Tiebreakers in stage races

[Armchair cyclist]

It was briefly an issue in Catalunya this week, it has been a decisive matter in TDU more than once (I think) and in other races.

If there is no time trial, then cumulative positions are used to differentiate between two riders on the same time. But is this either safe or desirable?

Let's imagine a six stage race with two main protagonists, Teddy Pogglebar and Jonnie Vinegar. The first stage is never intended to be anything but a bunch sprint, neither of these two have ambitions for the stage, and they roll in peacefully in the bunch in positions 63 and 99 respectively. The next three stages see small groups of GC contenders battling it out, with TP coming 1st, 5th, 8th and 9th and JV getting three 4th places and then finally a win.
They come to the final stage equal on time with TP having a cumulative position score of 86 against 112 for JV. This is a sprinters' stage, but is it safe to have TP, JV and their teams trying to get into sprint positions when they are physiologically and tactically unsuited to compete with the specialists? Should TP really have such an advantage because he coasted the last 200 metres of stage 1 differently?


Or picture Roger Primozic winning 4 stages of a 5 day race that does not carry bonus time, only to be beaten to the GC by Eddy Remcepoel who was somewhere in the group following him each day, but on the stage before the first of Roger's wins, marred by a crash in the last 3km, ER came 78th but RP, who was well ahead of him, got brought down in the last 3km and was 110th by the time he had got up and got himself sorted.

In both cases, would sorting by best best results rather than best worst result not be much fairer? ie TP has 1,5, 8, 9, 63, but JV has 1,4,4,4, 99: JV's 4th should be decisive over TP's 5th; RP's wins should count for something more than his stage one misfortune.

Or is there another better way? Or some defence to be made of the status quo?

Do you see the sort of speculation that two days without racing drives us to?

 

[QueenStagiaire]

Best best positions i.e. more first places and more second places should always be the main tiebreaker in bike races.

 

[Skijumper Roglic fan]

This is a sprinters' stage, but is it safe to have TP, JV and their teams trying to get into sprint positions when they are physiologically and tactically unsuited to compete with the specialists?

This is a very good thread and a very good question. I in fact have been thinking about this for a longer time now, for months or few years.

I would answer your question, which I quoted, with „yes“.

Some time ago, I thought about this: why not make a final Tour de France GC out of the added stage ranks of every rider. So, no time adding. Just add the 21 stage ranks of very rider, and the rider with the lowest total number wins the TdF.

Sprinters would be forced to really race in the mountains (no grupetto any more). Climbers would be forced to go full gas to the line in the mass sprints. Time trialists would attack more often out of a fast peloton shortly before the finish line.

That‘s would cycling is about: race as fast as possible, on each terrain.

I think it would be safe, also. The more often bad bike handlers join a mass sprint, the better they become…

 

[QueenStagiaire]

This is a very good thread and a very good question. I in fact have been thinking about this for a longer time now, for months or few years.

I would answer your question, which I quoted, with „yes“.

Some time ago, I thought about this: why not make a final Tour de France GC out of the added stage ranks of every rider. So, no time adding. Just add the 21 stage ranks of very rider, and the rider with the lowest total number wins the TdF.

Sprinters would be forced to really race in the mountains (no grupetto any more). Climbers would be forced to go full gas to the line in the mass sprints. Time trialists would attack more often out of a fast peloton shortly before the finish line.

That‘s would cycling is about: race as fast as possible, on each terrain.

I think it would be safe, also. The more often bad bike handlers join a mass sprint, the better they become…

I am afraid of climbing stages becoming very unselective if this were the case as time gaps would become irrelevant.

 

[DoYouEvenRideBruh]

Climbers would be forced to go full gas to the line in the mass sprints.

 

[BR2]

It was briefly an issue in Catalunya this week, it has been a decisive matter in TDU more than once (I think) and in other races.

If there is no time trial, then cumulative positions are used to differentiate between two riders on the same time. But is this either safe or desirable?

Let's imagine a six stage race with two main protagonists, Teddy Pogglebar and Jonnie Vinegar. The first stage is never intended to be anything but a bunch sprint, neither of these two have ambitions for the stage, and they roll in peacefully in the bunch in positions 63 and 99 respectively. The next three stages see small groups of GC contenders battling it out, with TP coming 1st, 5th, 8th and 9th and JV getting three 4th places and then finally a win.
They come to the final stage equal on time with TP having a cumulative position score of 86 against 112 for JV. This is a sprinters' stage, but is it safe to have TP, JV and their teams trying to get into sprint positions when they are physiologically and tactically unsuited to compete with the specialists? Should TP really have such an advantage because he coasted the last 200 metres of stage 1 differently?


Or picture Roger Primozic winning 4 stages of a 5 day race that does not carry bonus time, only to be beaten to the GC by Eddy Remcepoel who was somewhere in the group following him each day, but on the stage before the first of Roger's wins, marred by a crash in the last 3km, ER came 78th but RP, who was well ahead of him, got brought down in the last 3km and was 110th by the time he had got up and got himself sorted.

In both cases, would sorting by best best results rather than best worst result not be much fairer? ie TP has 1,5, 8, 9, 63, but JV has 1,4,4,4, 99: JV's 4th should be decisive over TP's 5th; RP's wins should count for something more than his stage one misfortune.

Or is there another better way? Or some defence to be made of the status quo?

Do you see the sort of speculation that two days without racing drives us to?

I have to think about it. One thing I can say for sure: I absolutely love! Teddy Pogglebar and Jonnie Vinegar. I want to become Mrs Pogglebar. They are my favourite riders now.

 

[tobydawq]

This is a very good thread and a very good question. I in fact have been thinking about this for a longer time now, for months or few years.

I would answer your question, which I quoted, with „yes“.

Some time ago, I thought about this: why not make a final Tour de France GC out of the added stage ranks of every rider. So, no time adding. Just add the 21 stage ranks of very rider, and the rider with the lowest total number wins the TdF.

Sprinters would be forced to really race in the mountains (no grupetto any more). Climbers would be forced to go full gas to the line in the mass sprints. Time trialists would attack more often out of a fast peloton shortly before the finish line.

That‘s would cycling is about: race as fast as possible, on each terrain.

I think it would be safe, also. The more often bad bike handlers join a mass sprint, the better they become…

Lol. This is the stupidest suggestion I have ever seen. Sorry for my bluntness.

This was actually how the race was decided a few years before WW1.

 

[Skijumper Roglic fan]

Lol. This is the stupidest suggestion I have ever seen. Sorry for my bluntness.

This was actually how the race was decided a few years before WW1.

Yeah, but though road pro cycling is considered as rather conservative, they are always looking for creative changes. Just to keep the product attractive.

Many things, inventions, appear rather weird at first, but are worth to give it a try.

The concept of adding times is standard at the moment. And it is a good concept. But it has its weaknesses. This „same time for full group/full peloton“ system, for example, could be improved. And noting times does not always reflect the strength situation properly.

Also the system of adding rank numbers would have its advantages. And it would increase competitive thinking/approach.

Best thing in stage races could indeed be a combination of adding times and adding ranks. This is already practiced, but only plays a role in rare cases (equal time in GC, for example). I‘d give it a try.

As a frequent CN visitor, I of course frequently read about this domestic US racing scene, where Criteriums and similar formats are enormously popular. I often smile about this a little bit, since it doesn‘t have to do such a lot with the racing popular in Europe. But if people like these Criteriums, why not? It‘s all about points there.

So after a short time of recapitulation, I notice scales of added times, added ranks and added points, to create a classification. So, many possibilities already now, for selection, for awarding, etc.. Who knows if one day, even the rather conservative ASO will change their current system, to crown the winner of the Yellow Jersey by other means than adding overall times. Certainly possible…

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

I will repeat what i said in the Catalunya thread. As long as there is an actual timedifference, it should take priority over boniseconds.

Say rider A, let's call him Godran Ivanisevic, is able to drop rider B, let's call him Pete Samprass, and take 10 seconds. But Samprass is as Samprass does and he is able to gain 10 more boniseconds over the course of the competition. They are both tied in GC. Who should win? Should it be based on something trivial as placings in bunch sprints?

For me it's clear, actual time should always trump boniseconds (virtual time).

That doesn't help us in case both have an equal amount of boniseconds, while neither was able to distance the other. In that case it should obviously decided by an armwrestling contest.

 

[tobydawq]

I will repeat what i said in the Catalunya thread. As long as there is an actual timedifference, it should take priority over boniseconds.

Say rider A, let's call him Godran Ivanisevic, is able to drop rider B, let's call him Pete Samprass, and take 10 seconds. But Samprass is as Samprass does and he is able to gain 10 more boniseconds over the course of the competition. They are both tied in GC. Who should win? Should it be based on something trivial as placings in bunch sprints?

For me it's clear, actual time should always trump boniseconds (virtual time).

That doesn't help us in case both have an equal amount of boniseconds, while neither was able to distance the other. In that case it should obviously decided by an armwrestling contest.

After a week's ruminations upon the subject, I have to admit that I agree with you on this.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

After a week's ruminations upon the subject, I have to admit that I agree with you on this.

Yup. Armwrestling is hugely underrated.

 

[tobydawq]

Yup. Armwrestling is hugely underrated.

 

[Netserk]

I will repeat what i said in the Catalunya thread. As long as there is an actual timedifference, it should take priority over boniseconds.

Say rider A, let's call him Godran Ivanisevic, is able to drop rider B, let's call him Pete Samprass, and take 10 seconds. But Samprass is as Samprass does and he is able to gain 10 more boniseconds over the course of the competition. They are both tied in GC. Who should win? Should it be based on something trivial as placings in bunch sprints?

For me it's clear, actual time should always trump boniseconds (virtual time).

That doesn't help us in case both have an equal amount of boniseconds, while neither was able to distance the other. In that case it should obviously decided by an armwrestling contest.

So bonus seconds should be worth 0.99 seconds each.

I like the suggestion of best places more. Most stage wins, then most second places etc.

 

[rallybanana]

So after a short time of recapitulation, I notice scales of added times, added ranks and added points, to create a classification.

You could give it a name. Maybe something like "The Amalgamation Classification"

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

So bonus seconds should be worth 0.99 seconds each.

I like the suggestion of best places more. Most stage wins, then most second places etc.

That is not what i said, even though it would likely result in the same outcome. But if you win 10 stages, you get 100 boniseconds, not 99. That means your 100 boni seconds trump a rider with 99 seconds gained elsewhere. Boni seconds count fully. Only in a situation where riders in GC have the same time, the one with the least boniseconds (meaning with the most/biggest actual timegaps of the riders in that time) should be favored in placings.

It makes sense in order to value an actual gap over a virtual one in the concept of a general classification which is based on overall time throughout the contest. When a rider is able to distance himself from the group of favorites, and finish ahead by 6 seconds, but behind a breakaway of 3 riders which has already finished earlier, i think common sense dictates that this should be rewarded higher than when a rider is not able to distance himself from the group of favorites, finishing first of the group of favorites by 1 millimeter, but behind a lone breakeaway rider, which also awards him 6 seconds in bonification. If you want to debate that a 2nd place should be worth more than a 4th place, feel free to replace the situation with one where 6 boniseconds were gained in intermediate sprints.

It also makes sense, because boniseconds have been called into life, exactly to provide virtual separation when no actual separation was possible. It is an artificial solution for a certain scenario. It is a filter on top of results. In case of a tie, it makes sense to see what the actual situation is whithout this artificial filter which at that time is causing the very problem it was meant to solve. Stacking another filter on top makes less sense than removing the first filter and look at bare results.

 

[Netserk]

You are free to read it as 1 minus epsilon.