Team Time Trials

[abbaskip]

it's not an organisers fault teams suck in a ttt. the teams should better prepare for it.

Yes, but you seem to be missing the point. They should be preparing to have the best individual for the GC, not the best team for a TTT. It's not about preparation, teams fill their teams with specialist TTTers, as it's essentially headstart, without the GC rider having to do the work himself.

 

[abbaskip]

And I guess you missed how Credit Agricole won the TTT.

Voigt, O'Grady, Julich, Hushovd, Vaughters...hardly slouches now, were they?

The best riders in a TTT aren't necessarily the same as those in an ITT. Strong, fast riders suit it perfectly, as they do a big turn then swing up and recover. So Thor and Stuey are perfect, then you have a backbone of JV, BJ and Voigt...

Even so, practice or team strength is irrelevant, it's an individual classification, so should be won with individual stages.

 

[abbaskip]

And the ttt is a competition between the 5th best riders in the team.

Exactly. The teams classification is all about the team consistently having members finish near the front. It can't take into account too many riders, or teams get hurt way too much from riders pulling out.

It's not about the third best rider as was stated, it's the three best riders each stage, which can be very different from a rolling stage, flat stage, mountain stage or ITT. And the fact that it's the three, not just third is a huge difference too. If one is in a break away and gains ten minutes, that's very different than the teams third best rider that stage.

The team's classification is a good way to determine the most consistent team. That's what it's there for.

GC is for individuals. Teams help them, by sheltering them through hard stages etc, but it still should be down to the individual. The TTT is not.

Finally, this ridiculous argument about teams qualifying for races, not riders. It's the points riders earn, in individual races that get them there. And usually individual riders that earn a team a wild card.

 

[cineteq]

Even so, practice or team strength is irrelevant, it's an individual classification, so should be won with individual stages.

So it's okay for Evans, BMC to lose 1.30 min. in Nice's TTT. He'll get it back later. Gotcha.

 

[Netserk]

I can accept a TTT in a GT IF it were with individual timing. It would also make it a lot more tactical and interesting to follow. This way a strong team can help the leader, but a weak team can't slow the leader down.

 

[Magnus]

Voigt, O'Grady, Julich, Hushovd, Vaughters...hardly slouches now, were they?

Not in their own right, but compared to Disco they were.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Yes, but you seem to be missing the point. They should be preparing to have the best individual for the GC, not the best team for a TTT. It's not about preparation, teams fill their teams with specialist TTTers, as it's essentially headstart, without the GC rider having to do the work himself.

itt and ttt have almost nothing to do with each other. ttt is a discpline on it's one and when trained and prepared well you won't lose much time. see androni and colnago this year for instance or acqua en sapone how much they improved without itt monsters

 

[Alpehue]

Im deffinetly pro TTT's, its a team sport, lets see which team is the strongest!

 

[postmanhat]

It's daft that they can affect The GC

Let them contribute to the overall team standings only, as that is all they relect, if that?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

One might think a sensitive poster like you would like to see the TTT in a GT, but I was wrong. In the past, your arguments have been weak, and they haven't improved. You don't seem to see the big picture here. Think TEAM.

If it were a once-in-a-while special attraction, I'd probably like it. When it's used in near enough every GT, it has little function.

As I said, the main arguments for appear to be twofold:
1) spectacle
2) balanced teams

2) I think is a fair argument; 1) I don't.

I don't think the TTT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with an ITT, and I think harder rouleur stages would encourage a more balanced team without giving an automatic headstart to the riders who already have the advantages anyway.

Also, while it's nice to think team, most of the most exciting stages we've seen in the last while have been due to the leaders acting as individuals from an early point, rather than being nicely and carefully protected by their teams. I favour doing things to prevent the strong teams being overly advantaged, and to try to prevent the USPS/Banesto/Sky template from taking hold, because in my opinion, it is better for the spectacle not to have these controlling influences, because racing is more exciting and interesting when there is a lack of control.

Therefore, giving the advantage, and therefore the reason to want to maintain control, to the teams who are best at keeping control and preventing unpredictability and excitement, is in my opinion detrimental to the spectacle.

 

[cineteq]

I don't think the TTT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with an ITT, and I think harder rouleur stages would encourage a more balanced team without giving an automatic headstart to the riders who already have the advantages anyway.

Fairer? Is life fair? By the same argument I can say "I don't think the ITT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with mountain stages". See what I mean jelly bean?

