What changes would you make to TDF rules?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Dec 16, 2011
345
0
0
Well, the red number is only for the most attacking rider the day before, isn't it? I would love too see the most attacking rider of the tour standing on the podium next to all the other jersey's in Paris. Good for the sponsors as well; they will definetely be associated with that.

And about the World Tour, it's a bad system and does not provide much fun. How awesome will it be that teams will go 'bezerk' in the last tour week to get a stage win, because otherwise they can't race next year?
 
SetonHallPirate said:
Which jersey would you propose getting rid of to keep the UCI-imposed maximum of four? The green, polka-dot, or white?
Interesting that your objection to a rule change is that it needs to stay within the confines of the rules. If someone wants to add a jersey then that simply means you change the UCI jersey rules as well.
 
Mar 27, 2010
1,759
0
0
More Strides than Rides said:
WT points to the team?
This might actually have some real merit. By giving teams serious WT/CQ points for team performances (which are linked to the license not to any individual riders) some of this nonsense of having to buy riders simply for their points might be resolved in part.
 
Ramira said:
This might actually have some real merit. By giving teams serious WT/CQ points for team performances (which are linked to the license not to any individual riders) some of this nonsense of having to buy riders simply for their points might be resolved in part.
Thats what I was thinking, too. But who can really chase that title? The weaker teams who need the points will need an abstract system that levels the playing field, while stronger teams that aren't worried about points will still focus on other goals (and could still do well as a team).

A real problem now seems to be the conflict between a team chasing a depth-based competition in the teams classification, and a team built around getting stage wins/GC prominence. For most teams, those goals are exclusive.

Would it be more inviting for teams to participate in a classification that rewards depth, or the all-for one approach which more often defines a team's success?
 
Jun 12, 2012
87
0
0
Not really a change to the rules as such...

I'd like to see the unsung heroes rewarded. Not through monetary prizes but maybe an end of Tour award. Something like best lead out rider, best general domestique best road captain. Just thoughts.

Le Tour is such an epic spectacle with so many riders busting their balls for their leaders. Those riders often don't pick up UCI points so this would be a way of giving them a bit of public face time.

New here but not to cycling. Here to get shot down so do your best ;)

Vive Le Tour
 
After watching the peloton repeatedly decelerate so that they don't catch the break too quickly, rendering the stage a farce, the one simple change for me is to remove team inputs into race radio.

If radio is required for safety measures then have neutral staff give safety updates across the airways. Stop all these tactical team discussions that ruin breakaways, remove uncertainty and spontineity and prevents dangerous riders from sneaking into breakaways. Update time gaps via neutral scooters a maximum of once per 5 minutes. Make riders use their wits as well as their legs.

Surprised to see folk wanting rid of the intermediate sprints, they are the only thing in the first 4+ hours of each stage in week one that is remotely worth watching (personally I love them with the new points weighting).
 
Jul 20, 2010
269
0
0
Ramira said:
This might actually have some real merit. By giving teams serious WT/CQ points for team performances (which are linked to the license not to any individual riders) some of this nonsense of having to buy riders simply for their points might be resolved in part.
This is already the case.

With regards to race radio perhaps a compromise could be reached. There could be short windows during the stage for communication alongside accurate time gaps. For example in the first window directeur sportif tells his team that a rider in the breakaway is just 3 minutes back in GC so the gap should be controlled. In the last window the lead-out riders are told that the wind direction has changed and that rain has made a corner 2km from the finish more dangerous.

Addressing time cut-offs; the commisaires must be willing to expel a large percentage of the field (the peleton would not be able to take an extra rest day) but allow for incidents like protests/fires/massive crashes.
 
Dec 30, 2011
3,547
0
0
MonteZoncolan said:
Not really a change to the rules as such...

I'd like to see the unsung heroes rewarded. Not through monetary prizes but maybe an end of Tour award. Something like best lead out rider, best general domestique best road captain. Just thoughts.
Problem is those are too opiniated, it works well for the most attacking rider etc, but it could get more controversial with other awards as it is merely based on people's opinion.

Though they would be good ideas if they could be awarded based on other factors but no obvious yet simplistic,logical and fair ways to award such awards spring to mind..
 
Jul 14, 2009
270
0
9,030
Ramira said:
This might actually have some real merit. By giving teams serious WT/CQ points for team performances (which are linked to the license not to any individual riders) some of this nonsense of having to buy riders simply for their points might be resolved in part.
What about keeping track of the the most aggressive team over the course of the season and giving them an automatic 1-year WT slot?
 
Jul 2, 2012
343
0
0
Mountains classification

Well, since some here have been discussing the merits of the new vs the old points system, I thought I would opinionate on it as well:
The good thing about the new system is that the jersey is more likely to go to an actual mountains rider, however what i think harms the contest is the small number of riders getting points. With the higher number of points at intermediate sprints the bunch actually contests those as well, while with the mountains all the points are already distributed.
With that said my personal system for the mountains would be as follows.

4th category: 3/2/1
3rd category/ 4th category finish: 6/4/3/2/1
2nd category/ 3rd category finish: 15/12/9/6/4/3/2/1
1st category/ 2nd category finish: 30/26/22/18/15/12/9/6/4/3/2/1
HC/ 1st category finish: 50/45/40/35/30/26/22/18/15/12/9/6/4/3/2/1
HC finish: 80/74/68/62/56/50/45/40/35/30/26/22/18/15/12/9/6/4/3/2/1

I think something like this would result in a competition that is both fair ( but still slanted towards real climbers) and encourages agressive riding.

PS: Hello to everyone after some months of lurking
 
May 3, 2010
360
0
0
Time Bonuses on intermediate sprints, mountains,.......

You can't built a lead safely unless rewarded all over (Summarize:Combined Cat). If 100 guys finish at the same time, it takes like a minute for them to get thru, not fair. Flamme'Rouge. Likewise, Get the Spectators OFFFFFF, and the media cars, motorcycles, even team cars should be driven by cyclists or ex-riders at least. This is a show which must go on forever, ' till the dawn of times. Tell UCI Honcho that his Job is not to seek publicity dissing team managers, to just step OUT allready. Too much ITT, can't ride 96....Instead, make it a TTT of 60, ITT of 45, prologue of 5=cool 100 KM. ....Plus long transfers, the fans harrassing the riders, the media not respecting their rest times.......Otherwise, It's all Good in France
 
Jun 28, 2012
798
0
0
WindLessBreeze said:
You can't built a lead safely unless rewarded all over (Summarize:Combined Cat). If 100 guys finish at the same time, it takes like a minute for them to get thru, not fair. Flamme'Rouge. Likewise, Get the Spectators OFFFFFF, and the media cars, motorcycles, even team cars should be driven by cyclists or ex-riders at least. This is a show which must go on forever, ' till the dawn of times. Tell UCI Honcho that his Job is not to seek publicity dissing team managers, to just step OUT allready. Too much ITT, can't ride 96....Instead, make it a TTT of 60, ITT of 45, prologue of 5=cool 100 KM. ....Plus long transfers, the fans harrassing the riders, the media not respecting their rest times.......Otherwise, It's all Good in France
Small problem with your math...60+45+5=110, not 100
 
Feb 23, 2012
4
0
0
Progsprach said:
Well, since some here have been discussing the merits of the new vs the old points system, I thought I would opinionate on it as well:
The good thing about the new system is that the jersey is more likely to go to an actual mountains rider, however what i think harms the contest is the small number of riders getting points. With the higher number of points at intermediate sprints the bunch actually contests those as well, while with the mountains all the points are already distributed.
With that said my personal system for the mountains would be as follows.

4th category: 3/2/1
3rd category/ 4th category finish: 6/4/3/2/1
2nd category/ 3rd category finish: 15/12/9/6/4/3/2/1
1st category/ 2nd category finish: 30/26/22/18/15/12/9/6/4/3/2/1
HC/ 1st category finish: 50/45/40/35/30/26/22/18/15/12/9/6/4/3/2/1
HC finish: 80/74/68/62/56/50/45/40/35/30/26/22/18/15/12/9/6/4/3/2/1

I think something like this would result in a competition that is both fair ( but still slanted towards real climbers) and encourages agressive riding.

PS: Hello to everyone after some months of lurking
Not sure giving too many points to riders who don't care about the jersey would be much better. I guess if the winner has about 150 points it's way enough. Otherwise it's just to complicated to read the ranking.

Otherwise I completely agree to promote a 4th category to 3rd category when it's at the finish, a 3rd becoming 2nd category, etc..
It's much better than just doubling the points.

My system would be as follows:

4th (2 riders) 2 - 1
3th/4th finish (3) 4 - 2 - 1
2nd/3th finish (6) 8 - 6 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
1st/2nd finish (10) 20 - 15 - 12 - 10 - 8 - 6 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1
HC/1st finish (12) 30 - 24 - 20 - 16 - 14 - 12 - 10 - 8 - 6 - 4 - 2 - 1
HC MTF (15) 40 - 32 - 26 - 22 - 20 - 18 - 16 - 14 - 12 - 10 - 8 - 6 - 4 - 2 - 1

I guess it's balanced.
With this system, the GC riders would definitely score many points at MTF, and could grab a few points during the stage if they want.
A rider would have no chance to win the overall competition without scoring on the main mountains.

Note our 2 systems would probably end up with the same winner ;-)
Who's sending it to Tour de France organizers ? ;-)



------------------------------------------

For green jersey, I would put 2 intermediate sprints during the stage (around 1/3rd and 2/3rd of the stage) with the following points:
15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 (10 riders)

and all stages (flat, mountain and time-trial) with the same points at the finish:
35-30-26-23-20-17-15-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 (20 riders)

Like this, sprinters would still have more chance to win it, but a good overall rider (such as Sagan, Boasson Hagen) could still batlle for it, by going into breakaways on non-flat stages.
 
Jul 20, 2010
269
0
0
Progsprach said:
Well, since some here have been discussing the merits of the new vs the old points system, I thought I would opinionate on it as well:
The good thing about the new system is that the jersey is more likely to go to an actual mountains rider, however what i think harms the contest is the small number of riders getting points. With the higher number of points at intermediate sprints the bunch actually contests those as well, while with the mountains all the points are already distributed.
With that said my personal system for the mountains would be as follows.

4th category: 3/2/1
3rd category/ 4th category finish: 6/4/3/2/1
2nd category/ 3rd category finish: 15/12/9/6/4/3/2/1
1st category/ 2nd category finish: 30/26/22/18/15/12/9/6/4/3/2/1
HC/ 1st category finish: 50/45/40/35/30/26/22/18/15/12/9/6/4/3/2/1
HC finish: 80/74/68/62/56/50/45/40/35/30/26/22/18/15/12/9/6/4/3/2/1

I think something like this would result in a competition that is both fair ( but still slanted towards real climbers) and encourages agressive riding.

PS: Hello to everyone after some months of lurking
My idea is similar but isn't as flat (more reward for winning).

HC finish would be: 75, 60, 50, 42, 34, 28, 22, 18, 14, 10, 6, 4
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
Bit of a change, but I think the current system is good, but should be complemented by an extra 0, 1, 2, 4 and 10 points for crossing the line at the same time as the winner.
 
May 3, 2010
360
0
0
True

SetonHallPirate said:
Small problem with your math...60+45+5=110, not 100
True, I can't drive 55 (Stick):eek:, text, drink my madras and light up my Blunt, while my beau caresses my tight', all at the same time; and still do mental arithmetic
 
Feb 15, 2011
1,306
0
0
Do something about crashes. Penalize teams for attacking because of crashes if lots of people are down. (I know this would never happen).
 
UCI have to change the rules regarding crashing. Nothing that ASO can do about it.
We were having the same rants last year as well. The current rule is ridiculous. It encourages riders to crash.
 
Jul 20, 2010
269
0
0
For WT/GT races get rid of the arbitrary 3km rule. Make the cut-off 10km or the summit of the last categorised climb for punctures/crashes. Outside of 10km; for crashes not of rider's own causing give them a penalty of 2-10 seconds per km (depending on speed of peleton after crash) if this time is less than their actual finishing time.

Edit: In stages like today (non-mountain stage finishing on a categorised mountain) any gap of more than one second between riders should result in a split. If you crash you get the same time as the the highest placed rider who was no more than one and a half bike lengths ahead of you. If you could have avoided being slowed by the crash you shall be given your actual finishing time.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
SHaines Professional Road Racing 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts