The Role of TTTs in Stage Races

[jens_attacks]

But they all rode for Armstrong.

Contador would have likely lost the Tour on Skil so all the talk about Astana being the weakest team in the field is the most laughably ridiculous thing that I've read on this forum and this says a lot.

Hell, I think I've found my new signature.

yep Maxiton you scrrewed it this time
astana 2009 was one of the strongest teams in le tour of the last two decades.it helped contador immensely,it would helped him even if they didn't want to that's how strong they were

 

[cineteq]

In a ttt he has NO CHANCE.

Read Cobblestoned previous answer for this argument. Your Scarponis, Sanchezes, Cunegos and their respective teams have many months in advance to prepare for a TTT. They can definitely cut their losses if they want to.

 

[jens_attacks]

Read Cobblestoned previous answer for this argument. Your Scarponis, Sanchezes, Cunegos and their respective teams have many months in advance to prepare for a TTT. They can definitely cut their losses if they want to.

it's better to whine about it i guess.

my most eloquent example is androni giocattoli.they improved the technique of the ttt tremendously.lot of work but it pays off

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Sure, you could weaken the team role by eliminating the team time trial, but in doing so you'd arguably lessen the potential for excitement in the race. If riders who are capable of winning lose on account of the team time trial, they just need to find a better team.

Were the Tours from 2006-2008 really that much worse than their predecessors? What excitement did the TTT in 2009 bring the race? It eliminated half the field of contenders, and the teams that won the TTT were the strongest (unsurprisingly), so they annihilated any break containing anybody of any interest, making it impossible for any time to be won back.

That Astana team could comfortably squeeze all the life out of the race, and because they had such a big headstart, anybody who attempted to make something interesting of the race inevitably was either swallowed again or bonked completely. There wasn't the opportunity except in one stage to make that time back.

Why anybody would use 2009, the most obvious example of a TTT completely and utterly ruining a race, as an example in favour of TTTs is beyond me. Surely it would be better to point to the almost universally-praised 2010 Giro or the popular 2011 Tour as an example of races where the TTT apparently added something (gave Scarponi and Evans deficits to make up, gave us the opportunity for the Thor Hushovd show)?

 

[Havetts]

I think some people might not like the TTT after this year because of Stage 1 in the TdF. Had everyone came in in the same time, the distance between Schleck & Samu wouldve been only around 1 min 10 or Contador around 30 to 40 seconds.. But it was 2 minutes now cause of the fall by the Astana rider that blocked the peloton.

I'm sure that weighs in on some peoples opinions too.

 

[Granville57]

Case in point, Contador in 2009. You could argue that as far as he and his interests were concerned, his team was the weakest in the field.

True, because his "team" was an "army of one" that year.

Beyond the fact that I would love to see the TTT done on standard road bikes, I'm not sure what to add that hasn't already been said in this thread.
But clearly, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a new year is upon us because I fully agree with all three of Cobblestoned's posts!

 

[cineteq]

Were the Tours from 2006-2008 really that much worse than their predecessors? What excitement did the TTT in 2009 bring the race? It eliminated half the field of contenders, and the teams that won the TTT were the strongest (unsurprisingly), so they annihilated any break containing anybody of any interest, making it impossible for any time to be won back.

Yup 39 Km TTT. Did it make sense to have such a long TTT provided the overall parcours? Were they enough decisive stages to balance out that effect? Blame it on the organizers not the event itself.

I challenge you to provide a better example.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Read Cobblestoned previous answer for this argument. Your Scarponis, Sanchezes, Cunegos and their respective teams have many months in advance to prepare for a TTT. They can definitely cut their losses if they want to.

But it's not as simple as "go to a better TTT team". There are more riders who can contend for a win than there are teams who can feasibly do a good TTT. Not least because the teams with the most money tend to throw that at the question. It stands to reason that either some of those guys are going to have to co-lead or superdomestique if they move to a stronger TTT team (thus strengthening the divide between the rich and poor, and increasing the disparity in TTT times as well), or, they're going to continue to get left out in the cold, and start every GT with a minute's handicap.

 

[Cobblestoned]

it's better to whine about it i guess.

my most eloquent example is androni giocattoli.they improved the technique of the ttt tremendously.lot of work but it pays off

I think Liquigas is another one.

 

[Maxiton]

Were the Tours from 2006-2008 really that much worse than their predecessors? What excitement did the TTT in 2009 bring the race? It eliminated half the field of contenders, and the teams that won the TTT were the strongest (unsurprisingly), so they annihilated any break containing anybody of any interest, making it impossible for any time to be won back.

That Astana team could comfortably squeeze all the life out of the race, and because they had such a big headstart, anybody who attempted to make something interesting of the race inevitably was either swallowed again or bonked completely. There wasn't the opportunity except in one stage to make that time back.

