Paris-Nice 2023, March 5-12

[tobydawq]

in proper TTT format UAE will lost 40-50 sec easily. Although it still close regardless but the gap will be slightly bigger

What the hell does that have to do with the format?

 

[BR2]

If Ineos had brought their T-A team here the result might have been a bit different.

If Ineos brings their A-team the result will always be a bit different, on any stage they will have an advantage towards most teams. But look at the absolute heavy metal time trial team Jumbo brought - you can hardly build a better tt team. And they narrowly won against EF...

 

[tobydawq]

To all those criticising this new format, I have something for you to consider.

Imagine that the format like it was today was what was traditionally done.

That, like all other stages, a TTT was about getting each individual to the line as quickly as possible but with the twist that he only started with his teammates instead of the whole peloton. After all, it is not quite that logical that in a race where the individual GC is the important thing, a rider must be doubly punished because he has a weak team, or worse, that he should suffer a big loss in the individual GC if he has a teammate or two who crashes or punctures along the way.

I have heard it said that applying the 'fourth man across the line' rule is good because it challenges the teams more than today's format and in some contrived way it brought some suspense because it added a bigger risk for the team if a crash or puncture happened. But how is that a good thing?

Imagine, as said before, that today's format was the trodden path, and then a race suddenly decided to run a TTT like how it usually happens.

THAT would cause criticism.

Cycling is a conservative sport, so I think it's sometimes healthy to consider the hypothetical scenario that a change happens in reverse of what is the case, if you want to really assess whether a change is good or bad instead of just falling into the automatic "all change is bad" mantra that prevails in our sport.

 

[Izzyeviel]

To all those criticising this new format, I have something for you to consider.

Imagine that the format like it was today was what was traditionally done.

That, like all other stages, a TTT was about getting each individual to the line as quickly as possible but with the twist that he only started with his teammates instead of the whole peloton. After all, it is not quite that logical that in a race where the individual GC is the important thing, a rider must be doubly punished because he has a weak team, or worse, that he should suffer a big loss in the individual GC if he has a teammate or two who crashes or punctures along the way.

I have heard it said that applying the 'fourth man across the line' rule is good because it challenges the teams more than today's format and in some contrived way it brought some suspense because it added a bigger risk for the team if a crash or puncture happened. But how is that a good thing?

Imagine, as said before, that today's format was the trodden path, and then a race suddenly decided to run a TTT like how it usually happens.

THAT would cause criticism.

Cycling is a conservative sport, so I think it's sometimes healthy to consider the hypothetical scenario that a change happens in reverse of what is the case, if you want to really assess whether a change is good or bad instead of just falling into the automatic "all change is bad" mantra that prevails in our sport.

Kudos for trying new things, minor races are for sure the place to try them out - but what is the point of having a TTT if you're going to make it like an ITT? Why not just have a ITT or if you're really bothered about GC implications, have a short one.

I suppose next year they'll try experimenting with having a ITT but one where they start with their teammates...

 

[Andy schleck]

If Ineos brings their A-team the result will always be a bit different, on any stage they will have an advantage towards most teams. But look at the absolute heavy metal time trial team Jumbo brought - you can hardly build a better tt team. And they narrowly won against EF...

With van aert, and roglic, jumbo could make a better TT team.

 

[BR2]

With van aert, and roglic, jumbo could make a better TT team.

Sure. Realistically, though, let's say this was in a really important race - the Tour - and they wanted to bring their absolute best team, they wouldn't bring a team entirely of time trialers for a time trial of 30 km even then -they would bring a real climbing dom like Kuss and an allround worker anyway, maybe a helper for van Aert as well...

Vingegaard, Tratnik, Foss, Affini, Dennis - that's a crazy tt team already. I struggle to see the situation where they would bring Roglic and van Aert in addition. Unless it's a 80km ttt...

 

[Libertine Seguros]

That was a pretty exciting TTT, kinda like the first over the line rule.

I agree, the first over the line rule is a real improvement. Maybe they should use it in mass start stages to really improve the fairness.

 

[Lequack]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1633226099562774534

View: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/1633226099562774534

 

[Anderis]

But look at the absolute heavy metal time trial team Jumbo brought - you can hardly build a better tt team. And they narrowly won against EF...

It's because EF's team was also very strong. TTT is a bit different from ITT. It often promotes riders capable of shorter, more intense efforts and with more raw power rather than durable climbers such as Vingegaard. That's why sprint trains sometimes outperform teams made of better TT specialists on paper in TTTs. Cort and Bissegger may be among top10 riders in the world for such TTTs. Powless is a great roleur too. Piccolo has been European TT champion in u-18. Doull, Scully and Van den Berg are also very capable in such efforts. And EF seems to have one of the best TT equipments. Look at how they almost won the TTT in UAE despite a very average line-up. I expected them to give Jumbo a run for their money here and they did.

 

[CyclistAbi]

Congratulations to Jumbo Visma for winning the TTT.

EF might have taken it if Magnus would have shaved. But the opportunity to wear leaders jersey with a smile and a mustache is just to big to miss out. Tratnik said that it was a rather demanding task. Making a turn just after Dennis. JV likely expected a bit more from this stage. UAE won an important battle today. Together with bonus seconds Pogi only 11s down on Jonas. Normally i would give chances to riders like Yates. But i feel that neither Pogi or Jonas will give such opportunity on this race. Teams won't play much role here anymore. It's in between team leaders now. Starting tomorrow.

 

[VeloMaster]

Did you watch the stage?

Pog was driving that TTT, he was pulling far more than anyone else in the team, to a degree where his power actually shed riders early.

It was him or Bjerg on the front for almost 50 % of the TTT.

I don't buy into the whole "burning matches is a problem" thing, in a 1 week stage race of intermediate difficulty, but we have to stick to the facts

Or was it simply a matter of the cameras focusing on UAE whenever Pog was at the front? From the feed I watched, impossible to know beyond the fact of Pog's incredible launch for the line.

 

[saunaking]

It was also way less fair than yesterdays TA ITT.

"fair"? haha, that is very subjective.
drafting is fair
wheelsucking is fair
bonus seconds are fair
gifting bonus seconds to your monaco pal is fair lol

whatever we are calling this version of TTT, organizers set the rules and its fair

 

[Nick2413]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1633226099562774534

View: https://twitter.com/ammattipyoraily/status/1633226099562774534

I would’ve expected a bit more peaks and valleys in the power data but the scale is a bit hard to gauge

 

[Extinction]

"fair"? haha, that is very subjective.
drafting is fair
wheelsucking is fair
bonus seconds are fair
gifting bonus seconds to your monaco pal is fair lol

whatever we are calling this version of TTT, organizers set the rules and its fair

Drafting has nothing to do with fairness, but is an intrinsic part of pack riding. A TTT would be "fair" as a GT factor if GT were calculated by the collective team member accumulted times (as a TTT time effectively is, even if now basing the time on the first rider to cross the line tries to make it seem more in keeping with individual GC) and then award the winner to the rider that finished the fastest, ie with the lowest accumulted time, among all teams, rather than determined according to individual times. But this isn't the case. So "fairness" has nothing to do with established rules, but logical consistancy in how GC is calculated. Unfortunately in the prevailing set-up, no such logical consistancy exists. The TTT may be a beautiful exercise, but it isn't a "fair" contributor to the overall race standings, since it illogically breaks with individual GC rankings.

And if we are talking about "fairness" or the lack thereof, which in cycling stage racing has to do with any deviation from calculating GC based on individual finishing times in an absolute sense, then I'd do away with all bonus seconds. Taken to the extreme, you'd also have to standardize equipment and even clothing too (bar team colors and logos obviously) for things to be truly "fair" in the peloton, so that no rider can gain an unfair advantage because of superior design and materials. That way each rider can only rely upon his physical abilities against the others. To a certain extent, the UCI tries to mitigate the advantages to be gained in this regard, through it's often silly rules over measurements and position.

So, as you can see, cycling isn't set up to be "fair" in any absolute sense, but conforms to the market interests and what it thinks will create more spectacle and thus draw more revenues for the sponsors.

 

[Nick2413]

Drafting has nothing to do with fairness, but is an intrinsic part of pack riding. A TTT would be "fair" as a GT factor if GT were calculated by the collective team member accumulted times (as a TTT time effectively is, even if now basing the time on the first rider to cross the line tries to make it seem more in keeping with individual GC) and then award the winner to the rider that finished the fastest, ie with the lowest accumulted time, among all teams, rather than determined according to individual times. But this isn't the case. So "fairness" has nothing to do with established rules, but logical consistancy in how GC is calculated. Unfortunately in the prevailing set-up, no such logical consistancy exists. The TTT may be a beautiful exercise, but it isn't a "fair" contributor to the overall race standings, since it illogically breaks with individual GC rankings.

I don’t think I understand this. The rider with the lowest accumulated time is the same as the rider with the lowest individual time, how are they different? If the TTT goes by first individual time how does it break with GC rankings?

 

[Extinction]

I don’t think I understand this. The rider with the lowest accumulated time is the same as the rider with the lowest individual time, how are they different? If the TTT goes by first individual time how does it break with GC rankings?

Because a stage race GC isn't based on a series of team times as in the TTT, but on individual accumulted times. And even if the TTT time is set by the first rider to cross the line, it's still the result of collective speed in a way that's incomparable to normal pack racing. For their to be consistancy, you'd have to run a stage race as a series of TTTs, one after the other (oh, now that would be interesting). Even if not completely consistent with the dynamics of riding in the peloton, at least the ITT gives each rider his individual time as in normal stage finishing times. At any rate, the pure induvidualty of the effort, during which a rider can only rely upon his own strength at the time, means it's not for nothing that the French call the ITT "the race of truth." So, in this sense, the ITT is in perfect keeping with the spirit of a GC calculated upon each rider's individual accumulted times, in which greatest praise (and enonomic earnings) is naturally afforded to the single rider who wears yellow in Paris at the end of the ordeal.

 

[Extinction]

It is a team sport, and we can acclaim teammates' contributions and the tactical dynamic of it as such, but the winners are feted as individuals, and the fanbase is centred on acclaim of individuals.

The team has influence, and the rider on a better team benefits from that team strength in any race. But they gain far more in a TTT than in other stages, and so the guy on the wealthier team benefits even more when a TTT is included (as he is less limited by the ability of the team's 4th best timetrialler) , making races more predictable and further rewarding pure power over racecraft.

Well put, chapeau.

 

[tobydawq]

Kudos for trying new things, minor races are for sure the place to try them out - but what is the point of having a TTT if you're going to make it like an ITT? Why not just have a ITT or if you're really bothered about GC implications, have a short one.

I suppose next year they'll try experimenting with having a ITT but one where they start with their teammates...

This was nothing like an ITT?

 

[staubsauger]

This was nonsense. Either you hold a TTT or a ITT. Didn't like it at all.

 

[Faserr]

Professional weather forecast

50+ weather layers, weather radar and satellite

www.windy.com

Wind is around 25-30 km/h, with gusts up to 53km/h. Wind direction is from the side. Should be a nervous race. Echelons are possible, although the wind direction is not perfect.

 

[Krzysztof_O]

Speaking of the stage yesterday, obviously it was a TTT but with slightly different tactics focused more on stronger guys: applying weaker cyclists as "rocket boosters" (they had to work at the rate of stronger guys so their time to exhaustion was shorter) plus rewarding individual strength at the end (those fast finishes consisted of 1-3 top guys). I like this format.

 

[Netserk]

To all those criticising this new format, I have something for you to consider.

Imagine that the format like it was today was what was traditionally done.

That, like all other stages, a TTT was about getting each individual to the line as quickly as possible but with the twist that he only started with his teammates instead of the whole peloton. After all, it is not quite that logical that in a race where the individual GC is the important thing, a rider must be doubly punished because he has a weak team, or worse, that he should suffer a big loss in the individual GC if he has a teammate or two who crashes or punctures along the way.

I have heard it said that applying the 'fourth man across the line' rule is good because it challenges the teams more than today's format and in some contrived way it brought some suspense because it added a bigger risk for the team if a crash or puncture happened. But how is that a good thing?

Imagine, as said before, that today's format was the trodden path, and then a race suddenly decided to run a TTT like how it usually happens.

THAT would cause criticism.

Cycling is a conservative sport, so I think it's sometimes healthy to consider the hypothetical scenario that a change happens in reverse of what is the case, if you want to really assess whether a change is good or bad instead of just falling into the automatic "all change is bad" mantra that prevails in our sport.

Agreed, Toby. This is the proper way to reconcile a TTT with an individual GC. And I have long advocated for this exact rule.

I can accept a TTT in a GT IF it were with individual timing. It would also make it a lot more tactical and interesting to follow. This way a strong team can help the leader, but a weak team can't slow the leader down.

TTT would be much better if it was decided by the time of the first rider to cross the line. 100% individual timing.

TTTs would be okay in stage races if they were with individual timing, so a rider (like Vino in the Giro'10) wouldn't be handicapped by too slow teammates.

 

[Lequack]

Matthews is waiting for an apology from Van Hooydonck: "It was certainly not okay"

Matthews wacht op excuses van Van Hooydonck: "Het was zeker niet oké"

Michael Matthews is van mening dat Nathan Van Hooydonck zijn excuses moet aanbieden voor zijn actie in de finale van de tweede etappe van Parijs-Nice. De renner van Jumbo-Visma leek een stevige beuk uit te delen aan de Australiër. Van Hooydonck reageerde al dat hem geen enkele blaam trof, maar...

www.wielerflits.nl

I think he might be waiting for a while.

 

[RedheadDane]

I like the new format for the TTT too. I especially likes how it opened up for a bunch of different tactics, rather than just "We have to make sure four of us crosses the line together."
Though, I do wonder what would happen if there was ever a really dysfunctional team in a race - think Radioshack 2012 TdF - would such a team basically dissolve into an "every man for himself" style of riding?

 

[tobydawq]

Though, I do wonder what would happen if there was ever a really dysfunctional team in a race - think Radioshack 2012 TdF - would such a team basically dissolve into an "every man for himself" style of riding?

Of course not.