Time Bonuses in Giro & Vuelta?

[Froome19]

This years Vuelta was a fine spectacle. Two riders who though not expected to shine came through and put on a truly great show for the cycling audience yet there was only one flaw:
The fact that the eventual winner was not the rider who rode the course the fastest, therefore not the most deserving. Rather it was Chris Froome in second place who rode the fastest over the three weeks. It was only down to time bonuses that Cobo won and was crowned the Vuelta champion.
Grand tours are supposed to be the ultimate test for riders, with the strongest rider winning, so then why did Cobo ,who rode slower than Froome, win?
I believe the Giro & Vuelta should follow the Tour's heed and scrap the time bonuses as they distort the GC and ruin the spectacle. What do you think?

 

[mb2612]

This years Vuelta was a fine spectacle. Two riders who though not expected to shine came through and put on a truly great show for the cycling audience yet there was only one flaw:
The fact that the eventual winner was not the rider who rode the course the fastest, therefore not the most deserving. Rather it was Chris Froome in second place who rode the fastest over the three weeks. It was only down to time bonuses that Cobo won and was crowned the Vuelta champion.
Grand tours are supposed to be the ultimate test for riders, with the strongest rider winning, so then why did Cobo ,who rode slower than Froome, win?
I believe the Giro & Vuelta should follow the Tour's heed and scrap the time bonuses as they distort the GC and ruin the spectacle. What do you think?

They gave Froome a chance of victory on the final stages and encouraged him to go for it, leading to excitement on stage 21 about whether he would go for the sprint or not. It made the race better, and this coming from someone who wanted Froome to win.

 

[Panda Claws]

I love your username, right now.

 

[gustienordic]

This years Vuelta was a fine spectacle. Two riders who though not expected to shine came through and put on a truly great show for the cycling audience yet there was only one flaw:
The fact that the eventual winner was not the rider who rode the course the fastest, therefore not the most deserving. Rather it was Chris Froome in second place who rode the fastest over the three weeks. It was only down to time bonuses that Cobo won and was crowned the Vuelta champion.
Grand tours are supposed to be the ultimate test for riders, with the strongest rider winning, so then why did Cobo ,who rode slower than Froome, win?
I believe the Giro & Vuelta should follow the Tour's heed and scrap the time bonuses as they distort the GC and ruin the spectacle. What do you think?

It is a tough call, because it makes for better finish line sprints, especially with MTFs (if they have time bonuses) but if a rider is sure he can win time bonus after time bonus, then he can not attack and just wait to clean up the sprint.

 

[jens_attacks]

i think tour needs to reintroduce bonuses as soon as possible.
20 seconds bonus is a reward for a winner,a fighter.when you have bonus seconds,you have entertainment even in stages not so terrible important for GC.without them,you can see the breakaways usually winning many times.hate that.
you can't be more wrong,you know that froome attacked including for the bonus seconds all the way?without them is just boredom(read le tour)

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The time bonuses do NOT ruin the spectacle. They give something for the GC riders to fight for to make the stage wins important, which means that you don't just see them let the breakaway go (unless the best sprinter of the GC contenders has the jersey like in 2009), which in turn adds more value to the KOM jersey. Giving these bonuses actually increases the incentive for a rider to attack, especially if there's a rider who will beat them in a sprint in the group. It also adds an element of interest in week 1 as time bonuses allow the jersey to change hands.

Ultimately, in the Vuelta, the riders knew what the rules were when they started the race. Juan José Cobo won the race based on the rules of the race, and therefore he won. If there weren't time bonuses available, maybe the riders would have raced differently; maybe Froome would have counterattacked when Cobo went on La Farrapona, maybe Cobo would have gone earlier on Angliru, maybe it would have been him attacking Froome and not vice versa on Peña Cabarga. It's impossible to say, because the guys rode to the rules on the day, and Cobo proved the better man within those parameters.

The Giro and Vuelta are not the Tour, nor should they try to be.

 

[will10]

If only someone who's username did not start with Froome had started this thread, then I might be able to take it more seriously than sour grapes.

 

[The Hitch]

It's impossible to say, because the guys rode to the rules on the day, and Cobo proved the better man within those parameters.

The Giro and Vuelta are not the Tour, nor should they try to be.

Froome was the better man. But because he was working for Wiggins for 3/4 of the race he wasnt able to go all out and fight for the race like Cobo was, until the end.

 

[Froome19]

The time bonuses do NOT ruin the spectacle. They give something for the GC riders to fight for to make the stage wins important, which means that you don't just see them let the breakaway go (unless the best sprinter of the GC contenders has the jersey like in 2009), which in turn adds more value to the KOM jersey. Giving these bonuses actually increases the incentive for a rider to attack, especially if there's a rider who will beat them in a sprint in the group. It also adds an element of interest in week 1 as time bonuses allow the jersey to change hands.

Ultimately, in the Vuelta, the riders knew what the rules were when they started the race. Juan José Cobo won the race based on the rules of the race, and therefore he won. If there weren't time bonuses available, maybe the riders would have raced differently; maybe Cobo would have gone earlier on Angliru, maybe it would have been him attacking Froome and not vice versa on Peña Cabarga. It's impossible to say, because the guys rode to the rules on the day, and Cobo proved the better man within those parameters.

The Giro and Vuelta are not the Tour, nor should they try to be.

Granted they give something to stages that otherwise would be uninteresting but they also distort who should have won.
Using the example of an intermediate sprint, why should a rider gain a GC advantage on another rider due to a random sprint in the middle of a stage?
The GC is explicitly about time and nothing else, therefore why are stage and sprint rankings being mixed up within them?
Ultimately in the bigger picture the rider who should win is the rider who has ridden the course in least time, in any grand tour, the tour or not. Therefore to include time bonuses might increase sporting interest but ultimately takes away from the spectacle as a whole, for overall all the sprints and extra jerseys are just a small piece of the puzzle which form to make the winner of the general classification.

 

[jens_attacks]

froome is a gentleman though and he earned my respect with his fair-play and good words about the fans and about his rival,cobo.

However, he is happy to accept how the Vuelta evolved, knowing that grand tours are not just about simply adding up the seconds.

“It would be great if it was as simple as that,” he said. “Time bonuses are there for a race to be more exciting but it didn't play in my favour this time around. I can only say that I don’t really agree that so much time bonus is given at mountain top finishes, but we all know the rules prior to racing and we have to race accordingly."

"You can always look back and say: 'Maybe we should have done something differently earlier on.' But that's how the race panned out. I came here to work for Bradley and that's normal, that racing."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/video-froome-has-no-regrets-about-vuelta-second-place

 

[Cobblestoned]

There is no "he only won because" in a GT.

I think for cyclingfans the benefit from timeboni is bigger than the "damage" it may cause in the GC.
They also mean some more spectacle and a more....just more action, motivations and even some confusion.
Anyway, I think Cobo is the deserved winner and it is never easy to win a GT stage.
You let it sound like a formality or unachievement. Those are only formalities for guys like Contador, Cavendish, Armstrong, Merckx etc.

I liked the past Tour de France years when they still had timeboni included, and especially the sprinters had something more to go for.

 

[therealtimshady]

i think tour needs to reintroduce bonuses as soon as possible.
20 seconds bonus is a reward for a winner,a fighter.when you have bonus seconds,you have entertainment even in stages not so terrible important for GC.without them,you can see the breakaways usually winning many times.hate that.
you can't be more wrong,you know that froome attacked including for the bonus seconds all the way?without them is just boredom(read le tour)

Agree entirely

 

[Froome19]

There is no "he only won because" in a GT.

I think for cyclingfans the benefit from timeboni is bigger than the "damage" it may cause in the GC.
They also mean some more spectacle and a more....just more action, motivations and even some confusion.
Anyway, I think Cobo is the deserved winner and it is never easy to win a GT stage.
You let it sound like a formality or unachievement. Those are only formalities for guys like Contador, Cavendish, Armstrong, Merckx etc.

I liked the past Tour de France years when they still had timeboni included, and especially the sprinters had something more to go for.

That could be a compromise whereas on MTF's there were no time bonuses yet on sprinting stages and intermediate/hilly stages there are because it would motivate the sprinters and give a good spectacle for the GC riders to be fighting for the scraps in those stages, without truly harming the GC as a whole.
But time bonuses on MTF's and intermediate sprints are a step too far imho

 

[cineteq]

Time bonuses adds to strategy, thus I'm all for it.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

That could be a compromise whereas on MTF's there were no time bonuses yet on sprinting stages and intermediate/hilly stages there are because it would motivate the sprinters and give a good spectacle for the GC riders to be fighting for the scraps in those stages, without truly harming the GC as a whole.
But time bonuses on MTF's and intermediate sprints are a step too far imho

Wait, what? So you would give bonus seconds on some stages but not others? Isn't that even more unfair than giving standard bonus seconds or not giving bonus seconds at all?

Hitch is right to point out that Froome was hamstrung by being made to work for Wiggins; Cobo was originally meant to work for Menchov, but Menchov faltered allowing Cobo to take over leadership. Either Wiggins held on as a genuine GC threat too long for the stronger man (Froome) to take advantage, or Sky's team plan was too inflexible to allow for two leaders, or they were simply unwilling to take the risk of sacrificing a proven GC man in Wiggins to gamble on Froome who at that point had never proven anything in a GC. We'll never know the true reasons for it, but whatever, Juanjó Cobo had the chance of a lifetime, as did Chris Froome, but only one of them was able to AND was allowed to go out and take that chance.

As jens pointed out, Froome knew the rules when he went in, and this time it didn't work out in his favour. Next time it might. Kai Reus completed the 2009 Tour of Britain in less time than Edvald Boasson Hagen, but nobody complained about EBH winning the overall there. I'm sure he's disappointed about losing out because of the bonus seconds, and why shouldn't he be, but had they not been there, then they would have been racing a different way, and maybe Froome would have come out of it better off, maybe he wouldn't. Chris Froome has got over it, and so should you.

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

tour should reintroduce time bonuses rather, why shouldn't there be a GC-orientated iniative to win stages?

 

[skidmark]

Wait, what? So you would give bonus seconds on some stages but not others? Isn't that even more unfair than giving standard bonus seconds or not giving bonus seconds at all?

Hitch is right to point out that Froome was hamstrung by being made to work for Wiggins; Cobo was originally meant to work for Menchov, but Menchov faltered allowing Cobo to take over leadership. Either Wiggins held on as a genuine GC threat too long for the stronger man (Froome) to take advantage, or Sky's team plan was too inflexible to allow for two leaders, or they were simply unwilling to take the risk of sacrificing a proven GC man in Wiggins to gamble on Froome who at that point had never proven anything in a GC. We'll never know the true reasons for it, but whatever, Juanjó Cobo had the chance of a lifetime, as did Chris Froome, but only one of them was able to AND was allowed to go out and take that chance.

As jens pointed out, Froome knew the rules when he went in, and this time it didn't work out in his favour. Next time it might. Kai Reus completed the 2009 Tour of Britain in less time than Edvald Boasson Hagen, but nobody complained about EBH winning the overall there. I'm sure he's disappointed about losing out because of the bonus seconds, and why shouldn't he be, but had they not been there, then they would have been racing a different way, and maybe Froome would have come out of it better off, maybe he wouldn't. Chris Froome has got over it, and so should you.

Exactly. Or what about T-A 2010 with the 'formality' of a last stage having Garzelli attack for the bonus seconds? Or what about Champs Elysees 2005? Sure it's a prestigious victory either way, but Vino wouldn't have gone for it if it weren't for the GC position gain. Or what about Romandie 2010, when the top 4 guys came into the finish together and you knew the winner would get the overall? Yes it was only that way because the parcours sucked, and yes you knew Valverde would win, but there was still that uncertainty that he could stuff up a sprint, and it made the whole tour memorable. What about Poland last year? Etc, etc.

Add to that the actually interesting idea of leaders' jerseys changing hands in the first week of a GT so that something more than the sprint is at stake, and I'm all for time bonuses.

edit: Forgot the subject was GTs. Sorry, got a bit carried away with my examples.

 

[roundabout]

Vuelta should scrap the time bonuses.

Maybe then riders would attack from further out than 5km.

 

[cineteq]

Vuelta should scrap the time bonuses.

Maybe then riders would attack from further out than 5km.

Sure, TdF is a good example of that, right?...NOT

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Vuelta should scrap the time bonuses.

Maybe then riders would attack from further out than 5km.

The time bonuses are not the issue that causes the action to be limited to 5km. Shoddy stage design is.

 

[roundabout]

Sure, TdF is a good example of that, right?...NOT

In the Tour there's far more racing going on than in the Vuelta.

The time bonuses are not the issue that causes the action to be limited to 5km. Shoddy stage design is.

Even with poor stage design lack of bonifications would mean that the riders would have to actually attack instead of waiting for as long as possible knowing that are *easy* seconds to be made simply because of a better sprint.

With shoddy stage design (as you rightly put it) climbers with endurance don't have much of a chance to break the 1-climb climbers. Unless one does a Mosquera on Pal most of the Vuelta stages are too easy to shatter the field so an aggressive rider doing the work would have someone (doing very little) outsprint him at the end (see Wiggins and Froome being outsprinted by Mollema and Cobo, Martin is exempt from criticism because he actually attacked that day).

 

[Libertine Seguros]

In the Tour there's far more racing going on than in the Vuelta.

This year, yes. But 2009 and 2010 were key examples of the GC guys just letting the break go over and over, because there was no incentive to catch them, and the top GC guys just set their stalls out on one stage, then had a group ride for the rest of the race.

The counterargument, of course, is that the 2009 Vuelta was the same WITH time bonuses, as Caisse d'Epargne were happy to let unthreatening breaks go, and no other team was willing to fight to bring the break back because Valverde would beat them in a sprint and gain MORE time.

 

[42x16ss]

Even with poor stage design lack of bonifications would mean that the riders would have to actually attack instead of waiting for as long as possible knowing that are *easy* seconds to be made simply because of a better sprint.

That may be the case when someone can climb with the best and sprint well, but even then it encourages the stronger climbers to work together and really duke it out to stop this scenario.

A good example of this is the 2009 Vuelta when Evans, Gesink, Basso, Mosquera etc made several attempts to break Valverde (and almost succeeded) to avoid having to sprint against him.

Another example of great racing from time bonuses was Di Luca and Menchov towards the end of the 2009 Giro with Menchov having to watch out for Di Luca and Petacchi.

Then there's the 2003 TdF....

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I disagree with the idea that the GC is fundamentally about time. In the same way that the green/red jersey is not defined as the sprinters jersey,the GC leader is not tied the shortest total time. The Tour is adamant that their leaders jersey represents the fastest against the total clock, which is fine, but the Giro and Vuelta demonstrate a value of combativeness and fighting for position (in addition to time) for their leaders classification.

I think the Tour's vision is romanticized, and the racing would do better to include fights for time bonuses, but I like the fact that its part of its identity, and that it balances well with the other GTs. The Tour doesn't need to start acting like the Giro or Vuelta.

Time bonuses are not going to make or break the excitement of a GT. It will always comedown to a combination of parcours, depth of the field, and competitiveness of the riders.

 

[orangerider]

Another example of great racing from time bonuses was Di Luca and Menchov towards the end of the 2009 Giro with Menchov having to watch out for Di Luca and Petacchi.

It was great to watch Menchov try to steal some intermediate time bonuses, with Petacchi positioned to put a stop to that. You don't often see a GC rider duke it out on the line with a pure bunch sprinter but that's exactly what happened and it was wonderful to watch.