• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Tour de France 2016 route prediction

Page 25 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
OlavEH said:
damian13ster said:
No. The fact that a guy who was top 3 climber and top TTer won means the route was balanced.
If it was a top climber and barely top 10-20 in TT then it means route was not balanced because you needed to be good in only one discipline to win.
There were plenty of moutnains to attack on and make a difference. Wiggins was just too strong to be dropped there

Just the fact that Wiggins was a top 3 climber in that Tour says a lot about the lack of top GC contenders that year. And no, it wasn't plenty of mountains to make a difference. Unless you succeeeded with some crazy long range attacks like Landis in 2006, there were only 2 stages that year world nr 1 climber could have gained much time from a top 5 or top 10 climber.

But in majority of the GCs by being a top climber and top 5 or top 10 TTer you are pretty much guaranteed a victory.
So why is there an outrage that top 3 climber and top TTer won?
 
damian13ster said:
But in majority of the GCs by being a top climber and top 5 or top 10 TTer you are pretty much guaranteed a victory.
So why is there an outrage that top 3 climber and top TTer won?

Of course, but that version of the Tour was probably the most boring version in recent history. It was because of both Wiggins being in peak form and Team Sky being extremely strong. But there wasn't nearly the same competetion we have now with "the big four".

And even if you had a guy similar to Quintana in peak form in that Tour, he would probably have lost at least 5-6 minutes in the TTs, and there wasn't nearly enough mountains to gain so much time on Wiggins. The stages to Porrentruy and Bellegarde weren't difficult enough to separate the GC contenders with much. Neither was the stages to Belles Filles or Bagneres de Luchon even though these stages were somewhat tougher.
 
damian13ster said:
But in majority of the GCs by being a top climber and top 5 or top 10 TTer you are pretty much guaranteed a victory.
So why is there an outrage that top 3 climber and top TTer won?
Although most of todays gt routes are indeed unbalanced, the tour 2012 was just too much because:
1.) You must not compare gt's from 1990 with gt's nowadays. Today the teams are way stronger and can control the race better. Ofc, that means its harder to get gaps over 2 minutes because they normally just can't be made on a mtf, no matter how hard it is.
2.) The tour 2012 had 100 ITT kilometers and only 3 real mountain stages. Maybe if you make an attack on every penultimate climb of all these stages you can get the time, a pure climber looses in the ITT's, but today when teams are so strong that they can often control the hardest mountain stage until the very end, this is unrealistic. If they hadn't wasted the stages to Foix, Planche des Belles Filles, and the GC stage we could argue, but the way the final route looked like it was unbalanced.
 
damian13ster said:
How can you call a route (2012) on which a guy who is in top 3 of best climbers and by far top TTer unbalanced?
Was there someone who was a better climber, close to the same level in TT, and not on the same team?
No. Case closed.
It was the only route in recent years that actually favored cyclists that were good/great in both of those skills, not just pure climbing fest that followed

Yo, just in case you are completely clueless, it has nothing to do with who wins. The best rider will almost always win anyways. The fact that Wiggins won didnt make it unbalanced, the poor mountain stages did. Had there just been one decent mountain stage more, it would have been fine.
 
Valv.Piti said:
damian13ster said:
How can you call a route (2012) on which a guy who is in top 3 of best climbers and by far top TTer unbalanced?
Was there someone who was a better climber, close to the same level in TT, and not on the same team?
No. Case closed.
It was the only route in recent years that actually favored cyclists that were good/great in both of those skills, not just pure climbing fest that followed

Yo, just in case you are completely clueless, it has nothing to do with who wins. The best rider will almost always win anyways. The fact that Wiggins won didnt make it unbalanced, the poor mountain stages did. Had there just been one decent mountain stage more, it would have been fine.

Stop being a drama queen.
Stage 7 was good (Wiggins gained time over all of his rivals)
Stage 10 with Colombier followed by descents and Richemond had potential to drive a pace up and drop a TTer
Stage 11 was true mountain stage with 4 climbs, MTF, and very little flat. Guess what, Wiggins was not dropped
Stage 14 had two very steep climbs, although with almost 20km flat before the finish
Stage 16 Was a great mountain stage, up and down all the time, good length. Nice gaps but once more Wiggins wasn't displaced
Stage 17 was another very good mountain stage with MTF, Wiggins gained time on everyone bar Valverde.


Wiggins simply was the strongest (maybe except for Froome), had a great team. Route gave plenty of opportunities for climbers to attack.

Far, far more balanced than 2015 and 2016 for example.
 
damian13ster said:
Valv.Piti said:
damian13ster said:
How can you call a route (2012) on which a guy who is in top 3 of best climbers and by far top TTer unbalanced?
Was there someone who was a better climber, close to the same level in TT, and not on the same team?
No. Case closed.
It was the only route in recent years that actually favored cyclists that were good/great in both of those skills, not just pure climbing fest that followed

Yo, just in case you are completely clueless, it has nothing to do with who wins. The best rider will almost always win anyways. The fact that Wiggins won didnt make it unbalanced, the poor mountain stages did. Had there just been one decent mountain stage more, it would have been fine.

Stop being a drama queen.
Stage 7 was good (Wiggins gained time over all of his rivals)
Stage 10 with Colombier followed by descents and Richemond had potential to drive a pace up and drop a TTer
Stage 11 was true mountain stage with 4 climbs, MTF, and very little flat. Guess what, Wiggins was not dropped
Stage 14 had two very steep climbs, although with almost 20km flat before the finish
Stage 16 Was a great mountain stage, up and down all the time, good length. Nice gaps but once more Wiggins wasn't displaced
Stage 17 was another very good mountain stage with MTF, Wiggins gained time on everyone bar Valverde.


Wiggins simply was the strongest (maybe except for Froome), had a great team. Route gave plenty of opportunities for climbers to attack.

Far, far more balanced than 2015 and 2016 for example.

Stage 7, Plance Filles is a 5 kilometer climb or so.
Stage 10, Colombier was relatively far out with La Touisuirre, without a doubt the hardest mountain stage, coming the next day.
Stage 11 was a good stage.
Stage 14 absolutely horrible, dont know how you can include that.
Stage 16 was good.
Stage 17 was not more than decent. Think about Peyresourde as the deciding climb in the Pyrenees on two occasions (16 and 17).

2015 was more unbalanced, but I think 2012 is more unbalanced than next year.
 
2016 is not even close to being balanced. Climber's route. You can be an absolute hot crap in TT and still have a good chance to win.
Yet on stage 7 it was enough of a climb for Wiggins to gain time..... so climbers couldn't gain time on him?
And stage 17 was great. Huge climb followed by nothing but up and down. Ideal for long range attacks. Not Wiggins's fault noone was able to succeed.

2012 was the best route in terms of balance in a very long time. Hence pretty much the only route in which someone who is not a pure climber (yet still in top 3 for that race) was able to win.
 
Re:

damian13ster said:
2016 is not even close to being balanced. Climber's route. You can be an absolute hot crap in TT and still have a good chance to win.
Yet on stage 7 it was enough of a climb for Wiggins to gain time..... so climbers couldn't gain time on him?
And stage 17 was great. Huge climb followed by nothing but up and down. Ideal for long range attacks. Not Wiggins's fault noone was able to succeed.

2012 was the best route in terms of balance in a very long time. Hence pretty much the only route in which someone who is not a pure climber (yet still in top 3 for that race) was able to win.

You must be extremely fond of the best time trialists of the GC contenders to make such a claim. As I said earlier. There was no f***** way even a top notch climber could have beaten Wiggins that year if he lost 5-6 minutes on the time trials. Only Contador in his absolute peak could have gained so much time in mountain stages in 2012. To balance 100 km of flat TT, you need a shitload of mountains. The 2012 version did not have a shitload of mountains, far from it. They must have added 2 mountain stages with 5000 height meters to make that route balanced.
 
Re: Re:

OlavEH said:
damian13ster said:
2016 is not even close to being balanced. Climber's route. You can be an absolute hot crap in TT and still have a good chance to win.
Yet on stage 7 it was enough of a climb for Wiggins to gain time..... so climbers couldn't gain time on him?
And stage 17 was great. Huge climb followed by nothing but up and down. Ideal for long range attacks. Not Wiggins's fault noone was able to succeed.

2012 was the best route in terms of balance in a very long time. Hence pretty much the only route in which someone who is not a pure climber (yet still in top 3 for that race) was able to win.

You must be extremely fond of the best time trialists of the GC contenders to make such a claim. As I said earlier. There was no f***** way even a top notch climber could have beaten Wiggins that year if he lost 5-6 minutes on the time trials. Only Contador in his absolute peak could have gained so much time in mountain stages in 2012.

Exactly! Thats why it would be a balanced route because you would have to have more skills rather than just climbing.
If you could win a GC solely based on climbing abilities while being bad at everything else (6 minutes loss is not good by any means) than it wouldn't be a balanced route. Is that really so hard to comprehend?
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
Exactly! Thats why it would be a balanced route because you would have to have more skills rather than just climbing.
If you could win a GC solely based on climbing abilities while being bad at everything else (6 minutes loss is not good by any means) than it wouldn't be a balanced route. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

You can't win a GT solely based on climbing skills. Look at Purito for instance. In 100 km of flat time trialing, he would lose 8-10 minutes. There is no way in hell that he would be able to regain that.

Nibali lost 6 minutes to Wiggins in TTs in 2012. And he is by no way a poor time trialist. Actually I think he was nr 4 out of the top 15 in the GC that year if you only count time trials. 100 km of flat time trial has to be balanced with at least 4-5 tough mountain stages where it's possible to gain a significant amount of time, and that is more than perhaps 30 sec. In 2012 there were only 2 such stages in the Tour. That makes it incredibly unbalanced.
 
I don't think it's fair to pick Purito as the barometer for race balance. Otherwise you could also choose Cancellara to represent the time-trial specialists and come to the conclusion that you need a week's worth of 100-km ITTs to balance things out.
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
I bet ya Rodriguez had lost between 10-13 minutes on Wiggo 2012. Quintana probably around 7-8, considering how much Nibali lost.

The 2012 Tour was a rather special case in the post-Armstrong era since there is rarely any of the GC contenders that are so superior on TT as Wiggins was that year.

But if you had a rider like the 2012 version of Wiggins and a rider like the current version of Quintana in his peak form competing in the same Tour, a balanced route would give them both a fair chance to win. There is no way in hell that the 2012 route would give a latter type of rider a realistic chance if he loses 6-7-8 minutes on the TTs.
 
Re:

hrotha said:
I don't think it's fair to pick Purito as the barometer for race balance. Otherwise you could also choose Cancellara to represent the time-trial specialists and come to the conclusion that you need a week's worth of 100-km ITTs to balance things out.

Purito was chosen as an example to illustrate that there is no chance to win a GT solely based on the mountain stages, especially not the TDF. No version of the Tour in recent history would have given Purito a realistic chance to win the tour.
 
Re: Re:

OlavEH said:
hrotha said:
I don't think it's fair to pick Purito as the barometer for race balance. Otherwise you could also choose Cancellara to represent the time-trial specialists and come to the conclusion that you need a week's worth of 100-km ITTs to balance things out.

Purito was chosen as an example to illustrate that there is no chance to win a GT solely based on the mountain stages, especially not the TDF. No version of the Tour in recent history would have given Purito a realistic chance to win the tour.

2015.......

And I agree with hrotha. If you claim that balanced route has to make it possible to overcome losses from three ITT stages, then you need to make sure that cyclists such as Martin, Cancellara have enough Time Trials to overcome losses in the mountains. There was no such route in recent history
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
2015.......

And I agree with hrotha. If you claim that balanced route has to make it possible to overcome losses from three ITT stages, then you need to make sure that cyclists such as Martin, Cancellara have enough Time Trials to overcome losses in the mountains. There was no such route in recent history

So you don't think there should be made routes that would make it possible for Nairo Quintana to win Tour de France?
 
Re: Re:

OlavEH said:
damian13ster said:
2015.......

And I agree with hrotha. If you claim that balanced route has to make it possible to overcome losses from three ITT stages, then you need to make sure that cyclists such as Martin, Cancellara have enough Time Trials to overcome losses in the mountains. There was no such route in recent history

So you don't think there should be made routes that would make it possible for Nairo Quintana to win Tour de France?

No. He is a one-trick pony. Plus, he already had a route made for him in 2015, and 2016 is also good for him.
You might as well ask whether there should be a route made so that Cavendish can win the Tour.
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
No. He is a one-trick pony. Plus, he already had a route made for him in 2015, and 2016 is also good for him.
You might as well ask whether there should be a route made so that Cavendish can win the Tour.

Yeah really, that's a relevant comparison! Todays stupidest remark!

I find Quintana infinitely more entertaining as a rider than Wiggins. The 2012 Tour was the most boring in decades. May there never be a combination of route, rider (Wiggins) and the lack of proper competiton that we saw that year!
 
Re: Re:

OlavEH said:
damian13ster said:
No. He is a one-trick pony. Plus, he already had a route made for him in 2015, and 2016 is also good for him.
You might as well ask whether there should be a route made so that Cavendish can win the Tour.

Yeah really, that's a relevant comparison! Todays stupidest remark!

I find Quintana infinitely more entertaining as a rider than Wiggins. The 2012 Tour was the most boring in decades. May there never be a combination of route, rider (Wiggins) and the lack of proper competiton that we saw that year!

Thats a very relevant comparison. Both excel at just one skill. Although Cavendish lately got more aggressive so he has that over Quintana who just does nothing for 20 stages
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
Thats a very relevant comparison. Both excel at just one skill. Although Cavendish lately got more aggressive so he has that over Quintana who just does nothing for 20 stages

No, it's not relevant at all. We're talking about GC contenders here. That is 95 % climbing and TT skills. It's a completely idiotic comparison.
 
Re: Re:

OlavEH said:
damian13ster said:
Thats a very relevant comparison. Both excel at just one skill. Although Cavendish lately got more aggressive so he has that over Quintana who just does nothing for 20 stages

No, it's not relevant at all. We're talking about GC contenders here. That is 95 % climbing and TT skills. It's a completely idiotic comparison.

And thats why I dont like the routes.
Lately it is 90% climbing, 5% TT and the rest combined is 5%.
I would love to have it 25% climbing, 25% TT, 25% cobbles, and throw it some descents, murs, and ocassional sprinter stage in there. 2012 came the closest to not have climbing be 90% of success, hence it was the most balanced route in recent years
 
Re: Re:

damian13ster said:
And thats why I dont like the routes.
Lately it is 90% climbing, 5% TT and the rest combined is 5%.
I would love to have it 25% climbing, 25% TT, 25% cobbles, and throw it some descents, murs, and ocassional sprinter stage in there. 2012 came the closest to not have climbing be 90% of success, hence it was the most balanced route in recent years

Cobbles? Really. That would make the whole Tour one big freakin gamble. Cobbles has historically no place in Grand Tours. Alternatively a stage with a limited amount of cobbles every 3-4 years or so.

I would say that the balance between climbing and TT should be 70/30. In addition one should have som descent finishes and some hilly stages.

Ironically, the route you claim to be the best balanced was also the most boring version in recent history.

Btw, if we compare routes with close to or over 100 km TT, the versions in 2006 and 2007 were both clearly better balanced than in 2012.
 
Aug 21, 2015
380
0
0
Visit site
I'd say the 2012 route was unbalanced. Sure it had some decent mountain stages but with the amount of time trials, they needed to add more. 2015 was obviously unbalanced having only 13.8 kms of ITT and a TTT(Something I really do not care for given how big an impact teams already have on the race). This year is unbalanced as well as while there is at least some ITT, they really could have used more flat with the amount of mountains they have in the route.