Suggestions and Ideas for the Tour de France

[LugHugger]

Get rid of the TTT - or let it count only towards the team competition or run it as a split stage with a short (up to 10kms) TTT followed by a short road stage with a MTF.

Find some good new climbs - make better use of the massif centrale and the Jura.

A Classics type stage early on

Make the MTFs at least equal to the TTs - maximum amount of TTing for any GT should be 5kms per MTF, otherwise there is no balance

Run the race with 6 man teams.

+1

agree with all of this. good post, BG. the ttt is an abomination.

 

[Aguirre]

I would propose quite a lot of mountain, but not finishing any stage uphill, only one ITT to La Plagne or Courchevel or Luz Ardiden or similar.

The rest, stages finishing down, like Grand Bornard.

When they have Ventoux or Huez they often leave everything for the few final kms (see Andorra)

 

[Anonymous]

What about a mtb stage like the Leadville 100!

Or instead of the prologue have a timed track session. Fastest to do 10 laps around the track on a track bike wins the stage and the first yellow jersey.

No race radios or team cars. They can just post DS's at important points in the race to communicate with the riders.

Use steel bikes with toe straps and downtube shifters!

Allow PED's, anything they can find and let them go at it. (or rather no testing... same thing!)

Ride with the bulls in Pamplona!

Tandem bike Time Trial!

 

[manolo]

About the 2010 Tour

I would suggest a minimum of 5 mountaintop finishes per Tour. No more stages like the Colombiere...

About consecutive montaintop finishes: I thought all the mountaintop finishes at the Vuelta would be exciting, but some of them were neutralized just because riders knew they faced several consecutive hard days in the mountains... Maybe mountaintop finishes should be spread out a little...

About the Tourmalet being ridden twice in 2010: I'm not too thrilled about it. I love mountaintop finishes and converseley, hate the waste of a having a good mountain followed by a long descent and km-upon-km of relatively flat terrain. I find those stages relatively boring. I know I'm being picky, but as a spectator, I feel like most of the peloton takes a rest day during those stages - although they're hard! - and only four or five guys come out to race! : )

 

[skidmark]

I've always wondered why you can't replace riders who leave the Tour through injury. I even like the idea that if you're DS and you're unhappy with how a rider is racing, you should be able to drag his a**ss out of the race and subsitute him at will! : )

Pretty simple reason actually: to compete in a tour in cycling, you need to register an overall time, for which people are ranked. If you have missed some stages, obviously you cannot be ranked. So riders who did not start the race can't officially compete. Even though in all practicality, the GC ranking only matters to about 10% of the riders, in theory everyone is competing.

 

[montagna lunga]

Best idea yet for le Tour: quit watching. "Dog the Bounty Hunter", or "Intervention" are equal to that farce as pass-times.

Maybe pro cycling should get rid of teams altogether, it is clear today's generation of punk cyclists, tifosi, and wannabees no longer see any value whatsoever to the idea of "team." Nether do the riders you online commentators chatter about seem to "need" "their" "team."
... every man for themselves, I take it?

Is AC so good he doesn't "need" a team?

 

[franciep10]

About consecutive montaintop finishes: I thought all the mountaintop finishes at the Vuelta would be exciting, but some of them were neutralized just because riders knew they faced several consecutive hard days in the mountains... Maybe mountaintop finishes should be spread out a little...

About the Tourmalet being ridden twice in 2010: I'm not too thrilled about it. I love mountaintop finishes and converseley, hate the waste of a having a good mountain followed by a long descent and km-upon-km of relatively flat terrain. I find those stages relatively boring. I know I'm being picky, but as a spectator, I feel like most of the peloton takes a rest day during those stages - although they're hard! - and only four or five guys come out to race! : )

Actually, I heard a rumor that tourmalet was going to be used as a finish, don't know how reliable info is.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Here are my suggestions:

Attacking in the mountains has greatly decreased over the last 20 years. What we have now are a pack of GC riders riding along, whittling each other down to a small group, until someone attacks in the last 5km or so. This is mostly due to advancement in training, equipment, radio, and doping. These things allow riders to conserve energy like never before, and attack only at the very end, or when the team director tells them over the radio. The race has much less to do with strategy, or guile, and more to do with control and attrition. Thus these changes are in order:

• Limit teams to 7 riders - This will make it harder for teams to control the race.

