I hope of course for a attack on the Soudet...

 

[Amnes2015]

that's because Giro is a GT with the weakest field of them all 3 , and that's the norm for the past 5+ years. In Giro there are more people that think they can win/place on podium compared to Vuelta, not to speak about TdF.

Also Giro being the first GT people can allow themselves to more risky racing, with the "there are 2 more GT's to get a result if i fuk this one up" mentality.

 

[barmaher]

I am probably in a minority of one here, but I don't think the Vuelta course is as bad as some make out.

Nonetheless, thanks very much for the interesting analysis. I love when people put their numbers where their mouth is.

 

[Eshnar]

Re:

that's because Giro is a GT with the weakest field of them all 3 , and that's the norm for the past 5+ years. In Giro there are more people that think they can win/place on podium compared to Vuelta, not to speak about TdF.

In the last 5 editions, the Giro has been won by an already GT winner 3 out of 5 times (only outlier being Hesjedal 2012.)
In the last 5 editions, the Vuelta has been won only twice by an already GT winner (featuring winners the likes of Cobo and Horner, who never won anything again), despite having lots of big names, on paper. However the fact that all those big names come from the Tdf makes it a much weaker field and much easier to be won by a second tier.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

The Vuelta could very well end up with less GC-action than the Tour, couldn't it?

It could if you measure it by quantity of km where a GC rider does something. But that doesn't tell the whole story. Firstly the GC action in the Vuelta often happens on much steeper climbs, so one km there might take three times as long as one km in the Tour.

Secondly, the GC action in the Vuelta tends to be more intense, with multiple GC riders all going up against each other at one time. Lots of short, entertaining and, most importantly, unpredictable battles. While in the Tour it is more like someone goes off the front for 5km on a mountain, before inevitably getting reeled back in by Sky. Obviously that's nowhere near as exciting as a 2km murito with riders cracking and spread all over the climb.

 

[SeriousSam]

I prefer the simpler measure of result unpredictability (which could be quantified as the entropy of the outcome distribution (best approximated by the bookmaker odds)).

Something can still be intriguing if you pretty much know what's going to happen but only from a circus perspective.

 

[Amnes2015]

Re: Re:

that's because Giro is a GT with the weakest field of them all 3 , and that's the norm for the past 5+ years. In Giro there are more people that think they can win/place on podium compared to Vuelta, not to speak about TdF.

In the last 5 editions, the Giro has been won by an already GT winner 3 out of 5 times (only outlier being Hesjedal 2012.)
In the last 5 editions, the Vuelta has been won only twice by an already GT winner (featuring winners the likes of Cobo and Horner, who never won anything again), despite having lots of big names, on paper. However the fact that all those big names come from the Tdf makes it a much weaker field and much easier to be won by a second tier.

The Giro is the only GT with 1 single multi GT winner at start, and this is the norm rather than exception. The average weight of GC quality is very low at the Giro.

I don't say that's a bad thing because it makes for more exciting racing.

 

[Eshnar]

Re: Re:

that's because Giro is a GT with the weakest field of them all 3 , and that's the norm for the past 5+ years. In Giro there are more people that think they can win/place on podium compared to Vuelta, not to speak about TdF.

In the last 5 editions, the Giro has been won by an already GT winner 3 out of 5 times (only outlier being Hesjedal 2012.)
In the last 5 editions, the Vuelta has been won only twice by an already GT winner (featuring winners the likes of Cobo and Horner, who never won anything again), despite having lots of big names, on paper. However the fact that all those big names come from the Tdf makes it a much weaker field and much easier to be won by a second tier.

The Giro is the only GT with 1 single multi GT winner at start, and this is the norm rather than exception. The average weight of GC quality is very low at the Giro.

I don't say that's a bad thing because it makes for more exciting racing.

as I said, the Vuelta does have a better field on paper. It's on the road that's weaker.

 

[Billie]

Vuelta has big names but none of them peak for it. It's why Giro and Tour are miles ahead.

Well they peak but not as main goal. Only after they've done another race or missed other races because of injury

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Vuelta has big names but none of them peak for it. It's why Giro and Tour are miles ahead.

Well they peak but not as main goal. Only after they've done another race or missed other races because of injury

The problem with the Giro is that if a big name turns up (i.e Contador, Quintana Nibali), then they win it. If they don't turn up, then it's a battle between B-list GC riders (Hesjedal, Purito, Uran) - which can be exciting, but it's still like watching a Europa League game instead of Champions League.

The beauty of the Vuelta is that it pits the A-list GC riders slightly off their peak, against B-list GC riders who are much closer to their peak. Makes it so much more open and there are about 10 riders - big names and otherwise - who can realistically challenge.

The Tour is obviously miles apart from them both in every sense.. Much higher quality racing and better field, but much more dull and predictable as a result.

 

[Netserk]

Re:

I prefer the simpler measure of result unpredictability (which could be quantified as the entropy of the outcome distribution (best approximated by the bookmaker odds)).

Something can still be intriguing if you pretty much know what's going to happen but only from a circus perspective.

So MSR was better than Ronde?

 

[Brullnux]

Re: Re:

Vuelta has big names but none of them peak for it. It's why Giro and Tour are miles ahead.

Well they peak but not as main goal. Only after they've done another race or missed other races because of injury

The problem with the Giro is that if a big name turns up (i.e Contador, Quintana Nibali), then they win it. If they don't turn up, then it's a battle between B-list GC riders (Hesjedal, Purito, Uran) - which can be exciting, but it's still like watching a Europa League game instead of Champions League.

The beauty of the Vuelta is that it pits the A-list GC riders slightly off their peak, against B-list GC riders who are much closer to their peak. Makes it so much more open and there are about 10 riders - big names and otherwise - who can realistically challenge.

The Tour is obviously miles apart from them both in every sense.. Much higher quality racing and better field, but much more dull and predictable as a result.

This year's Giro and last year's though despite having Contador and Nibali were very exciting. Last year's more due to a very weak team and Contador's brilliance, as well as the Astana problem and finally Contador cracking after three weeks of mayhem. This year because Nibali not being in top form, until the last two stages, causing an open race and a champion 4 minutes back, who wanted to win no matter what.

 

[hrotha]

You'd think people would give some credit to the Giro's remarkable stage design.

 

[Brullnux]

Re:

You'd think people would give some credit to the Giro's remarkable stage design.

Of course, the Giro is way out in front in that regard IMO. It has an easier job than the Tour, but still

 

[CheckMyPecs]

6. Material regulations --> the BIG gamechanger, cycling could learn (for good or bad) from Formula 1 racing, and devise rules, with max. 3 bikes pr rider in a GT, and with a limit of x gears etc. Simply to even out the playground and make the strongest rider win, not the best supply chain.

A joke, right? Cycling is not Formula 1, in which having one car or the other can literally mean the difference between finishing first or last. The difference between the best and the worst gear in pro cycling is marginal at best.