Also, while it's nice to think team, most of the most exciting stages we've seen in the last while have been due to the leaders acting as individuals from an early point, rather than being nicely and carefully protected by their teams.

Ok one of the most exciting stages this year...let's see...Fuente Dè. It seems to me your argument doesn't work there.

I favour doing things to prevent the strong teams being overly advantaged, and to try to prevent the USPS/Banesto/Sky template from taking hold, because in my opinion, it is better for the spectacle not to have these controlling influences, because racing is more exciting and interesting when there is a lack of control.

Katusha this year is a god example on why your argument doesn't work. Its GC leader had a handicap and they came prepared and delivered. To prevent the UK Postals template other measures need to be taken, but nothing to do with TTTs.

Think of a TTT stage as another hurdle. From the tactical standpoint, teams instead of bringing just mountain helpers, now they have to replace them with 2 or 3 TTers or good overall riders to cut their possible losses.

 

[peloton]

Love watching the TTT's. Just keep them short enough (25-35km) that it won't decide the race in a GT.

 

[Altitude]

Less TTT, more cobblestones. 2010 Tour, stage 3 - yes please.

By the way I hate how garmin places so much emphasis on winning the TTT. Who the phuck cares.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Fairer? Is life fair? By the same argument I can say "I don't think the ITT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with mountain stages". See what I mean jelly bean?

Life isn't fair, so we should allow Armstrong to keep his TDF wins, since the other guys can suck it up and deal with the unfairness.

Are you seriously arguing "life isn't fair" as a reason to justify an inherently unfair format?

Ok one of the most exciting stages this year...let's see...Fuente Dè. It seems to me your argument doesn't work there.

Except for where the reason it was exciting was that Saxo's and Movistar's tactics meant that Rodríguez was isolated from his team early, and his was the team that had been controlling the race. So actually, it fits the template pretty well - big stars riding alone or in small groups early because of an inability of strong teams to control the race.

Katusha this year is a god example on why your argument doesn't work. Its GC leader had a handicap and they came prepared and delivered. To prevent the UK Postals template other measures need to be taken, but nothing to do with TTTs.

Think of a TTT stage as another hurdle. From the tactical standpoint, teams instead of bringing just mountain helpers, now they have to replace them with 2 or 3 TTers or good overall riders to cut their possible losses.

I have acknowledged that the "need to have a more balanced team" aspect is the one pro-TTT argument I've ever heard that makes some sense to me.

I just think harder rouleur stages, echelon-baiting stages, some cobbles or strade bianche here and there and so on is a better way to do it than by some silly gimmickry that skews the GC in favour of those who already have the advantages.

I mean, do we start NFL games by giving the favourites an easy field goal try, to try to encourage the weaker team to play more aggressively? Since Greece won Euro 2004, a lot of smaller nations in football have built a team around holding for 0-0 or stealing a goal from a set piece to win 1-0. Do we start the game with a penalty to the better team, to try to encourage those teams from putting such a defensive side out?

After all, life isn't fair, right?

 

[ferryman]

If it were a once-in-a-while special attraction, I'd probably like it. When it's used in near enough every GT, it has little function.

As I said, the main arguments for appear to be twofold:
1) spectacle
2) balanced teams

2) I think is a fair argument; 1) I don't.

I don't think the TTT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with an ITT, and I think harder rouleur stages would encourage a more balanced team without giving an automatic headstart to the riders who already have the advantages anyway.

Also, while it's nice to think team, most of the most exciting stages we've seen in the last while have been due to the leaders acting as individuals from an early point, rather than being nicely and carefully protected by their teams. I favour doing things to prevent the strong teams being overly advantaged, and to try to prevent the USPS/Banesto/Sky template from taking hold, because in my opinion, it is better for the spectacle not to have these controlling influences, because racing is more exciting and interesting when there is a lack of control.

Therefore, giving the advantage, and therefore the reason to want to maintain control, to the teams who are best at keeping control and preventing unpredictability and excitement, is in my opinion detrimental to the spectacle.

I still like the TTT. But on reflection, if it is to be included include some serious inclines in it.

 

[The Hitch]

Fairer? Is life fair? By the same argument I can say "I don't think the ITT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with mountain stages". See what I mean jelly bean?

.

Itts are unfair

Think of a TTT stage as another hurdle. From the tactical standpoint, teams instead of bringing just mountain helpers, now they have to replace them with 2 or 3 TTers or good overall riders to cut their possible losses

Typical old boys club bull****. Absolutely no considerations for teams that dont have 15 million to spend on riders and just pluck out a team of tters for a time trial at will.

Also btw favors teams who can dope their climbers to overperform tts, but i do see a bit of a correlation between those who take the hedonistic - "i want carnage NOW, whatever the price" approach to 1 issue, and the other.

 

[cineteq]

Life isn't fair, so we should allow Armstrong to keep his TDF wins, since the other guys can suck it up and deal with the unfairness.

Are you seriously arguing "life isn't fair" as a reason to justify an inherently unfair format?

Your analogy doesn't work since Armstrong did something illegal, thus he cheated. TTTs are not illegal, having money to have the best team is NOT illegal. Doping aside, having the team healthy is not illegal, neither is having the riders getting the best nutrition. Having the best preparation is not illegal. Money is not everything to get a good result, read on.

Except for where the reason it was exciting was that Saxo's and Movistar's tactics meant that Rodríguez was isolated from his team early, and his was the team that had been controlling the race. So actually, it fits the template pretty well - big stars riding alone or in small groups early because of an inability of strong teams to control the race.

Wut? How is this UK postal? I was expecting more of you here.

I just think harder rouleur stages, echelon-baiting stages, some cobbles or strade bianche here and there and so on is a better way to do it than by some silly gimmickry that skews the GC in favour of those who already have the advantages.

I mean, do we start NFL games by giving the favourites an easy field goal try, to try to encourage the weaker team to play more aggressively? Since Greece won Euro 2004, a lot of smaller nations in football have built a team around holding for 0-0 or stealing a goal from a set piece to win 1-0. Do we start the game with a penalty to the better team, to try to encourage those teams from putting such a defensive side out?

The favorite NFL team having a field goal advantage is not fair. Your premise that TTTs are unfair is the issue here, thus your analogy doesn't work because I don't think TTTs are unfair. For me it's just another stage, a unique stage, similar a cobbles stage or strade bianche. It's also not unfair since teams know well in advance what to expect. We've seen few times how low budget teams prepared and performed well, and got close to the best times. And we've seen also strong teams, on paper, to have under performed.

Anyway, again, we agree to disagree.

Seriously, are we all fighting over these gaps? :
2011 TdF TTT (23km)
1 TEAM GARMIN - CERVELO 24:48
2 BMC RACING TEAM 24:53 + 00:04
3 SKY PROCYCLING 24:53 + 00:04
4 TEAM LEOPARD-TREK 24:53 + 00:05
5 HTC - HIGHROAD 24:54 + 00:05
6 TEAM RADIOSHACK 24:59 + 00:10
7 RABOBANK CYCLING TEAM 25:00 + 00:12
8 SAXO BANK SUNGARD 25:16 + 00:28
9 PRO TEAM ASTANA 25:20 + 00:32
10 OMEGA PHARMA - LOTTO 25:28 + 00:39

 

[mr. tibbs]

If it were a once-in-a-while special attraction, I'd probably like it. When it's used in near enough every GT, it has little function.

As I said, the main arguments for appear to be twofold:
1) spectacle
2) balanced teams

2) I think is a fair argument; 1) I don't.

I don't think the TTT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with an ITT, and I think harder rouleur stages would encourage a more balanced team without giving an automatic headstart to the riders who already have the advantages anyway.

Also, while it's nice to think team, most of the most exciting stages we've seen in the last while have been due to the leaders acting as individuals from an early point, rather than being nicely and carefully protected by their teams. I favour doing things to prevent the strong teams being overly advantaged, and to try to prevent the USPS/Banesto/Sky template from taking hold, because in my opinion, it is better for the spectacle not to have these controlling influences, because racing is more exciting and interesting when there is a lack of control.

Therefore, giving the advantage, and therefore the reason to want to maintain control, to the teams who are best at keeping control and preventing unpredictability and excitement, is in my opinion detrimental to the spectacle.

I came here to post pretty much that. Thanks for taking care of it for me. Plus Hitch's comment about TTTs just rewarding the teams with enough money to blow the small teams all over the road.

Also, ITTs and mountain stages can do radically different things. For example, Le Tour 2011. No final ITT: Schleck wins.

TTTs are stupid. They make for decent pictures. Whatever. I like watching races, not stylized processionals.

 

[abbaskip]

So it's okay for Evans, BMC to lose 1.30 min. in Nice's TTT. He'll get it back later. Gotcha.

No, it's not. I'm completely against that, which is my whole point, and why I started this thread? Where am I not clear?

 

[abbaskip]

itt and ttt have almost nothing to do with each other. ttt is a discpline on it's one and when trained and prepared well you won't lose much time. see androni and colnago this year for instance or acqua en sapone how much they improved without itt monsters

Yes TTT is it's own discipline. Read all of my posts, I've acknowledged that. But just practicing doesn't make you the best team. Having a team of guys who are good TTTers does.

 

[abbaskip]

Fairer? Is life fair? By the same argument I can say "I don't think the ITT brings anything to the table that couldn't be done just as well (and fairer) with mountain stages". See what I mean jelly bean?

You've gone on to say Armstrong doping is a separate argument, as he broke the rules - fair enough. What you have failed to acknowledge in your post above though is that mountain stages and ITTs are still based on an individual skill. Not your team mates being the strongest and making you up time. TTTs aren't fair because it's not your result, it's your team's you can be a passenger. ITT and Mountains are both much more individual silks. Team mates can help in the mountains, but it's still your time that counts.

 

[abbaskip]

Your analogy doesn't work since Armstrong did something illegal, thus he cheated. TTTs are not illegal, having money to have the best team is NOT illegal. Doping aside, having the team healthy is not illegal, neither is having the riders getting the best nutrition. Having the best preparation is not illegal. Money is not everything to get a good result, read on.

Wut? How is this UK postal? I was expecting more of you here.

The favorite NFL team having a field goal advantage is not fair. Your premise that TTTs are unfair is the issue here, thus your analogy doesn't work because I don't think TTTs are unfair. For me it's just another stage, a unique stage, similar a cobbles stage or strade bianche. It's also not unfair since teams know well in advance what to expect. We've seen few times how low budget teams prepared and performed well, and got close to the best times. And we've seen also strong teams, on paper, to have under performed.

Anyway, again, we agree to disagree.

Seriously, are we all fighting over these gaps? :
2011 TdF TTT (23km)
1 TEAM GARMIN - CERVELO 24:48
2 BMC RACING TEAM 24:53 + 00:04
3 SKY PROCYCLING 24:53 + 00:04
4 TEAM LEOPARD-TREK 24:53 + 00:05
5 HTC - HIGHROAD 24:54 + 00:05
6 TEAM RADIOSHACK 24:59 + 00:10
7 RABOBANK CYCLING TEAM 25:00 + 00:12
8 SAXO BANK SUNGARD 25:16 + 00:28
9 PRO TEAM ASTANA 25:20 + 00:32
10 OMEGA PHARMA - LOTTO 25:28 + 00:39

Why are they unfair? Because it's the team's result, not yours. Because 8 good TTTers can give a climber a huge advantage, without the climber having to work too hard. Is it really that unclear?

The gaps above aren't too bad, but you stopped at 10, and this was a short TTT - these are the lesser of two evils

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Yes TTT is it's own discipline. Read all of my posts, I've acknowledged that. But just practicing doesn't make you the best team. Having a team of guys who are good TTTers does.

not the best team but a good team it can make you. again check colnago and acqua sapone this yera how much they improved and they have the same riders

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

Why are they unfair? Because it's the team's result, not yours. Because 8 good TTTers can give a climber a huge advantage, without the climber having to work too hard. Is it really that unclear?

The gaps above aren't too bad, but you stopped at 10, and this was a short TTT - these are the lesser of two evils

you are obviously clueless about ttt's and have never rode a bike yourself

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Androni's huge improvement brought them from 19th @ 2'24" over 33km in the 2010 Giro, to 20th @ 1'44" over 32km in the 2012 Giro. The 2012 course was a little easier, and thus gaps in general were a bit smaller.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of how much Androni have improved as a justification of their inclusion. Oh, and also, Colnago-CSF were 15th in that 2010 TTT, and 19th in the 2012 one, so hardly a major endorsement of their improvements either.

Also, in that 2010 Giro, Michele Scarponi finished 26" behind Basso in individual stages, but because of that TTT, he finished at 2'50" and finished 4th, with Arroyo and Nibali between.

There is no way Michele Scarponi loses 2'24" to Ivan Basso in an ITT. He is much more likely, in fact, to have gained that 26". It is presumptuous to say that the inclusion of the TTT cost Michele Scarponi that Giro, but it most certainly cost him the podium.

Again, if they were a special attraction we saw in one or two races a year, it might be exciting. But instead we see lots of them every year.