• Limit race radio - either to riders getting info from officials, or no splits allowed to team cars, or riders. Or only one way from riders to team cars. Or just eliminate them. Having the director know time splits and where everyone is on the road is the big problem.

• Consider not letting the team car on some stages, or sections, such as a final climb - riders only getting neutral support with mechanicals.

• Many more stages with uphill finishes. Riders are faster, domestiques are more specialized, bikes and gear are lighter, training is better, riders prep more for one race, and the drugs are better. Some people scoff at climbs like Angliru and Zoncolon, but even last year we didn't see gigantic splits on Angliru, and this year's climb up the very steep Xorret de Cati in the Vuelta, or the "brutal" back-to-back-to-back mountain top finishes did no where near the damage expected. Riders are faster, so we need bigger, tougher, more frequent mountains. A Tour should have 10-12 mountain stages, with 8 or 9 of them mountain top finishes. At least one of these days should be over 5,000m of climbing.
Making the GTs easier has not quelled doping, as some suggested it might. So drop this silly notion. Making them easier will insure we'll have the top 50 riders riding to the last 10k of every stage together. If you're worried about my above tough stages, scatter them with rest days, or spread them out more.

• Have at least one col go over dirt. They did it in the old days, and in the Giro a couple of times, they can do it here.

• Have some years go through northern France, and over some cobbles. They used to do this a lot in the past, but only in 2004 did they try it again.

• Bring back the Puy du Dome! Not much room at the top, but it has been raced before, and could be again.

• Consider large time bonuses (1 minute) given at intermediate sprint points, and KOM cols.

• A bigger variety of ITT's, including downhill ITT's. Though not pure downhill off a big col. Too dangerous.

• TTTs that go over a mountain pass. Some right away, then have another flat 20km to the finish.

More general sport ideas:

• Institute the CO blood doping test. More aggressive random testing during the race. Stricter penalties for missed tests or delaying officials.

• Flex the doping sanctions. If your values are suspicious, you get a one-month ban. Test + and cooperate, 1 year. Test + and don't cooperate, 2 years. Test + and hire Floyd Landis legal team, lifetime ban.

• Work with convicted dopers to help clean up the sport, and to help break the omerta, and stop stripping them of past wins other than from which they were caught. Along these lines, educate younger riders towards doping.

• Flush the UCI as is, and set-it up as an independent organization. Put someone like Sylvia Shenk at the helm, or Greg Lemond.

I don't see salary caps working. The money would have to be pooled, with sponsors thus spending their money not on their team, but on the sport, or events, and they may not want that. However, and this may be a big point buried in a paragraph here, there is great potential here to not put so much pressure on riders to perform at all costs, which could help cut into doping.

I like the idea of everyone on the TTT having to cross (except maybe one rider, due to injury or mechanical).

I don't care for adding more jerseys.

Cut-off time changes aren't needed. My above plan of more climbing will cause enough attrition as is.

Replacing riders on a team is not practical.

The Tourmalet has no room at the top for a finish line. They could however go over it, and finish at La Mongie, instead of dropping all the way to the bottom. This idea would be a great one.

 

[Big Ring]

There will be a finish on the Tourmalet on 22 July. They had one there in 1974, so why not more often. The climb I would really like to see is Pic du Midi, it is 5km up a dirt road from Col du Tourmalet to 2637m alt. It would be a great TT and then the riders could go to La Mongie by cable car.

 

[Big_Blue_Dave]

Here are my suggestions:

Attacking in the mountains has greatly decreased over the last 20 years. What we have now are a pack of GC riders riding along, whittling each other down to a small group, until someone attacks in the last 5km or so. This is mostly due to advancement in training, equipment, radio, and doping. These things allow riders to conserve energy like never before, and attack only at the very end, or when the team director tells them over the radio. The race has much less to do with strategy, or guile, and more to do with control and attrition. Thus these changes are in order:

• Limit teams to 7 riders - This will make it harder for teams to control the race.

• Limit race radio - either to riders getting info from officials, or no splits allowed to team cars, or riders. Or only one way from riders to team cars. Or just eliminate them. Having the director know time splits and where everyone is on the road is the big problem.

• Consider not letting the team car on some stages, or sections, such as a final climb - riders only getting neutral support with mechanicals.

• Many more stages with uphill finishes. Riders are faster, domestiques are more specialized, bikes and gear are lighter, training is better, riders prep more for one race, and the drugs are better. Some people scoff at climbs like Angliru and Zoncolon, but even last year we didn't see gigantic splits on Angliru, and this year's climb up the very steep Xorret de Cati in the Vuelta, or the "brutal" back-to-back-to-back mountain top finishes did no where near the damage expected. Riders are faster, so we need bigger, tougher, more frequent mountains. A Tour should have 10-12 mountain stages, with 8 or 9 of them mountain top finishes. At least one of these days should be over 5,000m of climbing.
Making the GTs easier has not quelled doping, as some suggested it might. So drop this silly notion. Making them easier will insure we'll have the top 50 riders riding to the last 10k of every stage together. If you're worried about my above tough stages, scatter them with rest days, or spread them out more.

• Have at least one col go over dirt. They did it in the old days, and in the Giro a couple of times, they can do it here.

• Have some years go through northern France, and over some cobbles. They used to do this a lot in the past, but only in 2004 did they try it again.

• Bring back the Puy du Dome! Not much room at the top, but it has been raced before, and could be again.

• Consider large time bonuses (1 minute) given at intermediate sprint points, and KOM cols.

• A bigger variety of ITT's, including downhill ITT's. Though not pure downhill off a big col. Too dangerous.

• TTTs that go over a mountain pass. Some right away, then have another flat 20km to the finish.

More general sport ideas:

• Institute the CO blood doping test. More aggressive random testing during the race. Stricter penalties for missed tests or delaying officials.

• Flex the doping sanctions. If your values are suspicious, you get a one-month ban. Test + and cooperate, 1 year. Test + and don't cooperate, 2 years. Test + and hire Floyd Landis legal team, lifetime ban.

• Work with convicted dopers to help clean up the sport, and to help break the omerta, and stop stripping them of past wins other than from which they were caught. Along these lines, educate younger riders towards doping.

• Flush the UCI as is, and set-it up as an independent organization. Put someone like Sylvia Shenk at the helm, or Greg Lemond.

I don't see salary caps working. The money would have to be pooled, with sponsors thus spending their money not on their team, but on the sport, or events, and they may not want that. However, and this may be a big point buried in a paragraph here, there is great potential here to not put so much pressure on riders to perform at all costs, which could help cut into doping.

I like the idea of everyone on the TTT having to cross (except maybe one rider, due to injury or mechanical).

I don't care for adding more jerseys.

Cut-off time changes aren't needed. My above plan of more climbing will cause enough attrition as is.

Replacing riders on a team is not practical.

The Tourmalet has no room at the top for a finish line. They could however go over it, and finish at La Mongie, instead of dropping all the way to the bottom. This idea would be a great one.

The first one I bolded, was something I suggested months ago, and think is a great idea, as if they are worried about safety they can all wear radios and listen to Radio Tour.

The second. i'm not sure if you know but this year just gone was the last time it would be possible as they are building a rail or tram track on the Puy de Dome which would make it impossible for a race to go up.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Teams have to select 8 riders for the tour and for the final spot the two remaining riders have a wrestling match.


On a serious note: I think the tour should have a specific formula. This is what i think

- The maximum a ttt can be is 20km. If you are going to have a ttt over that make it only count to the teams classification. The ttt should be the opening stage of the tour so they can have their presentations to the crowd then hit the road for the ttt. the ttt would almost be the opening presentation.

- Have at least 80km of ITT. Give GC riders who can also tt a more of a fair go. That should not include a Mountain ITT as that would favour the pure climbers.

- 4 mountain top finishes.

- On non mountain top finishes, don't have the final climb 80km from the finish. Have the descent, then stage end. The syage over the tourmalet was so boring.

- Have a stage finish on a velodrome. That would cause some real carnage.

- Have a stage like Super Besse in 08. Finsh on a cat 2, which will not cause fire works but may cause some guys to attack if they are behind and to separate the boys from the girls.

I hope the organisers don't try to get too fancy that it wrecks the spectacle of the great Tour de France but make a route not based around 1 stage so their will be many spectacles.

 

[Anonymous]

Basically I agree with auscycle on this one, as discussed in another thread, i think some consistency between tours would be great:

And space it out over the whole three weeks


My formula:

Prologue of 5-10km (stage 1)

four flat/transition stages (stage 2 - 5)

three mountain stages (stage 6 - 8) with two MTFs

a couple of flats/transitions (stage 9,10)

first ITT of 50km (stage 11)

a couple of flats/transitions (stage 12,13)

four mountain stages (stage 14 - 17) with two MTFs

couple of flats/transitions (stage 18-19)

second ITT of 50km (stage 20)

champs-elysee (stage 21)


probably have the rest days in the middle of the mountain stages (so after stage 7 and 15)

basically, a similar formula to 06 and 07 and kind of 08... gives the TT specialists a chance, the climbers a chance, cavendish (and the trail he leaves) plenty of stage wins. transition stages for voeckler, gerrans and chavenel... everything is there!! except the TTT, but that can replace the prologue of 10km

 

[auscyclefan94]

Basically I agree with auscycle on this one, as discussed in another thread, i think some consistency between tours would be great:

And space it out over the whole three weeks


My formula:

Prologue of 5-10km (stage 1)

four flat/transition stages (stage 2 - 5)

three mountain stages (stage 6 - 8) with two MTFs

a couple of flats/transitions (stage 9,10)

first ITT of 50km (stage 11)

a couple of flats/transitions (stage 12,13)

four mountain stages (stage 14 - 17) with two MTFs

couple of flats/transitions (stage 18-19)

second ITT of 50km (stage 20)

champs-elysee (stage 21)


probably have the rest days in the middle of the mountain stages (so after stage 7 and 15)

basically, a similar formula to 06 and 07 and kind of 08... gives the TT specialists a chance, the climbers a chance, cavendish (and the trail he leaves) plenty of stage wins. transition stages for voeckler, gerrans and chavenel... everything is there!! except the TTT, but that can replace the prologue of 10km

totally agree. Pee off prudhomme, bring on mountain goat

 

[il_fiammingo]

1) Re-establish the time bonifications at the finish.

2) a Paris-Roubaix like cobblestone stage.

 

[MizunoMX20]

My main suggestion for the Tour directors would be: TAKE THE GIRO AS AN EXAMPLE

The route over the last years in the Giro has provided us with action from day one and on basically.

Here's what I think the Tour directors should consider in order to make the Tour less boring:

1. Have one or more finishes on a short and steep hill (2-4km) in the first week (which is exactly what makes the Giro so interesting straight from the beginning).

2. Have at least 7 serious mountain stages and have 4 mountain finishes as a minimum.

3. Don't bother too much about 'not enough room on top for a finish'. On the Tourmalet for example, why not put the commentary boxes etc. in La Mongie, and have the riders deal with the last few steep kilometers of the Tourmalet. This happens in other GT's as well, so why shouldn't this be possible.

4. No radio.

5. Introduce the bonification system again. Although I would make it 12'' - 8'' - 4''.

6. In mountain stages, draw the finish line immedeately after a frantic descent, and don't ruin a stage like Tourmalet this year. (On a side note, they are looking to do the same again this year. Stage 11 is probably going to be: Stage 11: Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne - Gap
Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne lies at the foot of the steep side of the Col du Galibier, so they will have that for breakfast. After that they will climb the Col d'Izoard before descending to Gap. But after some research on some maps I was shocked to find that the top of the Izoard is about 90km from Gap, so that would mean there will be another potentially epic etape reduced to nothing.)

7. No TTT, please.

8. Maximum of 7 riders per team (not going to happen though).

9. Introduce boni seconds on Hors Categorie climbs.

10. The KOM-classification hasn't been what is was for the last years. I'm not sure how, but the best climbers should be rewarded better.

11. Have shorter (110 - 160km) mountain stages. A few examples:
- Lechere - Alpe d'Huez = Col de la Madeleine (25km a 6,3%) > Croix de Fer (30km a 5,1%) > Alpe d'Huez (14km a 7,7%) = 136km
- Lechere - Alpe d'Huez = Col de la Madeleine (25km a 6,3%) > Col du Galibier (35km a 5,5%) > Alpe d'Huez (14km a 7,7%) = 163km
- St. Michel de Maurienne - Guillestre = Col du Galibier (35km a 5,5%) > Col d'Izoard (20km a 5,7%) = 110km
Those would be some exciting stages! And these are just a few examples. In the Pyrennees you could also design numerous routes like this. This should give GC riders who really want to go for it the opportunity to attack earlier on, because there is NO flat road in between the climbs.

12. Don't be afraid to put in some cobbled/dirt sections.

Most of these ideas (except for point 8) seem pretty reasonable to be honest, so I suggest the Tour directors read this comment and take notice.

 

[Anonymous]

One other thing,

Look at the GTs this year,

The Giro - a lot of attacking in the mountains - a lot of time trials km's

The tour - not much attacking in mountains - not much time trials

The Vuelta - not much attacking in mountains - smaller length time trials.

When I say two 50km TT's, i mean at the bare minimum. I would love to see a 55k and a rolling 65-70k finishing with a mountain finish. As long as the km's are there to give the TT specialist a chance to gain time, and force the climbers to attack in the mountains

tour 06,07 and le old days, showed that when you have long time trials, the mountains are more exciting

 

[MizunoMX20]

As long as the km's are there to give the TT specialist a chance to gain time, and force the climbers to attack in the mountains

That's an interesting observation, I hadn't thought about it like that.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Basically I agree with auscycle on this one, as discussed in another thread, i think some consistency between tours would be great:

The reason I don't agree with that is as I pointed out in my post, your suggestion is very similar to what we're seeing now in GT's, with very little difference. Though I like the idea of having the TTT be the prologue, at least more often.

Consistency in the three GT's, I don't see why? Why not let them all make their own different courses, try their own ideas, their own experiments? Having a similar format for all three GT's every year would be dull.

Your suggestions also don't answer the issue I brought up about how mountain stages are now only really contested in the last 5km or so, with everyone riding together until that point, and attacks before that very, very rarely happening.

 

[rghysens]

my two cents on this:

stage 1: a short prolgue (4-7 kms)

stages 2-4/5: some flat stages, if traversing "le nord", one of them should have a decent portion of cobblestones (15-25 km in the last 100km or so, not the measly 2 easy sections we saw in 2004), preferably also a hilly stage (like plumelec in 2008)

stages 4/5 - 6/7: some hilly/medium mountains stages (ardennes, vosges, massif central, jura). don't put these kind of stages between the two main mountain ranges, because all you would see then is a breakaway get 15-20 minutes and battling it out between themselves. Also don't place these stages after a long(er) TT, because some attractive riders (like gilbert, pozzato,...) will have lost to much time to take the yellow jersey. If possible a finish on a hill would be nice.

stage 7/8: a medium length TT (20-30 km)

so, in the first week at most 3 sprinters' stages (we wil make up for them later)

stages 8/9-11/12: first mountain range, 3 or 4 stages, one of them a really long one (230+ km), no mountain top finishes!, but some finshes at the end of a descent or after a small climb (some km's). This way, the real climbers are forced to attack earlier than the last 10-15km if they want to gain some time. There are enough possibilities for stage finishes immediately after a descent (Aix-les-bains, Morzine, Briançon, Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne, Luchon, Ax-les-Thermes,...)

stages 12/13-16/17: transition stages, these can all be flat. don't spoil 3rd and 2nd category climbs on them, except if they are in the last 15km. That's the only way to see something exciting in the bunch.

stage 16/17-19: second main mountain range, 3 or 4 shorter stages, 1 or 2 mountain top finishes

stage 20: a really long TT (60+ km)

stage 21: Paris


also:

No race radio, unless provided by the organisation (to warn for dangerous situations)
Search some new climbs. What's wrong with climbs like the grand colombier, mont du chat, pla guillem,....

 

[Anonymous]

Consistency in the three GT's, I don't see why? Why not let them all make their own different courses, try their own ideas, their own experiments? Having a similar format for all three GT's every year would be dull.

Your suggestions also don't answer the issue I brought up about how mountain stages are now only really contested in the last 5km or so, with everyone riding together until that point, and attacks before that very, very rarely happening.

Not consistency in all three GT's.. I meant some consistency between each TDF. I like that the giro, tour, vuelta are all different. When i say consistency I meant that the tour traditionally has long time trials, which i think is a good tradition to keep with. I don't understand why they would ever include less than 100km of individual time trials.

About the attacking in the last 5km, I think that's something that no parcours could ever change, as the riders don't have the balls to attack at the bottom of a 15k climb in case they run out of legs. But honestly, i think the only way to ensure attacks in the mountains is with two very long timetrials.

The climbers know they will lose about 2 minutes in a 50km time trial. So throw in two 50k TTs, and I think what will happen is that guys like schlecks, gesink, sastre, valverde and even contador will start attacking climbs a lot further out than 5k, otherwise, they will not make up the time lost in the TTs. Basically, with two long TTs, if the climbers dont attack the mountains, they wont win the tour!! In the 2009 course, there was no need to attack the mountains, becoz the TTs were short and hilly, which I think is the main reason that the attacks were few and as you said within the last 5km

EDIT: One other thing, i made reference to the Giro 09 earlier. Di Luca kept attacking and attacking, and repeatedly said in the media, i need to make up time that i will lose in the 60k time trial. I can't stress enough, that long time trials force the climbers to attack the mountains!!

 

[BroDeal]

But honestly, i think the only way to ensure attacks in the mountains is with two very long timetrials.

That is idiotic. Change the course and you change the types of riders who figure they have a chance of winning. Put the climbers at a big enough disadvantage, and they will write off their GC chances completely to concentrate on stage wins. Put in two 60km time trials and we will get riders like Wiggins and Leecheimer treating the mountains as an exercise in defensive riding. It would be even more boring that this year's Tour.

You cannot force riders to do anything. No time bonuses for stage wins did not force riders to attack. They simply decided that it was not worth expending the energy get on the podium of a stage.

The Giro and Vuelta have consistently showed that very moderate amounts of time trialing combined with steep mountains produces the best GC contest.

 

[luckyboy]

How about no TT's whatsoever and lots of mountains? Maybe someone would attack then

 

[Ripper]

That is idiotic. Change the course and you change the types of riders who figure they have a chance of winning. Put the climbers at a big enough disadvantage, and they will write off their GC chances completely to concentrate on stage wins. Put in two 60km time trials and we will get riders like Wiggins and Leecheimer treating the mountains as an exercise in defensive riding. It would be even more boring that this year's Tour.

You cannot force riders to do anything. No time bonuses for stage wins did not force riders to attack. They simply decided that it was not worth expending the energy get on the podium of a stage.

The Giro and Vuelta have consistently showed that very moderate amounts of time trialing combined with steep mountains produces the best GC contest.

I mostly agree, although the Giro has had some pretty novel TTs recently. Take this year's 60 odd km sufferfest from Sestri Levante to Riomaggiore. They kept it interesting.

I think the balance is not just TTs and climbing, but steep climbs, as you noted. Long moderate climbs also favour the TT riders.

Also ... keeping some stages shorter (Blockhaus?) makes for some interesting racing.

Obviously, when to have the critical days is also very important. Having a 'real time' TTT early in the TdF was realllllly smart (pretty much gave one team control for the rest of the race).

 

[Anonymous]

That is idiotic. Change the course and you change the types of riders who figure they have a chance of winning. Put the climbers at a big enough disadvantage, and they will write off their GC chances completely to concentrate on stage wins. Put in two 60km time trials and we will get riders like Wiggins and Leecheimer treating the mountains as an exercise in defensive riding. It would be even more boring that this year's Tour.


The Giro and Vuelta have consistently showed that very moderate amounts of time trialing combined with steep mountains produces the best GC contest.

I don't think it's idiotic. It's a simple observation that, when the TDF had long time trials, there was more attacking in the mountains by the guys that can't time trial.

Giro 09, Tours of old, and more recently 06,07,08.. all had long time trials, and all had a lot of attacking in the mountains by the climbers.

Do you think Pantani gave up his GC hopes becoz of long TTs?? I don't.

Do you think Di Luca gave up his GC hopes becoz on long TTs?? I don't.


Tour 09, Vuelta 09 - the time trials were indecisive, which meant the mountains didn't have a lot of attacks. Three MTFs in a row at the vuelta and nothing happened. If a climber only needs one MTF to gain the time they lose in a TT, then there is no incentive to attack on the other MTFs...

It's a simple game of incentives, as you say, we cannot force people to attack, but we can give them incentives. If a climber wants to win the tour, they need to attack and crack the TT specialists to gain time they will lose in the long TTs.

I think the TDF organisers are messing around with the length of TT's, which has lead to a boring tour in 09. Go back to the formula that created the excitement of 06 and 07!!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Well, if we look back to the early to mid 1990's, the Tours usually had well over 100km of TT distance. One year, all added up, it was over 200km (including the TTT). And every year the Tour was dominated by Miguel Indurain, who would win the ITT's, and then just ride towards the front on the climbs, never ever attacking, never winning a mountain stage. Mig was a great racer, but most of these Tours were as dull as dishwater.

The only way they could go back to that much TT distance, would be to have hellish mountain stages, like over 10 of them, and some of them very steep and after multiple climbs. 1976, 1986 or 1987 may be examples of this.

I like the idea of having a GT with NO ITT, except maybe a prologue. That would indeed be interesting.