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!
I think that must be the reasoning behind the concept. I mean many posts here sound like the ASO just likes to p** off cycling fans, or like they have no idea what they are doing. But taking the monetary aspects (that they will rate higher than we do) out of the equation, I think we should consider the possibility that they are not totally clueless.
In fact what the recent GTs have shown is that actually the declared big stages made everyone hold back before and that teams waited for the two "decisive" stages. Everyone was so afraid of the monsters of mountains or the accumulated fatigue or just waited for that one time trial where they thought they would have the upper hand.
I think the issue is posters on this forum are more hardcore cycling fans and ASO are trying to cater to the more casual ones as they know people like us will watch it anyway. They're trying to keep gaps small so people will read it and think wow thats close, rather than trying to create the most exciting set of stagesWhich is an argument for having them early. Not an argument for not having them at all.
I think the issue is posters on this forum are more hardcore cycling fans and ASO are trying to cater to the more casual ones as they know people like us will watch it anyway. They're trying to keep gaps small so people will read it and think wow thats close, rather than trying to create the most exciting set of stages
This is definitely fair but I do think it is partly caused by the tour being the most commercialised of the three.I'm sure that's what many here think, but actually that appears a bit arrogant.
Okay, maybe that's because I do not belong to the cycling specialists.
But if I look at the Giro elimination game and all the threads here I feel there is some heavy, not really legitimate bias against the Tour, and it appears people just want to find fault with the Tours. I mean, there sure are reasons to do so, but it's a bit like when I'm at the literature institute and meetings of my literature people and everyone is raving about Roman Ehrlich, while Kazuo Ishiguro practically doesn't exist and if he does he's "ah, the guy who wrote that love story with the butler". What I mean: Hipsters can have their points. But they can also be a bit dismissive sometimes.
Gave it a 7
improvements needed are the second TT needed to be nearly twice the length (the first ITT at 27km is OK since it comes so early in the race).
Then, only improvements needed were Bales on the Portet Stage and Aspin in the Luz Ardiden stage
The '84 Tour was insane in that respect...prologue 5km, stage 3 TTT then an 83km stage the same day, stage 7 a 67km ITT, stage 16 a 22km climbing ITT, and stage 22 (of 23) was a 51km ITT.Back in the days of 2 TTs plus a prologue (plus an ITT. And maybe a MTT too, for good measure) the long TT was the mid-race one, just before the race entered the mountains. The final TT would be the shorter one, just to be a last showdown between the leaders.
Just wtf.The '84 Tour was insane in that respect...prologue 5km, stage 3 TTT then an 83km stage the same day, stage 7 a 67km ITT, stage 16 a 22km climbing ITT, and stage 22 (of 23) was a 51km ITT.
Yeah. The TTT was 51km long, no mountain until stage 11, two hilly stages 14-15 (the first one won by Fons de Wolf, one of my all-time favorites) and backloaded with four straight mountain stages (17 to 20). BTW, stage 21 was 320km long. Not the longest: stage 9 was 338.Just wtf.
Wow nowadays the organisation would spread that amount of TT kms across 5 editions of the TourThe '84 Tour was insane in that respect...prologue 5km, stage 3 TTT then an 83km stage the same day, stage 7 a 67km ITT, stage 16 a 22km climbing ITT, and stage 22 (of 23) was a 51km ITT.
In fairness to the French, they had routes like that before Hinault, and they continued with them for years afterwards. Armstrong and Indurain were winning 60+km ITTs, twice per Tour. Plus there'd be prologues, TTTs, MTTs on top. Virenque never had a chance...About the TT kms... back then Hinault was the biggest star in peloton and he's French. During that time the Giro had practically no mountains at all cause Moser and Saronni were lobbying heavy.
That's how the reasoning goes but we've never seen any evidence suggesting the ASO model is actually more attractive for casual fans. They'll just throw raw viewing figures at us and claim they're proof the model works just because.I think the issue is posters on this forum are more hardcore cycling fans and ASO are trying to cater to the more casual ones as they know people like us will watch it anyway. They're trying to keep gaps small so people will read it and think wow thats close, rather than trying to create the most exciting set of stages
The '84 Tour was insane in that respect...prologue 5km, stage 3 TTT then an 83km stage the same day, stage 7 a 67km ITT, stage 16 a 22km climbing ITT, and stage 22 (of 23) was a 51km ITT.
Thank god it isn't like that anymore. You would need half a dozen 4000 height meters mountain stages to balance out 120 km of flat ITT and a long TTT. Far too much.The '84 Tour was insane in that respect...prologue 5km, stage 3 TTT then an 83km stage the same day, stage 7 a 67km ITT, stage 16 a 22km climbing ITT, and stage 22 (of 23) was a 51km ITT.
Why do you say there's a bias?But if I look at the Giro elimination game and all the threads here I feel there is some heavy, not really legitimate bias against the Tour, and it appears people just want to find fault with the Tours.
...and the thing is if you did have those stages, what you’d find would be the skinny little climbers would get burnt out early in the race, and by the last week’s climbing it would be all the big high-wattage TTers still surviving.Thank god it isn't like that anymore. You would need half a dozen 4000 height meters mountain stages to balance out 120 km of flat ITT and a long TTT. Far too much.
Wel, at least then some of the climbers have a chance. Rather than just "handing" the victory to a Wiggins/Dumolin-type of rider in those versions you don't have riders who are among the very best in both climbing and time trialing (like Roglic and Pogacar were this year)...and the thing is if you did have those stages, what you’d find would be the skinny little climbers would get burnt out early in the race, and by the last week’s climbing it would be all the big high-wattage TTers still surviving.
I'm sure that's what many here think, but actually that appears a bit arrogant.
Okay, maybe that's because I do not belong to the cycling specialists.
But if I look at the Giro elimination game and all the threads here I feel there is some heavy, not really legitimate bias against the Tour, and it appears people just want to find fault with the Tours. I mean, there sure are reasons to do so, but it's a bit like when I'm at the literature institute and meetings of my literature people and everyone is raving about Roman Ehrlich, while Kazuo Ishiguro practically doesn't exist and if he does he's "ah, the guy who wrote that love story with the butler". What I mean: Hipsters can have their points. But they can also be a bit dismissive sometimes.
Both Wiggins and Dumoulin climbed just as well as all the climbers in the race for their GT wins. The only climber better than Wiggins was his teammate, and Dumoulin was able to stop at the side of the road and give Quintana a free 2 minutes.Wel, at least then some of the climbers have a chance. Rather than just "handing" the victory to a Wiggins/Dumolin-type of rider in those versions you don't have riders who are among the very best in both climbing and time trialing (like Roglic and Pogacar were this year).
You don't need to have some much climbing/few TT kms that you make awful time trialists like MAL and Landa legit contenders, but at least guys who are on par with Pinot and similar riders.
The 2012 version of the Tour was IMO an unusually poor version of the Tour. And Dumoulin lost several minutes to Quintana in the mountains in the 2017 Giro. In the end he won by half a minute in a GT with 68 km of ITT. I would call that fairly balanced. If there were 120 km he probably would have won by at least 3-4 minutes.Both Wiggins and Dumoulin climbed just as well as all the climbers in the race for their GT wins. The only climber better than Wiggins was his teammate, and Dumoulin was able to stop at the side of the road and give Quintana a free 2 minutes.
The reason Froome was so completely in charge was that he would match Tony Martin in the TT, and drop Quintana et al in the mountains.
The 2012 version of the Tour was IMO an unusually poor version of the Tour. And Dumoulin lost several minutes to Quintana in the mountains in the 2017 Giro. In the end he won by half a minute in a GT with 68 km of ITT. I would call that fairly balanced. If there were 120 km he probably would have won by at least 3-4 minutes.