TdF - Bring Back Time Bonuses

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 23, 2011
977
0
0
Mambo95 said:
With bonuses, tactically, the right move for Contador would have been to follow Schleck's wheel, gambling nothing, and fresher take him in the sprint.

Even that would be better than what we get now.

Your idea that nothing will change with bonuses on the line is ridiculous. The smart move for Contador would be to get as much time as possible. That means crossing the line first to get the bonus. Ideally he does that by getting a gap and taking the victory, but if he has to settle for winning a sprint, the fans still get to see something better than two riders crossing the line while holding hands.
 
Jul 2, 2009
2,392
0
0
Damiano Machiavelli said:
Even that would be better than what we get now.

Your idea that nothing will change with bonuses on the line is ridiculous. The smart move for Contador would be to get as much time as possible. That means crossing the line first to get the bonus. Ideally he does that by getting a gap and taking the victory, but if he has to settle for winning a sprint, the fans still get to see something better than two riders crossing the line while holding hands.

But he could have got time by getting a gap anyway. But he didn't. Why not?Stage racing is about minimizing loses and making gains at certain predetermined points, when needed. Gambling/unplanned attacking is for when that strategy goes wrong.

As an aside, look at the green jersey competition at this year's Tour. Many people predicted that HTC wouldn't let breaks go so that Cav could take the prime points at the inter-sprints. In fact, what they did was ensure that the break stayed away - making sure it was a big break on the harder stages.

Why? Surely, Cav would win most of the inter-sprints and get larger gains? They took that strategy because they had their predetermined points of gain (7 stage finishes), where they focussed their energies. Everywhere else they concentrated on minimizing their potential loses.

They worked the percentages. That's how pro sport works.
 
Mambo95 said:
Stage racing is about minimizing loses and making gains at certain predetermined points, when needed. Gambling/unplanned attacking is for when that strategy goes wrong.
Obviously not the case today with Liquigas. But yes, cycling has become a calculated game in a general kind-of-way. However, I don't see your argument against bonuses citing examples that are pure speculation.
 
Mambo95 said:
But would bonuses have made any difference? On the Tourmalet (2010), in the position of either Schleck or Contador how would bonuses have changed your approach?

Schleck tried to get a gap, but couldn't. Bonuses wouldn't have made any difference to his tactics. Alternatively, he could have been more negative and attacked in the last K from a small bunch.

With bonuses, tactically, the right move for Contador would have been to follow Schleck's wheel, gambling nothing, and fresher take him in the sprint.

So really there would have been no difference until the last 500m.

And as a fan of bunch sprints wouldn't that have made a world of difference to you. You love those stages where it comes down to the final 500m.

Whatever the arguments against time bonuses are, and i do understand them, TDF 17 2010 is not one of them. It would have been a lot more interesting with bonuses.

I think its more than 500m though. Going into the final 3k, it was obvious that andy would not get a big enough gap and we knew they would ride in together.

Andy tried once, contador tried once and then they stopped and rode together.

But with a 8 second bonus at stake that whole section would have been intriguing.

Even if they waited for the sprint, the interest would come from knowing they could attack at any time. THey probably would have tried as well. Because the stage win would be that much more important.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,318
0
0
Mambo95 said:
Like race radio bans, bonuses are something that people think improve things (through natural instinct), but actually probably don't. It's one of those counter-intuitive things. They just distort things.
Good argument, and yet another example of well meaning folks who ignore the inevitable laws of unintended consequences. As I said upthread, I'm not against time bonuses on the first stages of any tour, but giving undue advantages to the likes of Valverde, Ricco, Cunego, or Di Luca soils the overall results.
 
May 23, 2011
977
0
0
DenisMenchov said:
Again, I am saying let the average speed decide the winner.

I would rather have exciting racing determine the winner. The sport cannot grow from dubious performances of dullards like Leipheimer. The few fans those boring riders have do not want the exciting racers to be rewarded for their aggressiveness. They want as few as reasons as possible for aggressiveness.
 
Damiano Machiavelli said:
I would rather have exciting racing determine the winner. The sport cannot grow from dubious performances of dullards like Leipheimer. The few fans those boring riders have do not want the exciting racers to be rewarded for their aggressiveness. They want as few as reasons as possible for aggressiveness.

I understand you, but it is a little stupid to have false winners time, no?
 
Jul 11, 2011
4
0
0
I agree time bonuses should be put back in the TDF not only to put a higher premium on stage wins and attacking but also to give the sprinters a better chance to don the yellow jersey. The ASO changed the rules for the green jersey to try to get more action out of the intermediate sprints putting more stress on all the sprinters teams for a marginal reward. Why don't they give those who win those sprints an added time bonus. Also just because Thor came across the line first in the TTT mean he should be in yellow for a week in the flat stages merely for staying upright...Why don't you reward Cavendish for blowing everyone out of the water stage in stage out...
 
Sep 27, 2009
1,008
0
0
DenisMenchov said:
I understand you, but it is a little stupid to have false winners time, no?

It already happens to a certain extent because riders are given the same time of the group they are in not the exact time that they cross the line. On sprint stages quite often the GC contenders finish quite a while back as they drift back after the 3km mark. Noones time is really the exact time they rode the route in.
I see no problem with giving bonuses to stage winners, it might reward certain types of riders more than others but riders have to do their best to adapt to the rules. If it means more aggressive riding then that seems to be a good thing. Of course if a rider is as dominant as Contador can be and can afford to give away the time bonuses there is really nothing that can be done.
 
I think that the positives of time bonuses outweigh the negatives. Because of the advantage of slip streaming, it is often very difficult to get any sort of gap in cycling. Time bonuses offer an acknowledgement that cycling is greatly different in this way to distance running.
 
Jun 21, 2011
322
0
0
Mambo95 said:
Like race radio bans, bonuses are something that people think improve things (through natural instinct), but actually probably don't. It's one of those counter-intuitive things. They just distort things.

That's a sweeping generalisation. Bonuses have very little effect on how flat stages and extremely difficult mountainous stages are raced but they do benefit the racing on stages with moderately difficult finishes.

There's a decent chance Nibali wouldn't of bothered attacking on the descent during yesterday's stage if there wasn't the potential to gain 20 seconds at the finish. He was given an added incentive to attack and expend that energy because the potential gain was worth it.