Why anybody would use 2009, the most obvious example of a TTT completely and utterly ruining a race, as an example in favour of TTTs is beyond me. Surely it would be better to point to the almost universally-praised 2010 Giro or the popular 2011 Tour as an example of races where the TTT apparently added something (gave Scarponi and Evans deficits to make up, gave us the opportunity for the Thor Hushovd show)?

True, because his "team" was an "army of one" that year.

Beyond the fact that I would love to see the TTT done on standard road bikes, I'm not sure what to add that hasn't already been said in this thread.
But clearly, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a new year is upon usbecause I fully agree with all three of Cobblestoned's posts!

I wasn't using it as an example in favor of TTTs. I was using it as an example of a rider winning without a team.

When you take into account everything else that went on, on the road and especially off the road, in the hotel, you could make the case that Contador had the biggest disadvantage of all the real contenders in the field, his strong team notwithstanding. Outside of the TTT where they had no choice, his own team did pretty much everything they could to help him lose. He was an army of one, and any other rider would have lost that Tour under those conditions.

However, the case you make, LS, for the TTTs in 2010 and 2011 is a pretty good one.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I wasn't using it as an example in favor of TTTs. I was using it as an example of a rider winning without a team.

When you take into account everything else that went on, on the road and especially off the road, in the hotel, you could make the case that Contador had the biggest disadvantage of all the real contenders in the field, his strong team notwithstanding. Outside of the TTT where they had no choice, his own team did pretty much everything they could to help him lose. He was an army of one, and any other rider would have lost that Tour under those conditions.

However, the case you make, LS, for the TTTs in 2010 and 2011 is a pretty good one.

The thing is, Contador was NOT disadvantaged at all from a racing perspective. After all, he was still shepherded by the strong team and delivered to the final climb of the day, where he could do his bidding, and he could choose his point of attack, because he was ahead due to the TTT. Contador in the 2011 Giro, THAT was winning without a team.

The 2010 Giro could have been mighty dull had it not been for L'Aquila; that time Scarponi and Evans lost in the TTT would have been more important for sure (as has previously been stated, Scarponi lost twice as much in that 30km as in the other 3000km, and none of it his fault).

The 2011 Tour was made interesting after 2 boring weeks by Andy Schleck suddenly realising that he sucks against the clock and had wasted two of his four opportunities to win the race, and because Contador and Sánchez had to go on those doomed missions to gain back time lost, not just in the TTT, but in the messup in stage 1. Maybe Schleck wouldn't have been so circumspect in the Pyrénées if we'd had an ITT instead of a TTT, because he'd have been behind by that point. Instead, they sat around with their thumbs up their backsides doing nothing for 2 weeks, and everybody was more or less on their TTT time for 11 stages, crashes notwithstanding.

The problem with incorporating the TTT into the GT, outside of the problem of unfairness, is that it doesn't need to be in all the time (the Giro is particular enamoured of it), it should be a change of pace once in a while, a special attraction, not a go-to factor. And the other problem is of balancing the parcours. It seems that organisers at the moment are having trouble with putting together a route with one; the Tour at the moment seems to make it too integral, the Giro and Vuelta seem to make it superfluous. It doesn't seem to fit at the moment, unless organisers can work out the rest of their routes.

 

[The Hitch]

Read Cobblestoned previous answer for this argument. Your Scarponis, Sanchezes, Cunegos and their respective teams have many months in advance to prepare for a TTT. They can definitely cut their losses if they want to.

As do all the teams. So if EE or Lampre spend months preparing, and so do HTC Garmin Leopard, HTC Garmin and Leopard still end up crushing EE in the ttt.

Preparing months in advanced will not make the Stangelis, Txurrukas, Serpas of this world good tters any more than spending a few months in the Alpes will make Cav a Yellow jersey contender.

 

[Maxiton]

But Astana won the TTT in 2009 - put 3 riders in the GC top ten - and the rest of the top ten came exclusively from the top 4 teams in the TTT.

Obviously they were a strong team, arguably the strongest in the race. But if your team, the one you were at one time supposed to be leader of, is working for someone else, and if that someone else and his pal - your boss - are giving you the cold shoulder and doing everything else they can to undermine you and your morale; if they're working on the road for someone, but that someone isn't you - then just how much of an advantage is this strong team? Or would it be more appropriate to call it a disadvantage?

Well let's hear that argument. TTTs favour strong teams. Strong teams are already at an advantage. Therefore TTTs tip the balance further to one side. That makes for more predictable racing with the odds stacked further against the smaller teams. Less uncertainty, less excitement. Force good riders to all sign for the same teams and you have poorly matched contests across the calendar with weak teams getting weaker, and strong stronger. How is that a good thing?

Again, it's all about balance. Individual time trials exist to balance out undue advantages to strong teams. (Likewise cobbled stages. A team may be strong on climbs but weak on cobbles.) Balance.

 

[roundabout]

TTTs were the primary reason this guy and some others rode the Tour so it's possible to lessen the damage in advance

http://cqranking.com/men/asp/gen/rider_palm.asp?riderid=1124&year=0&all=0&current=0

 

[cineteq]

As do all the teams. So if EE or Lampre spend months preparing, and so do HTC Garmin Leopard, HTC Garmin and Leopard still end up crushing EE in the ttt.

Hmmm...I wonder if you know what cutting their losses mean?

Preparing months in advanced will not make the Stangelis, Txurrukas, Serpas of this world good tters any more than spending a few months in the Alpes will make Cav a Yellow jersey contender.

This is more like wishful thinking on your part. Sometimes you're funny.

 

[Maxiton]

The thing is, Contador was NOT disadvantaged at all from a racing perspective. After all, he was still shepherded by the strong team and delivered to the final climb of the day, where he could do his bidding, and he could choose his point of attack, because he was ahead due to the TTT. Contador in the 2011 Giro, THAT was winning without a team.

I concede that Contador was advantaged with a strong team. Clearly. And in the end it did help him. But only because he was strong enough to withstand pressures that would have cracked anyone else in the peloton. Without that singular strength he'd have lost because of his team.

And that is precisely what I meant by "arguably weakest" - if your team is the biggest obstacle you face in the race (which I believe is what Contador himself called it) - and if it requires super human strength to overcome it, in order to arrive at the finish line - then I'd call that a pretty weak "advantage", all things considered. In fact, I think it's safe to say that Contador never wants to have that advantage again.

The 2010 Giro could have been mighty dull had it not been for L'Aquila; that time Scarponi and Evans lost in the TTT would have been more important for sure (as has previously been stated, Scarponi lost twice as much in that 30km as in the other 3000km, and none of it his fault).

The 2011 Tour was made interesting after 2 boring weeks by Andy Schleck suddenly realising that he sucks against the clock and had wasted two of his four opportunities to win the race, and because Contador and Sánchez had to go on those doomed missions to gain back time lost, not just in the TTT, but in the messup in stage 1. Maybe Schleck wouldn't have been so circumspect in the Pyrénées if we'd had an ITT instead of a TTT, because he'd have been behind by that point. Instead, they sat around with their thumbs up their backsides doing nothing for 2 weeks, and everybody was more or less on their TTT time for 11 stages, crashes notwithstanding.

The problem with incorporating the TTT into the GT, outside of the problem of unfairness, is that it doesn't need to be in all the time (the Giro is particular enamoured of it), it should be a change of pace once in a while, a special attraction, not a go-to factor. And the other problem is of balancing the parcours. It seems that organisers at the moment are having trouble with putting together a route with one; the Tour at the moment seems to make it too integral, the Giro and Vuelta seem to make it superfluous. It doesn't seem to fit at the moment, unless organisers can work out the rest of their routes.

I guess I don't see it as being particularly unfair if it's part of a properly balanced parcours. In that case it provides variety and possible excitement and helps to balance out other things. I suppose the organizers, meanwhile, have a great deal to take into account when designing the parcours and can't always do what they'd like. I don't think any particular type of stage should be put in arbitrarily, but nor do I think any should be left out arbitrarily.

 

[Tank Engine]

I hated TTTs in the US Postal era, but I'm starting to appreciate them to a degree now. I actually enjoyed the Vuelta TTT. A short course (15km) with a 3-4km climb at the start, so there were a few surprises. None of the top riders lost more than a minute and the teams of the top 3 finishers both had shocking rides.

In the ladies' giro a few years back (2004), they had a TTT with a hill top finish (I think the riders got their own times), which seemed to go down well (but then I'm biased because Cooke won). The tactics of such a TTT would be interesting.

So, in GTs long flat TTTs (since some serious contenders will disappear from contention from no fault of their own), but a sort of prologue TTT (15k) with a hill would be OK by me from time to time.

I'm glad they're adding a TTT to the World Championships though.

 

[The Hitch]

Hmmm...I wonder if you know what cutting their losses mean?

I have no idea what you are on about

This is more like wishful thinking on your part. Sometimes you're funny.

More like bad comprehension skills on your part.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I concede that Contador was advantaged with a strong team. Clearly. And in the end it did help him. But only because he was strong enough to withstand pressures that would have cracked anyone else in the peloton. Without that singular strength he'd have lost because of his team.

And that is precisely what I meant by "arguably weakest" - if your team is the biggest obstacle you face in the race (which I believe is what Contador himself called it) - and if it requires super human strength to overcome it, in order to arrive at the finish line - then I'd call that a pretty weak "advantage", all things considered. In fact, I think it's safe to say that Contador never wants to have that advantage again.

In the scope of the race perhaps Contador having a team working for someone else was a psychological hurdle.

But that team gained him mucho time in the TTT, and because their "real" leader was also in the GC mix, did all the break policing and threat neutralising for him. In a discussion of the TTT and its effect on the GC, suggesting Astana 2009 hurt Contador is ludicrous.

That team was super strong and would probably have controlled the race without the TTT; with the TTT giving their GC-contender-with-a-strong-ITT-stacked team a minute's headstart on everyone it went from them controlling the race to them strangling the life out of it.

 

[Maxiton]

In the scope of the race perhaps Contador having a team working for someone else was a psychological hurdle.

But that team gained him mucho time in the TTT, and because their "real" leader was also in the GC mix, did all the break policing and threat neutralising for him. In a discussion of the TTT and its effect on the GC, suggesting Astana 2009 hurt Contador is ludicrous.

That team was super strong and would probably have controlled the race without the TTT; with the TTT giving their GC-contender-with-a-strong-ITT-stacked team a minute's headstart on everyone it went from them controlling the race to them strangling the life out of it.

But I wasn't discussing it in that context, you were. Your point, and I commend you for being consistent with it, is that TTTs give strong teams an overweening advantage and therefore suck the excitement straight out of the race. I point to the 2009 Tour as an example of a rider overcoming even his own team to win the race, and you say, are you kidding me? that's exactly what I'm talking about. The team time trial resulted in the strongest team placing itself out of reach of everyone else.

If you concede that Contador had a great deal more than a "psychological hurdle" to overcome, in order to win the Tour - and this is obvious; then I will also concede the obvious and agree that team time trials can skew - and screw - a race beyond all redemption. But I don't blame that on team time trials, per se, I blame it on the parcours, and therefore on the organizers. It certainly doesn't reflect on the TTT discipline itself, and it doesn't mean that the team time trial isn't valid.

 

[Maxiton]

But they all rode for Armstrong.

Contador would have likely lost the Tour on Skil so all the talk about Astana being the weakest team in the field is the most laughably ridiculous thing that I've read on this forum and this says a lot.

Hell, I think I've found my new signature.

If you want to take a little hyperbole literally, be my guest, but it makes you look bad, not me.

 

[taiwan]

Obviously they were a strong team, arguably the strongest in the race. But if your team, the one you were at one time supposed to be leader of, is working for someone else, and if that someone else and his pal - your boss - are giving you the cold shoulder and doing everything else they can to undermine you and your morale; if they're working on the road for someone, but that someone isn't you - then just how much of an advantage is this strong team? Or would it be more appropriate to call it a disadvantage?

In a TTT? It's an advantage.

Again, it's all about balance. Individual time trials exist to balance out undue advantages to strong teams. (Likewise cobbled stages. A team may be strong on climbs but weak on cobbles.) Balance.

So you're saying that TTTs counterbalance ITTs? Fuk watching a GT balanced like that, sorry.

 

[Maxiton]

In a TTT? It's an advantage.

Never said in a TTT. Try reading it again.

So you're saying that TTTs counterbalance ITTs? Fuk watching a GT balanced like that, sorry.

TTTs and ITs are but two possible components in a GT. All the components interplay with one another in some kind of balance, obviously. If there's too much imbalance - and I think this is Libertine's point - you have a less enjoyable race. To me this seems self-evident, not controversial.

Can you have a team time trial in a GT and still have a balanced tour? Obviously. Would you use individual time trials to help provide that balance? Almost every time. You'd probably use some other things, too, like cobbles and climbing stages. Again, doesn't seem like a controversial point.

 

[Ferminal]

Can you have a team time trial in a GT and still have a balanced tour? Obviously. Would you use individual time trials to help provide that balance? Almost every time. You'd probably use some other things, too, like cobbles and climbing stages. Again, doesn't seem like a controversial point.

Balance is only an issue with TTTs if they are counted as magical miles which balance out against the "climbers" i.e. TTT miles =/= ITT miles. I don't think anyone is saying it, but the perception of a TTT improving balance is wrong, because there's few knowns and far more variables than looking at individual contenders and saying one prefers climbing and one likes time trials.

 

[Angliru]

Wow. Someone with a sense for beautiful things. Mentioned it earlier.
I guess most people just never experienced it.
Balance - Yes

Besides that, it is a discipline of cycling and part of a GT. If some teams or riders don't take this serious and just moan instead of practicing it, it's their problem. Over and out.

I hope you realize that it is not as cut and dried as you imply. Big budget teams have a much wider array of talent to choose from to gear their teams to whatever demands the designers of the grand tours' parcours decide upon for each year. The other teams can't simply buy the best in talent in terms of TT's without losing strength in other areas. The TTT if used in a grand tour should be relatively short in length, giving an edge to those teams better at it but not putting the have-nots at such a disadvantage that all is completely lost upon it's completion.