I'm already getting tour withdrawal symptoms, so I decided to compile somewhat of a schedule for next years event.
I'd like to hear some opinions on the twenty stages of The Tour (plus prologue). What can the organisers do better?
The major gripe that I have is the absence of bonus time. I can't understand why they took this away as they do make the race more exciting. To have the twenty, twelve and eight second bonuses for the first three finishers also gives many riders a real chance to pull on the coveted yellow jersey early in the race (and in my 2011 version I give the non GC riders five days of opportunities). The ten second advantages that Schleck and Contador gained on each other in various stages this year would have been extended to a more deserving thirty. And does anyone remember 2003? Lance and Jan were actually sprinting for the sprint points (because there was a small time bonus there too)!
Time bonuses could even be extended to thirty, twenty and ten seconds.
I also want to see more individual time trialling. To have just one gives far too great an advantage to the climbers (I find the high mountains more exciting, but the organisers should mix it up more). I've seen the other grand tours have a few. Why not The Tour? Most years I think that two is enough. And that the first of these should involve climbing. In some years it could be solely a high mountain event. We haven't seen one of these since 2004.
There should be enough individual kms for a time trialler to potentially make up five minutes on a climber......if they are super enough against the clock and the climber is not so great. It has to be remembered that on many stages a decent rider can still lose two minutes, even when performing quite well in the mountains (look at the guys behind Andy and Alberto on the Tourmalet). The winner of the Tour De France should still have to be amongst the best ten climbers in the tour, but he shouldn't necessarily have to be the absolute best if his real strength is the time trial, and his advantage over the best climber is greater in this area than his disadvantage is in the mountains.
At least two hours should be provided for time trialling, not the hour or so that has been on offer the last couple of tours. It is interesting to note that though a better pure climber, in 2004 Basso lost out to Kloden on the time-trial climb to Alp Du'ez despite having better climbing form in the Pyrenees. This demonstrates the climbing ability that the German possessed, but also the different racing style between the two. Those who have the great ability to accelerate violently up hill are able to break riders and split packs in a race situation, then settle into their comfortable pace while being supported by whoever was able to go with them. Fierce accelerations don't matter in a mountain time-trial. It simply showcases a climbers ability to ride at a strong, steady tempo (how interesting would a mountain time trial be between Alberto and Andy!). Hence, a mountain time-trial suited Ullrich and Kloden over Basso, whereas in a race situation Ivan would likely surge away, then continue to edge away, with the help of say a Lance Armstrong.
I like that they have scrapped the team time trial as it can have too big an influence on the overall standings with many riders being disadvantaged, simply for being a part of a weak (or weaker) team.
I know that there can be issues with logistics, but sometimes the organisers have ignored major climbs for too long. And in some cases they return to others too often. I like the idea of only going over most mountains every five years or so. Even a mythical one like the Alp du'ez was used far too much in the '90's. Let's make it even more mythical and prestigious to the winner by having it every five years or so, not every couple. Bring it back in 2013.
Logistics may take this matter out of the organisers hands in some instances. They seem to go over the Tourmalet every second year or so. Maybe this is a major link to the other Pyrenean climbs. So my question is, why was this year the first time in over thirty years that they finished on it? It is such a terrific climb. Wouldn't fans and riders want to see this occur more often?
If you're going to have a so called Queen stage (and I like the idea) then really make it a Queen stage (2009 and 2004 finished on descents). Definitely have it as a mountain top finish. Recently the organisers like to have three huge climbs in its makeup (like stage 17 this year). Nothing particularly wrong with that, but I like the really monster climbing stage as in 2005 (stage 15 to Pla-d'Adet) when they went over a whopping six cols! Four of these were all beasts that came in the second half of racing. Now that's a stage! This makes for even more fascinating racing as usually the penultimate climb (perhaps even the third last climb) will totally blow up the peleton.
I would bring back this particular stage in 2012.
They do not have too many HORS climbs in the race (nor should they) so do not waste them. Organisers should do there upmost to not include one of these at the start of the day, particularly if there is not a lot else on during the stage. The climb has to have an impact, either as a mountain top finish, a final climb with a short descent, a penultimate climb, or an early climb that weakens the legs for smaller climbs to come afterwards. I have a similar opinion with category 1 climbs.
This year the biggest climbing stage was stage 16 and it was big (2 HORS and 2 category 1's), but the climbs were all wasted since they were all way too far from the finish.
The cobblestones were an interesting addition this year, but I don't think that they should be included annually. And perhaps the organisers put too many in (maybe three sections next time instead of seven!).
The biggest dilemma for the tour organisers I think is always how do they make the first week exciting without high mountains?
Below is a basic guide to the sort of tour I'd like to see in 2011.
Prologue: 6 kms. Flat. Meant to advantage the track specialists.
Stage 1: Basically flat with early category 3 and 4 climbs to give us a King Of The Mountains leader.
Stage 2: Flat. No climbs.
Stage 3: Not for the sprinters, but not really for the General Classification either. Perhaps a couple of category 3 and category 4 climbs. One comes at the end. I like the idea of an uphill 2km finish at about 6% gradient that can give the victory to many different riders.
Stage 4: Basically flat with a couple of category 4 climbs.
Stage 5: Short ITT. 20-25 kms with a category 4 climb.
Stage 6: Flat. No climbs.
Stage 7: Medium mountains. Maybe a category 1 climb. Perhaps finishing atop a Category 2.
Stage 8: Flat. One category 4 climb.
Rest day.
Stage 9: Rolling stage. Couple of category 3 and 4 climbs. Another possible victory for the sprinters.
Stage 10: High mountains. To Hautacam, so a HORS category finish. They could take exactly the same route as the 2000 race which saw Armstrong win so emphatically. Why has this epic route not been used since? The riders scale the category 1 Marie-Blanque and the HORS category Aubisque (taken from the much tougher side unlike in this years event) before they reach Hautacam. And all the climbs take place in the second half of the stage.
Stage 11: Medium mountains ITT. Still in the Pyrenees, but only for a second day. Short course sees about 10 kms of flat road followed by about 6 kms of difficult ascent (category 2 climb) to the finish. A good day for the GC riders to be split by gaps of up to ninety seconds.
Stage 12: Rolling stage.
Stage 13: Generally a rolling stage, but with perhaps a short, sharp climb near the finish.
Stage 14: Generally flat stage for the sprinters.
Stage 15: High Mountains. First day of three in the Alps and the Queen stage of the tour. I'd like to flashback to stage 16 of 2006 and the finish at La Toussuire. There are two HORS beasts to destroy the legs (Galibier and la Croix-de-Fer) before a handy category two climb (Mollard). All this before the 18.4 km final ascent at 6% gradient, which as we saw in 2006 (after all that climbing) was more than steep enough to make a big impact. But because this is the Queen stage I wouldn't mind yet another climb being thrown in!
Rest day.
Stage 16: High Mountains. Smallest of the Alps stages, but still significant. Not a mountain top finish. I like the idea of creating a time trial contest in this situation, but the distance from the top of the final climb to the finish cannot be long otherwise the riders will not attack and we will not see splits. This sort of a stage can highlight strength in climbing, descending and time trialling. I think that stage 7 to Morzine from 2003 can be the perfect route next year. Then it didn't have much effect on the GC riders, but coming this late in the race I think I we would see splits and great racing. This stage tackles the category 1 Ramaz. From the top there is just 25.5 kms to the finish, and this includes another category 3 climb.
Stage 17: High mountains. Back to a mountain top finish. Perhaps stage 15 of the 2002 race could be used here. This included a bunch of small climbs before finishing with the category 1 Les-Deux-Alpes. 11.5 kms at 6.1% is tough enough to have an impact.
Stage 18: Rolling stage. This is usually a very boring stage, but we can still design it for a bunch sprint, but have earlier interest in the KOM classification. It's unlikely to still be undecided by now, but if not then some category 3 and 4 climbs early in this stage will make it an interesting end to this battle. The finish to stage 17 is unlikely to see the KOM combatants at the front anyway.
Stage 19: Long ITT. 50 kms. Flat.
Stage 20: Champs-Elysées. Flat. Pop the champagne.
I'd like to hear some opinions on the twenty stages of The Tour (plus prologue). What can the organisers do better?
The major gripe that I have is the absence of bonus time. I can't understand why they took this away as they do make the race more exciting. To have the twenty, twelve and eight second bonuses for the first three finishers also gives many riders a real chance to pull on the coveted yellow jersey early in the race (and in my 2011 version I give the non GC riders five days of opportunities). The ten second advantages that Schleck and Contador gained on each other in various stages this year would have been extended to a more deserving thirty. And does anyone remember 2003? Lance and Jan were actually sprinting for the sprint points (because there was a small time bonus there too)!
Time bonuses could even be extended to thirty, twenty and ten seconds.
I also want to see more individual time trialling. To have just one gives far too great an advantage to the climbers (I find the high mountains more exciting, but the organisers should mix it up more). I've seen the other grand tours have a few. Why not The Tour? Most years I think that two is enough. And that the first of these should involve climbing. In some years it could be solely a high mountain event. We haven't seen one of these since 2004.
There should be enough individual kms for a time trialler to potentially make up five minutes on a climber......if they are super enough against the clock and the climber is not so great. It has to be remembered that on many stages a decent rider can still lose two minutes, even when performing quite well in the mountains (look at the guys behind Andy and Alberto on the Tourmalet). The winner of the Tour De France should still have to be amongst the best ten climbers in the tour, but he shouldn't necessarily have to be the absolute best if his real strength is the time trial, and his advantage over the best climber is greater in this area than his disadvantage is in the mountains.
At least two hours should be provided for time trialling, not the hour or so that has been on offer the last couple of tours. It is interesting to note that though a better pure climber, in 2004 Basso lost out to Kloden on the time-trial climb to Alp Du'ez despite having better climbing form in the Pyrenees. This demonstrates the climbing ability that the German possessed, but also the different racing style between the two. Those who have the great ability to accelerate violently up hill are able to break riders and split packs in a race situation, then settle into their comfortable pace while being supported by whoever was able to go with them. Fierce accelerations don't matter in a mountain time-trial. It simply showcases a climbers ability to ride at a strong, steady tempo (how interesting would a mountain time trial be between Alberto and Andy!). Hence, a mountain time-trial suited Ullrich and Kloden over Basso, whereas in a race situation Ivan would likely surge away, then continue to edge away, with the help of say a Lance Armstrong.
I like that they have scrapped the team time trial as it can have too big an influence on the overall standings with many riders being disadvantaged, simply for being a part of a weak (or weaker) team.
I know that there can be issues with logistics, but sometimes the organisers have ignored major climbs for too long. And in some cases they return to others too often. I like the idea of only going over most mountains every five years or so. Even a mythical one like the Alp du'ez was used far too much in the '90's. Let's make it even more mythical and prestigious to the winner by having it every five years or so, not every couple. Bring it back in 2013.
Logistics may take this matter out of the organisers hands in some instances. They seem to go over the Tourmalet every second year or so. Maybe this is a major link to the other Pyrenean climbs. So my question is, why was this year the first time in over thirty years that they finished on it? It is such a terrific climb. Wouldn't fans and riders want to see this occur more often?
If you're going to have a so called Queen stage (and I like the idea) then really make it a Queen stage (2009 and 2004 finished on descents). Definitely have it as a mountain top finish. Recently the organisers like to have three huge climbs in its makeup (like stage 17 this year). Nothing particularly wrong with that, but I like the really monster climbing stage as in 2005 (stage 15 to Pla-d'Adet) when they went over a whopping six cols! Four of these were all beasts that came in the second half of racing. Now that's a stage! This makes for even more fascinating racing as usually the penultimate climb (perhaps even the third last climb) will totally blow up the peleton.
I would bring back this particular stage in 2012.
They do not have too many HORS climbs in the race (nor should they) so do not waste them. Organisers should do there upmost to not include one of these at the start of the day, particularly if there is not a lot else on during the stage. The climb has to have an impact, either as a mountain top finish, a final climb with a short descent, a penultimate climb, or an early climb that weakens the legs for smaller climbs to come afterwards. I have a similar opinion with category 1 climbs.
This year the biggest climbing stage was stage 16 and it was big (2 HORS and 2 category 1's), but the climbs were all wasted since they were all way too far from the finish.
The cobblestones were an interesting addition this year, but I don't think that they should be included annually. And perhaps the organisers put too many in (maybe three sections next time instead of seven!).
The biggest dilemma for the tour organisers I think is always how do they make the first week exciting without high mountains?
Below is a basic guide to the sort of tour I'd like to see in 2011.
Prologue: 6 kms. Flat. Meant to advantage the track specialists.
Stage 1: Basically flat with early category 3 and 4 climbs to give us a King Of The Mountains leader.
Stage 2: Flat. No climbs.
Stage 3: Not for the sprinters, but not really for the General Classification either. Perhaps a couple of category 3 and category 4 climbs. One comes at the end. I like the idea of an uphill 2km finish at about 6% gradient that can give the victory to many different riders.
Stage 4: Basically flat with a couple of category 4 climbs.
Stage 5: Short ITT. 20-25 kms with a category 4 climb.
Stage 6: Flat. No climbs.
Stage 7: Medium mountains. Maybe a category 1 climb. Perhaps finishing atop a Category 2.
Stage 8: Flat. One category 4 climb.
Rest day.
Stage 9: Rolling stage. Couple of category 3 and 4 climbs. Another possible victory for the sprinters.
Stage 10: High mountains. To Hautacam, so a HORS category finish. They could take exactly the same route as the 2000 race which saw Armstrong win so emphatically. Why has this epic route not been used since? The riders scale the category 1 Marie-Blanque and the HORS category Aubisque (taken from the much tougher side unlike in this years event) before they reach Hautacam. And all the climbs take place in the second half of the stage.
Stage 11: Medium mountains ITT. Still in the Pyrenees, but only for a second day. Short course sees about 10 kms of flat road followed by about 6 kms of difficult ascent (category 2 climb) to the finish. A good day for the GC riders to be split by gaps of up to ninety seconds.
Stage 12: Rolling stage.
Stage 13: Generally a rolling stage, but with perhaps a short, sharp climb near the finish.
Stage 14: Generally flat stage for the sprinters.
Stage 15: High Mountains. First day of three in the Alps and the Queen stage of the tour. I'd like to flashback to stage 16 of 2006 and the finish at La Toussuire. There are two HORS beasts to destroy the legs (Galibier and la Croix-de-Fer) before a handy category two climb (Mollard). All this before the 18.4 km final ascent at 6% gradient, which as we saw in 2006 (after all that climbing) was more than steep enough to make a big impact. But because this is the Queen stage I wouldn't mind yet another climb being thrown in!
Rest day.
Stage 16: High Mountains. Smallest of the Alps stages, but still significant. Not a mountain top finish. I like the idea of creating a time trial contest in this situation, but the distance from the top of the final climb to the finish cannot be long otherwise the riders will not attack and we will not see splits. This sort of a stage can highlight strength in climbing, descending and time trialling. I think that stage 7 to Morzine from 2003 can be the perfect route next year. Then it didn't have much effect on the GC riders, but coming this late in the race I think I we would see splits and great racing. This stage tackles the category 1 Ramaz. From the top there is just 25.5 kms to the finish, and this includes another category 3 climb.
Stage 17: High mountains. Back to a mountain top finish. Perhaps stage 15 of the 2002 race could be used here. This included a bunch of small climbs before finishing with the category 1 Les-Deux-Alpes. 11.5 kms at 6.1% is tough enough to have an impact.
Stage 18: Rolling stage. This is usually a very boring stage, but we can still design it for a bunch sprint, but have earlier interest in the KOM classification. It's unlikely to still be undecided by now, but if not then some category 3 and 4 climbs early in this stage will make it an interesting end to this battle. The finish to stage 17 is unlikely to see the KOM combatants at the front anyway.
Stage 19: Long ITT. 50 kms. Flat.
Stage 20: Champs-Elysées. Flat. Pop the champagne.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram