Any GT with less than 50K ITT should really be rated at 3 or below.
Perhaps the occasional good stage in the first week can get this one over 3.....
Perhaps the occasional good stage in the first week can get this one over 3.....
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Re:
ITTs or a lack thereof are a tiny problem if the mountains are even worseDazed and Confused said:
Re: Re:
Which is exactly what we have these days. Sure, you slightly increase the chance of a once in a lifetime ride like Froome had, but you increase the chance that climbers have no shot by even more.Libertine Seguros said:
Yeah, only then Thomas has 3-4 minutes on the climbers instead of a minute.Libertine Seguros said:
Re: Re:
How can you believe that, when we've been getting increasingly conservative racing, especially at the Tour, at the same time as ITT mileage reaches a ridiculous low point and routes are tailor-made to minimize gaps?jaylew said:
Again, there are other riders. If the climbers have to go early to get on the podium, even if none of them had a real shot at the yellow jersey (which is a big if), that opens up race situations where those closer to Thomas may benefit. And at any rate, we'll get more than 1,5 km worth of racing even if the leader can't be beaten. Hell, if the leader is so untouchable who cares if people stay close to him? You're basically sacrificing proper racing for an illusion of equality and an open race.
3-4 minutes is only too much if your mountain stages are too anæmic to offer the opportunities to gain that time back. People have gained far more than that in a single stage in recent memory. If those opportunities can't be taken because the support is too strong or you don't have the legs, then fine, but it's about balance.
You could argue that the current racing IS balanced, but that's only because there's sweet FA in the scales on either side. Very little time trial mileage to gain time, and very few genuine opportunities to gain serious time in the mountains either, thanks to the selection of primarily either tempo-grinders that suit the controlling teams, and climbs that everybody knows far too well to take anybody by surprise on. I'd rather see enough time trial mileage for it to actually contribute to the GC so the featherweight climbers don't just look at each other and let themselves be dictated to by the likes of Thomas and Dumoulin (the 2012 Giro shows the other side of lacking TT mileage, as everybody was still too close to each other time-wise to do anything but mark each other out of fear of losing). The only hope I have of any relevant racing before the final climb on any of these stages is Mur de Peguère, because it's steep enough that the effect of drafting is reduced and we might lose one or two Sky domestiques. And hey, isn't that the 180km mountain stage? I believe it is.
I mean, a race with 19 transitional stages, one MTF and a 15km TT would be balanced in terms of the type of rider favoured. But would it be good? Of course not. That balance might work for the Vuelta a Castilla y León, a 5 day race, but not for the Tour. The Tour is far too important to sponsors because its global currency is much bigger than that of the other GTs. Just as people who know nothing about sportscars know Le Mans and people who know nothing about sailing know the America's Cup, people who know nothing about cycling know Le Tour. As a result, a decent placing is important, so when you make the gaps small, you disincentivise any risk-taking because riders are under pressure to maintain their GC position, and a mis-step could cost you 30 seconds which could lose you three places. As a result you're left with a whole host of riders and teams who ride to protect low GC positions. Garmin nuked a break's advantage in the 2010 Tour because they were afraid Horner and Plaza would threaten Hesjedal's 10th place (he was then better than them by a mile on the following stage anyway, since they'd been in the break all day). Pierre Rolland was complaining a couple of years ago about IAM Cycling nuking breakaways to protect Matthias Fränk's 14th place. And Fränk didn't attack to improve that position, just waited for others to drop away. Riders all sitting in line trying not to lose isn't racing.
If you want riders to try to win, rather than try not to lose - and you really should want this, otherwise we're left with a péloton full of Louis Meintjes and Levi Leipheimer-alikes - then you've got to make it so that losing a small amount of time isn't so scary that it prevents any attempts to gain it.
You could argue that the current racing IS balanced, but that's only because there's sweet FA in the scales on either side. Very little time trial mileage to gain time, and very few genuine opportunities to gain serious time in the mountains either, thanks to the selection of primarily either tempo-grinders that suit the controlling teams, and climbs that everybody knows far too well to take anybody by surprise on. I'd rather see enough time trial mileage for it to actually contribute to the GC so the featherweight climbers don't just look at each other and let themselves be dictated to by the likes of Thomas and Dumoulin (the 2012 Giro shows the other side of lacking TT mileage, as everybody was still too close to each other time-wise to do anything but mark each other out of fear of losing). The only hope I have of any relevant racing before the final climb on any of these stages is Mur de Peguère, because it's steep enough that the effect of drafting is reduced and we might lose one or two Sky domestiques. And hey, isn't that the 180km mountain stage? I believe it is.
I mean, a race with 19 transitional stages, one MTF and a 15km TT would be balanced in terms of the type of rider favoured. But would it be good? Of course not. That balance might work for the Vuelta a Castilla y León, a 5 day race, but not for the Tour. The Tour is far too important to sponsors because its global currency is much bigger than that of the other GTs. Just as people who know nothing about sportscars know Le Mans and people who know nothing about sailing know the America's Cup, people who know nothing about cycling know Le Tour. As a result, a decent placing is important, so when you make the gaps small, you disincentivise any risk-taking because riders are under pressure to maintain their GC position, and a mis-step could cost you 30 seconds which could lose you three places. As a result you're left with a whole host of riders and teams who ride to protect low GC positions. Garmin nuked a break's advantage in the 2010 Tour because they were afraid Horner and Plaza would threaten Hesjedal's 10th place (he was then better than them by a mile on the following stage anyway, since they'd been in the break all day). Pierre Rolland was complaining a couple of years ago about IAM Cycling nuking breakaways to protect Matthias Fränk's 14th place. And Fränk didn't attack to improve that position, just waited for others to drop away. Riders all sitting in line trying not to lose isn't racing.
If you want riders to try to win, rather than try not to lose - and you really should want this, otherwise we're left with a péloton full of Louis Meintjes and Levi Leipheimer-alikes - then you've got to make it so that losing a small amount of time isn't so scary that it prevents any attempts to gain it.
I love this route.It's very balanced,with a huge number of TT miles and has those amazing super long mountain stages to make it even.Certainly one of the best in recent years.
Re:
Although I'm not very prolific as a designer, my last TdF was, in my estimation, better designed than this one. And I have seen better ones. But I also reflect and wonder: is the perfect design as we see it any good? If the objective is to make a route that will crown the best rider, then what does that course look like? We are too often stuck in the "balance" mindset, ITT strong and good climber vs. mountain goat. We tend to forget how super teams can kill a race (at Le Tour, in the other two GTs, it's B team participating). Today's reality is that mountain goats don't stand a chance, ITT guys also are great climbers...
The entertainment part is crucial for any league, any sport. We can't ignore it. It's the money pouring into cycling, like March Madness feeds the entire college basketball operation. Le Tour is huge. Some resent it, hence the bashing that some including me noted. Well, Armstrong, and Sky banked their seasons on this race...not La Vuelta, not Le Tour du Limousin. It's THE RACE. Unfair, maybe, but a fact. As a true Pinot fan, I like Il Giro just as much, and I like the designs better.
So here we are, with THE RACE route just released, and as I wrote, it gives a lot to many: the French public, the climbers, it may deter some questionable individuals, and on a route like this one, predictions are difficult. I can think of ten guys who can win it, twenty who can top-10. Riders being well-prepared, smart, and aggressive will be rewarded. And a few vultures will lurk in the shadows, one may podium.
I hope that some stages like the one in St. Etienne were designed with care, because you can put a succession of muritos together and get mayhem, something that no team can control. Nancy? Flat in the end, but possible to get a WTF day when no one wins Le Tour, but some lose it.
I could go on and on. In the end, with a route like this, we could see re-shuffles and attacks...I think.
First of all, my original post wasn't in response to yours,but it appears that you felt it was. It wasn't.Libertine Seguros said:
Although I'm not very prolific as a designer, my last TdF was, in my estimation, better designed than this one. And I have seen better ones. But I also reflect and wonder: is the perfect design as we see it any good? If the objective is to make a route that will crown the best rider, then what does that course look like? We are too often stuck in the "balance" mindset, ITT strong and good climber vs. mountain goat. We tend to forget how super teams can kill a race (at Le Tour, in the other two GTs, it's B team participating). Today's reality is that mountain goats don't stand a chance, ITT guys also are great climbers...
The entertainment part is crucial for any league, any sport. We can't ignore it. It's the money pouring into cycling, like March Madness feeds the entire college basketball operation. Le Tour is huge. Some resent it, hence the bashing that some including me noted. Well, Armstrong, and Sky banked their seasons on this race...not La Vuelta, not Le Tour du Limousin. It's THE RACE. Unfair, maybe, but a fact. As a true Pinot fan, I like Il Giro just as much, and I like the designs better.
So here we are, with THE RACE route just released, and as I wrote, it gives a lot to many: the French public, the climbers, it may deter some questionable individuals, and on a route like this one, predictions are difficult. I can think of ten guys who can win it, twenty who can top-10. Riders being well-prepared, smart, and aggressive will be rewarded. And a few vultures will lurk in the shadows, one may podium.
I hope that some stages like the one in St. Etienne were designed with care, because you can put a succession of muritos together and get mayhem, something that no team can control. Nancy? Flat in the end, but possible to get a WTF day when no one wins Le Tour, but some lose it.
I could go on and on. In the end, with a route like this, we could see re-shuffles and attacks...I think.
One-dimensional mountain goats actually kind of should be peripheral contenders though. Just like one-dimensional rouleurs and TT specialists. Tony Martin isn't going to win the Tour anytime soon, right? The purest mountain goats aren't meant to win unless they're truly special to the level where they can overcome those flaws. Bahamontes won one GT, Julio Jiménez won none. Pantani won 2. Van Impe won 1. Herrera won 1. Fuente won 2. José María Jiménez won none. Charly Gaul is the superstar among them, winning 3.
Yes, in large part the trends in parcours design have reflected changes in cycling:
1) that the domestiques are now much stronger than they were in the past enabling the kinds of rides that those guys put in to only be occasionally possible now;
2) that the climbers and their one-man-against-the-mountains romanticism tend to be more popular than more balanced riders suffering in the slopes (see the '98 Vuelta for the ultimate example of this) so there is a tendency of race organisers to want to have those riders competitive; and
3) you mightn't want to hear this, but Richard Virenque is also to a large extent to blame for the devaluation of the GPM as a competition. In the old days in Spain in particular, the GPM was second in importance only to the victory, leading to dramatic in-race battles over the GPM between those who were reasonably in contention for the win overall and those who weren't because of a lack of balance in their skills. This lured potential GC contenders up the road because of their interest in contesting the GPM and isolated a lot of team leaders earlier. Nowadays in the post-Virenque world, it seems that there is no inherent prestige to the GPM for the climbers, because there is no reason a one-dimensional climber shouldn't be contesting the overall victory, and therefore the GPM tends to go to worthwhile climbers who've lost time early (see Pellizotti Tour '09, Garzelli Giro '09, Majka Tour '14, Landa Giro '17), is won exclusively from the breakaway by riders who are capable but that nobody in their right mind would say are legitimately the best climber in the race (Charteau Tour '10, Lloyd Giro '10, Voecker Tour '12, Clarke Vuelta '12, Pirazzi Giro '13, Edet Vuelta '13, Sánchez Vuelta '14, Visconti Giro '15, de Gendt Vuelta '18), or, especially now at the Tour when to counteract this they've massively over-emphasized mountaintop finishes in the aim of having bigger names wearing the jersey at the expense of making the competition either artificial or killing it completely, being won almost by accident by a GC contender who didn't actively set out to win it (Sánchez Tour '11, Quintana Tour '13, Froome Tour '15, Froome Giro '18) thanks to a points system by which a stage with a Unipuerto HC mountaintop is of more value to the competition than winning every single climb in a stage with an HC, two cat.1s and a cat.2 but no MTF.
If the big problem is that ASO want to break up the monotony of the trains, then they need some super-long mid-race stages along the lines of 'that' L'Aquila stage so that it disincentivises taking the maillot jaune early. The Vuelta saw something we haven't seen in years as neither Mitchelton-Scott nor Movistar wanted to take the pace so the jersey was shipped to a breakaway. This kind of thing used to be commonplace, even Astana in '09 were happy to let Ag2r do the pace making to defend the yellow jersey for a week, and it's precisely for that reason that Pereiro was given half an hour in '06 that let him back into the GC mix; in recent years however, a strong team will take the jersey early and try to carry it all the way, usually successfully. If you make it so that those riders don't want to hold the jersey for too long because their domestiques will be too exhausted, then that opens up new avenues for interest because they'll be looking for somebody to ship the jersey to, and then you've got fights for the breakaway and stories like Thomas Voeckler in 2004 (or even 2011) becoming possible. A series of short stages with easily controllable tempo mountains has precisely the opposite effect - there's no reason to fear any of these stages and you can happily control the race for two weeks unhindered. Inconsistent climbs are a must, also, to disrupt the train techniques. I know that relative to Spain and Italy France has a paucity of these, but it must also be said that the fact the mountains themselves have become brands meaning that the Tour tends to use, use and reuse the same ones year after year after year like it's the Vuelta in the early 90s or something also stifles competition because everybody knows the climbs so well. They may be legendary, but everybody now knows where to dose their efforts, where to watch for attacks, where to preserve their energy. So, for the sake of all that is holy, if you do innovate or resurrect a long-forgotten climb, do your best to make it relevant (no 2012 Grand-Colombier or Peguère please), and even more importantly don't spoil the surprise by doing it in the Dauphiné a month earlier!!! Because if riders have only ever done it in training, not in race conditions, they may have come to different conclusions on how to ride it, how to pace, where is best suited to attack. And there's no novelty, no excitement, in it if you've already seen it just a month before.
Now I know that France's best climb for being super hard AND being inconsistent is Croix-de-Fer which is already one of those climbs everybody knows like the backs of their hands, but there's always inconsistent climbs or steep ones in the Pyrenées, and there's much tougher climbs in the Massif Central than have been used in years - where's Pré de la Dame, Col de l'Œillon, Col de la Lusette, Col de Finiels, Col de la Baricaude, Col de la Mure, Col de Charousse, Croix de Chaubouret, Col du Chansert, Col de Béal, La Loge des Gardes, Baracuchet North, Col de Ceyssat, Saint-Anastaise, Pas de Peyrol west with its 2km at 12%?
Sure, many of these aren't likely to be especially decisive on their own (save for maybe l'Œillon, Lusette and Béal, though Col de la Mure worked ok in Paris-Nice) but you could make a really tough transitional stage, one that nobody wants to have to control, rather than the stages into and out of Saint-Étienne we have. You remember the stage that TV Tommy got the maillot jaune in in 2011? That's not a bad example of the kind of stage I mean. The Giro is better at these, admittedly, with things like L'Aquila 2010. Or, France could use its generally not-very-interestingly-used-by-Le-Tour southern tips for this kind of transitional stage. Paris-Nice does a much better job in this respect. Remember Contador bonking on this stage? That would be perfect. No individual climb tougher than Bourigaille, but relentless up and down all day, for nearly 200km. It can be controlled, but unless you give the break 25 minutes (in which case everybody's going to know it's a day for the break and you'll have loads of people with different skillsets trying to figure out how to win the stage, which will make the battle for that interesting, plus of course the GPM throughout) you're going to pay for the effort taken to control that stage in the mountain stages to come, especially if there is a long mountain stage in the midst of that. I'd go for the following trifecta:
1) stage finishing on climb that is tough enough on its own; as the first mountain stage of 3, people won't go from afar here, so make sure the final climb either has the prestige, is steep enough or otherwise difficult enough that there will be time gaps regardless - Mont Ventoux, Mont du Chat, Col du Granon, Grand-Colombier, Joux-Plane, Plateau des Saix, Super Collet, Chamrousse via Luitel
2) 200km+ stage with several climbs, either finishing on a descent or on a slightly easier summit than the penultimate climb - Galibier-L2A, Romme/Colombière duo, Bonette-Auron, Cayolle-Pra Loup, you know the drill.
3) THIS is where you put your short mountain stage. To complement your strong mountain stages, not in place of them.
Yes, in large part the trends in parcours design have reflected changes in cycling:
1) that the domestiques are now much stronger than they were in the past enabling the kinds of rides that those guys put in to only be occasionally possible now;
2) that the climbers and their one-man-against-the-mountains romanticism tend to be more popular than more balanced riders suffering in the slopes (see the '98 Vuelta for the ultimate example of this) so there is a tendency of race organisers to want to have those riders competitive; and
3) you mightn't want to hear this, but Richard Virenque is also to a large extent to blame for the devaluation of the GPM as a competition. In the old days in Spain in particular, the GPM was second in importance only to the victory, leading to dramatic in-race battles over the GPM between those who were reasonably in contention for the win overall and those who weren't because of a lack of balance in their skills. This lured potential GC contenders up the road because of their interest in contesting the GPM and isolated a lot of team leaders earlier. Nowadays in the post-Virenque world, it seems that there is no inherent prestige to the GPM for the climbers, because there is no reason a one-dimensional climber shouldn't be contesting the overall victory, and therefore the GPM tends to go to worthwhile climbers who've lost time early (see Pellizotti Tour '09, Garzelli Giro '09, Majka Tour '14, Landa Giro '17), is won exclusively from the breakaway by riders who are capable but that nobody in their right mind would say are legitimately the best climber in the race (Charteau Tour '10, Lloyd Giro '10, Voecker Tour '12, Clarke Vuelta '12, Pirazzi Giro '13, Edet Vuelta '13, Sánchez Vuelta '14, Visconti Giro '15, de Gendt Vuelta '18), or, especially now at the Tour when to counteract this they've massively over-emphasized mountaintop finishes in the aim of having bigger names wearing the jersey at the expense of making the competition either artificial or killing it completely, being won almost by accident by a GC contender who didn't actively set out to win it (Sánchez Tour '11, Quintana Tour '13, Froome Tour '15, Froome Giro '18) thanks to a points system by which a stage with a Unipuerto HC mountaintop is of more value to the competition than winning every single climb in a stage with an HC, two cat.1s and a cat.2 but no MTF.
If the big problem is that ASO want to break up the monotony of the trains, then they need some super-long mid-race stages along the lines of 'that' L'Aquila stage so that it disincentivises taking the maillot jaune early. The Vuelta saw something we haven't seen in years as neither Mitchelton-Scott nor Movistar wanted to take the pace so the jersey was shipped to a breakaway. This kind of thing used to be commonplace, even Astana in '09 were happy to let Ag2r do the pace making to defend the yellow jersey for a week, and it's precisely for that reason that Pereiro was given half an hour in '06 that let him back into the GC mix; in recent years however, a strong team will take the jersey early and try to carry it all the way, usually successfully. If you make it so that those riders don't want to hold the jersey for too long because their domestiques will be too exhausted, then that opens up new avenues for interest because they'll be looking for somebody to ship the jersey to, and then you've got fights for the breakaway and stories like Thomas Voeckler in 2004 (or even 2011) becoming possible. A series of short stages with easily controllable tempo mountains has precisely the opposite effect - there's no reason to fear any of these stages and you can happily control the race for two weeks unhindered. Inconsistent climbs are a must, also, to disrupt the train techniques. I know that relative to Spain and Italy France has a paucity of these, but it must also be said that the fact the mountains themselves have become brands meaning that the Tour tends to use, use and reuse the same ones year after year after year like it's the Vuelta in the early 90s or something also stifles competition because everybody knows the climbs so well. They may be legendary, but everybody now knows where to dose their efforts, where to watch for attacks, where to preserve their energy. So, for the sake of all that is holy, if you do innovate or resurrect a long-forgotten climb, do your best to make it relevant (no 2012 Grand-Colombier or Peguère please), and even more importantly don't spoil the surprise by doing it in the Dauphiné a month earlier!!! Because if riders have only ever done it in training, not in race conditions, they may have come to different conclusions on how to ride it, how to pace, where is best suited to attack. And there's no novelty, no excitement, in it if you've already seen it just a month before.
Now I know that France's best climb for being super hard AND being inconsistent is Croix-de-Fer which is already one of those climbs everybody knows like the backs of their hands, but there's always inconsistent climbs or steep ones in the Pyrenées, and there's much tougher climbs in the Massif Central than have been used in years - where's Pré de la Dame, Col de l'Œillon, Col de la Lusette, Col de Finiels, Col de la Baricaude, Col de la Mure, Col de Charousse, Croix de Chaubouret, Col du Chansert, Col de Béal, La Loge des Gardes, Baracuchet North, Col de Ceyssat, Saint-Anastaise, Pas de Peyrol west with its 2km at 12%?
Sure, many of these aren't likely to be especially decisive on their own (save for maybe l'Œillon, Lusette and Béal, though Col de la Mure worked ok in Paris-Nice) but you could make a really tough transitional stage, one that nobody wants to have to control, rather than the stages into and out of Saint-Étienne we have. You remember the stage that TV Tommy got the maillot jaune in in 2011? That's not a bad example of the kind of stage I mean. The Giro is better at these, admittedly, with things like L'Aquila 2010. Or, France could use its generally not-very-interestingly-used-by-Le-Tour southern tips for this kind of transitional stage. Paris-Nice does a much better job in this respect. Remember Contador bonking on this stage? That would be perfect. No individual climb tougher than Bourigaille, but relentless up and down all day, for nearly 200km. It can be controlled, but unless you give the break 25 minutes (in which case everybody's going to know it's a day for the break and you'll have loads of people with different skillsets trying to figure out how to win the stage, which will make the battle for that interesting, plus of course the GPM throughout) you're going to pay for the effort taken to control that stage in the mountain stages to come, especially if there is a long mountain stage in the midst of that. I'd go for the following trifecta:
1) stage finishing on climb that is tough enough on its own; as the first mountain stage of 3, people won't go from afar here, so make sure the final climb either has the prestige, is steep enough or otherwise difficult enough that there will be time gaps regardless - Mont Ventoux, Mont du Chat, Col du Granon, Grand-Colombier, Joux-Plane, Plateau des Saix, Super Collet, Chamrousse via Luitel
2) 200km+ stage with several climbs, either finishing on a descent or on a slightly easier summit than the penultimate climb - Galibier-L2A, Romme/Colombière duo, Bonette-Auron, Cayolle-Pra Loup, you know the drill.
3) THIS is where you put your short mountain stage. To complement your strong mountain stages, not in place of them.
I don't disagree with any of this (including the Virenque take 
). The point about cols that everyone knows is absolutely true...
Yet, at this particular point of time, this route is quite fine by me. TTT put aside (advantage to super teams), I may be completely off, but I see opportunities for a myriad of riders to go for it.
1. This is the chance of a lifetime for Quintana, if he;s what he used to be. Have Landa Giro, help Nairo at the TdF, Quintana leader in July, helper at La Vuelta, The Don helper at Le Tour, and leader in Spain. That should be the plan...watch out.
2. Simon can win this bike race. He may have to postpone his Giro revenge plans. There are several opportunities for him to do what he does best, take 30-second chunks that add-up.
3. Sky will come to defend the title, I don't see them sending second fiddles.
4. Vincenzo, does he have one more i him?
5. The two French guys have a shot, it's always good for business. They have to force the issue, go for broke, ASO gave them something that should suit them. No excuses.
6. If I were MAL, Kruijwijk, Uran, I'd be licking my chops too. Pozzo, Zakarin and the likes can stir trouble. Mas?
That's a lot of names here, and with the tough final stretch of this route, it could be very hard for super teams to thwart every attack and not run out of ammo week 3. One bold rider may win it all. That's how I look at it, and I hope that's what we'll see.
). The point about cols that everyone knows is absolutely true... Yet, at this particular point of time, this route is quite fine by me. TTT put aside (advantage to super teams), I may be completely off, but I see opportunities for a myriad of riders to go for it.
1. This is the chance of a lifetime for Quintana, if he;s what he used to be. Have Landa Giro, help Nairo at the TdF, Quintana leader in July, helper at La Vuelta, The Don helper at Le Tour, and leader in Spain. That should be the plan...watch out.
2. Simon can win this bike race. He may have to postpone his Giro revenge plans. There are several opportunities for him to do what he does best, take 30-second chunks that add-up.
3. Sky will come to defend the title, I don't see them sending second fiddles.
4. Vincenzo, does he have one more i him?
5. The two French guys have a shot, it's always good for business. They have to force the issue, go for broke, ASO gave them something that should suit them. No excuses.
6. If I were MAL, Kruijwijk, Uran, I'd be licking my chops too. Pozzo, Zakarin and the likes can stir trouble. Mas?
That's a lot of names here, and with the tough final stretch of this route, it could be very hard for super teams to thwart every attack and not run out of ammo week 3. One bold rider may win it all. That's how I look at it, and I hope that's what we'll see.
But all of those would apply to almost every recent route.
Hell, many of them would apply to any route, period.
Hell, many of them would apply to any route, period.
Re:
...and many recent GT routes have indeed aimed at keeping the race as close as possible for as long as possible. That's how you get TV ratings, keep the fans engaged, et caetera. Wecan be as romantic as we want, but the bottom line is: cycling is a business.And that'sthe new model. We can agree, disagree,i the end we have to learn to live with it. In my case, I have enough gray hair already , no need to get upset. Fair enough?
hence the platitude,as you call it: it's the riders who make the racehrotha said:But all of those would apply to almost every recent route.
Hell, many of them would apply to any route, period.
...and many recent GT routes have indeed aimed at keeping the race as close as possible for as long as possible. That's how you get TV ratings, keep the fans engaged, et caetera. Wecan be as romantic as we want, but the bottom line is: cycling is a business.And that'sthe new model. We can agree, disagree,i the end we have to learn to live with it. In my case, I have enough gray hair already , no need to get upset. Fair enough?If it's the aim to keep the gc as close as possible, for as long as possible, there shouldn't be a ttt on day 2. Or a mtf on stage 6.
Re:
2017, 14km ITT, PDBF stage 5, [edit] GC with Froome in yellow, 9 riders in the same minute.rghysens said:
Re: Re:
Of course you'd say that, you're a sponsor
Tonton said:hence the platitude,as you call it: it's the riders who make the racehrotha said:But all of those would apply to almost every recent route.
Hell, many of them would apply to any route, period.
Of course you'd say that, you're a sponsor
Re: Re:
Also, people who defend the current model like to throw around lines about TV ratings and keeping the fans engaged, without ever proving or even offering evidence that the current model does that better than older ones. It's not about being romantic, it's about being critical.
Yes, it is a platitude. It's like filling a forum about interior design and housing with comments about how all that matters is that a family sticks together.Tonton said:hence the platitude,as you call it: it's the riders who make the racehrotha said:But all of those would apply to almost every recent route.
Hell, many of them would apply to any route, period.
Also, people who defend the current model like to throw around lines about TV ratings and keeping the fans engaged, without ever proving or even offering evidence that the current model does that better than older ones. It's not about being romantic, it's about being critical.
Re:
Nitpicking alert: he wasn't really that one-dimensional. He won a few ITT, and not only in mountain.
Libertine Seguros said:
Nitpicking alert: he wasn't really that one-dimensional. He won a few ITT, and not only in mountain.
Re: Re:
Yeah, he was one of the world's best in a flat TT at the time.
His losses were usually in flat or mountain stages where he couldn't be bothered or the temperature was too hot so his "preparation" backfired. Then he'd gain minutes when it was cold.
AnatoleNovak said:
Yeah, he was one of the world's best in a flat TT at the time.
His losses were usually in flat or mountain stages where he couldn't be bothered or the temperature was too hot so his "preparation" backfired. Then he'd gain minutes when it was cold.
It seems that ASO aren’t ready to give up on Bardet yet and, although the route was presumably more or less decided before Pinot’s superb late season, it will suit the other French hope too. There’s a generation of climbers who continue to benefit from the ASO’s nearly pathological aversion to long ITTs. Quintana, Landa, Martin and the rest of the climbers with dubious ITT abilities should be hoping that one of the French boys podiums at least one year in two. Dumoulin on the other hand should be hoping that they decide to take up skiing or mountain biking or something instead.
Simon Yates should do the Tour. If there’s any kind of rebound towards longer ITTs in the future, he will rue missing this chance to take on Froome, Dumoulin, Thomas, Roglic with this much of his disadvantage removed.
Simon Yates should do the Tour. If there’s any kind of rebound towards longer ITTs in the future, he will rue missing this chance to take on Froome, Dumoulin, Thomas, Roglic with this much of his disadvantage removed.
Was thinking the same thing about Yates, especially cause he will not drop too much time in the TTT and the boninification gimmicks should favour him as well.
Re:
Yes, basically a course designed for Bardet is also a course designed for Yates.
If Latour ever becomes a contender, the ASO’s parcours philosophy may suddenly alter.
Red Rick said:
Yes, basically a course designed for Bardet is also a course designed for Yates.
If Latour ever becomes a contender, the ASO’s parcours philosophy may suddenly alter.
Convert the TTT into an ITT.
Sort out the last two Alpine stages. Make one of them longer and make both of them better.
Then we're cooking with gas.
Stages 3-18 are acceptable. Not perfect, but acceptable. Some nice stages a few wastes.
But the Alps are horrible.
Sort out the last two Alpine stages. Make one of them longer and make both of them better.
Then we're cooking with gas.
Stages 3-18 are acceptable. Not perfect, but acceptable. Some nice stages a few wastes.
But the Alps are horrible.
Re: Re:
Because I don't agree with your reasoning. There are several factors at work and correlation does not equal causation.hrotha said:
I simply don't think more TT miles will result in better racing in this day and age with the riders we currently have, at least not what I see as better racing and what I want to see in a GT.hrotha said:
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Latest posts
-
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Latest: Logic-is-your-friend
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram