guncha said:
In general I don't like the idea that the only ITT is put on penultimate stage. I agree that two time trials would be better than one. And I would prefer longer one (approx. 50km) in the middle of the race and shorter one (approx. 25-30km) at the end of the race. In this case fresher TT-ist would put more time climbers and climbers would need to attack more. And if the race is tight final (shorter) TT would be meaningful.
True, I would say if we take a 100km of time trialing as the pattern, then the most reasonable combination is 10-15km flat and highly technical prologue/stage 1, 60km hilly tt (a-la Cinque Terre in Giro 2009) at the beginning of second week and 25-30km flat and straight (desirable windy) tt on the penultimate stage.
However, with two long time trials there should be 5-6 GC stages in the mountains. Even if significant time gaps will be in 1-2 stages only it doesn't mean other GC stages were pointless as all the other GC stages will make racing harder (someone will attack someone counterattack etc.). This is what happened in 2003 - everyone was so spent by the stage to Ardiden that the best guy (Armstrong) could make his attack. I am afraid that with such a few GC mountain stages as in 2012 it will not be possible to make big time gaps because everyone will be less spent, e.g. more GC stages in mountains, more chances someone will crack. Imagine that AS loses 3-4 minutes in ITTs but gains 30-45 sec. in two of three high mountain GC stages. AS would still lose the tour despite the fact 30-45 sec. gain is huge in nowadays mountain stages.
Then the mountains. While responding to your first quote I allowed myself to say
‘Tour de France is always less mountainous than Giro’ and should had taken a step back being questioned of this. Basically I meant that due to the differences in geography of Italy and France, Giro has more abilities of offering numerous mountainous/semi-mountainous stages than the Tour, and they often use it while the Tour usually has a 3-day visiting of Alps and 3 days in Pyrenees. Apart of these two places they can use other areas especially central France (used in the Paris-Nice) but in fact the major Tour de France climbing is 3 consecutive days each of Alps and Pyrenees (with little differences year after year). These are those 5-6 GC stages you are referring to and I’d like to emphasize on two good points you made:
-
‘when mountains are not difficult enough there are questions if strongest guy won’
-
‘Even if significant time gaps will be in 1-2 stages only it doesn't mean other GC stages were pointless as all the other GC stages will make racing harder’
These are good points indeed. So let’s look at the 2012 Tour de France route (only GC climbing opportunities) once again:
1. Belles Filles (stage 7). This stage can be subjected to your first point, not quite mountainous stage ie the questions may stand after it, but I would let myself be that impudent to compare that stage (or rather what theoretically may happen to GC there) to Verbier 2009
Both stages are about 200km with the only place to attack on the final ascent, there was no hard racing in several days before Verbier and so will be before Belles Filles. Verbier is 8.8 km - 7.5 %; Belles Filles is 5.9 km – 8.5%. Of course Verbier is 2.9km longer which does matter in the case of that you should reduce the bunch first before attack, but the profile of Belles Filles offers the steepness from the bottom of the climb so I guess it’s possible for the best climber to go solo for 3-4km to gain at least 30-45sec going all out.
2. Alps. 1 GC stage. I agree that the Colombier stage is pretty unfortunately designed and the most likely won’t cause any gaps between the main contenders but I don’t think it means there won’t be any attacks there and the peloton will ride it that easy to say they approach the next day’s La Toussuire challenge fresh. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t argue that it’s bad that the Colombier stage isn’t as hard as it could be with better designing but imo you can’t say it is wasted in terms of possible hard riding in context of next day. So the next day, La Toussuire. Despite only 140km length thrilling altitude gain and uphill finish for the very best.
3. Pyrenees. 2 stages. The Foix stage is just wasted and I really don’t know what’s the point of making a flat stage to Pau (apart from money) before 2 decisive Pyrenean stages to Luchon and Peyragudes. Both these stages are hard and can change the GC.
So in fact we have 3 GC mountainous stages and one medium mountains GC stage with mtf.
Tbh I would like it more if the Peyragudes stage was scheduled before Luchon since imo it would be more likely to derive 2 days of GC showdown (if the stage with mtf is scheduled before a stage with descent in the end). It is based on the fact that cycling became too scientific and math-dependent in last two decades, the riders exactly know about perfect dosing of efforts, where to preserve themselves a bit and where to go all out. Considering the existence of a descent after Peyresourde attacking on it and saving (gaining) time on descent requires huge efforts, considerably more than just attacking on mountain top finished Peyragudes, so it would be better to have the Luchon stage as the last climbing chance.
Though if Contador rides all these analyses of enough/not enough mountains are made in vain because he doesn’t have problems with time trialing but if it’s going to Evans vs Schleck the question stands and we’ll have answers only in July.
It think the best TDF route in recent years was in 2007 when they had two long ITT and 6 GC stages in high mountains. TDF 2008 was not far behind. I simply don't understand why they can't always stick with formula similar to these tours.
It’s interesting that mentioning 2003 and 2007 Tours you mention edition with not just great parcours but also the races with great competition (something that we don’t quite have nowadays). In 2003 Ullrich was pretty close to Armstrong (the closest among all Armstrong-dominated years) and lose the race because of his fair-play on Luz Ardiden. In 2007 we had Rasmussen, Contador, Levi, Evans… great field. And as for the Tour 2007 designing, the most brilliant thing organizers had made back then is IMO that both rest days were scheduled in between mountainous stages in Alps and Pyrenees so we got to see more action due to that main contenders had a chance to rest (as they are just human and need some recuperation) between hard stages
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram