How many stages would you need to win, to be regarded as having ridden a better stage race than the overall winner?
Do the types of stages matter, does it still hold for teams?
For example if in the 2013 tour Wiggins wins the tour but fails to secure a single stage, and Cavendish wins 7 stages, who had the better tour. How many stages would Cavendish need for it to be equal.
From a team point of view, tour de suisse 2009 where HTC won 6 of 9 stages, were they more succesful than saxo with 3 stages and the overall win?
EDIT: For reference, by the UCI, for the tour 10 stages would = GC win, but for one week races you'd need 16 stages...which is obviously impossible.
by cycling quotient. 7.5 stages =GC win, and for one week races 5.7 wins = GC win. Does this undervalue the one day racers when they enter stage races?
Do the types of stages matter, does it still hold for teams?
For example if in the 2013 tour Wiggins wins the tour but fails to secure a single stage, and Cavendish wins 7 stages, who had the better tour. How many stages would Cavendish need for it to be equal.
From a team point of view, tour de suisse 2009 where HTC won 6 of 9 stages, were they more succesful than saxo with 3 stages and the overall win?
EDIT: For reference, by the UCI, for the tour 10 stages would = GC win, but for one week races you'd need 16 stages...which is obviously impossible.
by cycling quotient. 7.5 stages =GC win, and for one week races 5.7 wins = GC win. Does this undervalue the one day racers when they enter stage races?