If you look at some of the GT's in recent years I think the chances of them being very exciting at the critical point have increased by quite a lot. I've seen multiple editions of a GT where the final week was super exciting and there were still major shifts in the GC until almost the final day. I think that is what makes the sport more attractive to a large audience.
All in all I just don't understand all the critisism on every design in recent years. Road Racing hasn't been as attractive as it is now in decades in my opinion. Great riders such as Van der Poel, Van Aert, Alaphilippe, Pogacar, Evenepoel, Roglic, Asgreen etc. are able to really race from far out in a multitude of races, and they are really enjoyable to watch. All in all to me cycling hasn't been this entertaining since the moment I started watching (at the end of the 1990s), so why all these complaints?
Anyway just out of curiosity, a question for the self-proclaimed cycling purists:
- What makes a long TT (40-60km) more exciting that a shorter TT (20-30km) to watch?
All in all I just don't understand all the critisism on every design in recent years. Road Racing hasn't been as attractive as it is now in decades in my opinion. Great riders such as Van der Poel, Van Aert, Alaphilippe, Pogacar, Evenepoel, Roglic, Asgreen etc. are able to really race from far out in a multitude of races, and they are really enjoyable to watch. All in all to me cycling hasn't been this entertaining since the moment I started watching (at the end of the 1990s), so why all these complaints?
Anyway just out of curiosity, a question for the self-proclaimed cycling purists:
- What makes a long TT (40-60km) more exciting that a shorter TT (20-30km) to watch?
Last edited: