What do you think?

[Eshnar]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/pink-admiral-the-blog-of-michele-acquarone-and-the-rcs-team/what-do-you-think
Interesting survey...
EDIT:
Here are my answers...
1. Too backloaded, not enough ITT... well we already said it last October.
2. This is important... Those stages are the essence of the Giro. Without them, the Giro simply cannot survive. "Modern cycling" sucks. DON'T YOU EVER DARE CHANGING THIS!!!
3. Well your CEO is perfectly right, as long as the sterrato is near the finish and not at 100 kms to go.
4. Time bonuses everywhere but not only for the first three. Let's say the first ten. It makes no sense to gain 20 seconds on a guy who arrived fourth
5. No one cares anyway. Do as you please.
6. Sprints were fine.

 

[roundabout]

1. More TTs, yes. Something like 60km in total. Keep the essence of a climber race

2. Don't turn into Vuelta.

3. why not, but if used make it more than a token sector with 100km to go

4. Don't know. 20 seconds is too much in any case for me.

5. No. A sign that there won't be more sprint stages in 2013?

6. Technical yes, slalom course like the one in Montecatini Terme, no.

 

[hoerpi]

Interesting survey, indeed. I agree with the consensus in here that a very back loaded route with the only ITT the last day gives boring racing. Have som mountains early, a long ITT (50 km) in the middle and then some more mountains where the climbers can regain time. I also think that you should start the race with a short ITT (15-20 km) and not a prologue, creates bigger caps early to render more interesting racing during all of the three weeks.

 

[Viking]

(Long time lurker, finally decided to join and post!)

1. I liked the course overall, and thought the Individual and Team TTs were fine.

2. Millar has a point, based on the action in the Alpe d'Huez stage in the 2011 Tour. I'd not want to see more than one stage like this in any given Giro though.

3. I like the idea of a strade bianche stage. It's pretty unique to Italian cycling.

4. Either give time bonuses for all stages, or no stages. The 'joker' idea seems too gimmicky to me.

5. No, keep the points as they are. If you want a pure sprinting classification, make (yet another) new classification.

6. I enjoy technical finishes, but a couple of them this year were a bit too much.

 

[Ruudz0r]

* Indeed having a (or multiple) mountain stage(s) in week 1 would be nice.

* The bonus seconds should maybe be lesser then 20-12-4 but I think they should keep bonus seconds in GTs as that makes things more interesting.

* I also like some mountain stages with less KMs (and possibly more action) as long as they also keep stages with a lot of KMs as endurance is also important.

 

[will10]

1. More ITT was needed, even an extra 30km ITT in week 2 would've forced more racing in the third week.

2. The odd short stage works, we've seen it before. But one or two big queen stages are needed too.

3. Not really bothered, can do without it, if it eliminates one contender then it's not worth having.

4. Prefer no bonuses on any stage that's not completely flat. Keep intermediate sprint bonuses (6-4-2 or similar) and place them stragetically to encourage racing. I read a suggestion a while back about having small amounts of bonus seconds at the top of every climb in the race, might just stimulate more action earlier in a stage.

5. Not really bothered, very few top sprinters are interested in the Giro points jersey anyway as many go home to ride the Tour.

6. Keep it mixed up. No-one wants to see 6 identical finishes. The odd technical finish is worthwhile.

 

[Eshnar]

You don't have to tell me that guys, tell that to Acquarone (I'm already doing it on both Facebook and Twitter ) What I wanted to know is what you all think about the concept of asking fans what should they do.

 

[roundabout]

You can tweet a link to this thread to him.

And of course it never hurts to ask, what they will do is another matter

 

[Catwhoorg]

1) A little more ITT would be good. Maybe a shorter punchy climb ITT. The key thing is not the amount of mountains, but the back loading of them. Need a few of the bigger climbs earlier.

2) I Think the climbs this year were great, just tweaks along the lines of (1) above to get the to be raced more effectively

3) Not every year, maybe every 2-3 years a section.

4) Time bonuses are good, but maybe a little smaller. They should be there for all stages.

5) The fact the Cav lost by a single point, shows this category is pretty well balanced as is.

6) Some technical finishes are good, some longer straightaways as well. A mixture is the best.

 

[Eshnar]

You can tweet a link to this thread to him.

not a bad idea...

 

[gustienordic]

1. About the same amount of TT, it gives climbers a better chance of winning, but change the stage they fall on. I am all for TTs, but not in the last week.

2. One or two very hard days with 3 or 4 hard climbs, then some short days with steep killer climbs with one a MTF and others a quick descent.

3. All for adding sections of strade bianche

4. Time bonuses? If you want to encourage break aways and attacks, why not have bigger intermediate time bonuses 20km from the end, but the only way you can get them is if you have been out of the peloton for more than 5k. Then you get 20 seconds for 1st. That could make for some interesting new racing.

5. Points class is a good race as it is.

6. Long straight finishes are much more boring. The unpredictable sprints of the Giro are part of the reason the Giro is my favorite GT.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

1. About the same amount of TT, it gives climbers a better chance of winning, but change the stage they fall on. I am all for TTs, but not in the last week.

2. One or two very hard days with 3 or 4 hard climbs, then some short days with steep killer climbs with one a MTF and others a quick descent.

3. All for adding sections of strade bianche

4. Time bonuses? If you want to encourage break aways and attacks, why not have bigger intermediate time bonuses 20km from the end, but the only way you can get them is if you have been out of the peloton for more than 5k. Then you get 20 seconds for 1st. That could make for some interesting new racing.

5. Points class is a good race as it is.

6. Long straight finishes are much more boring. The unpredictable sprints of the Giro are part of the reason the Giro is my favorite GT.

I don't agree with moving the ITT up the schedule. I think it would lead even more towards "controlled" riding. Where as, if the ITT comes later, they (the climbers) need to anticipate, because they don't know what's in store.

And they should just scratch the TTT in favor for another ITT. Make one on the flat, and one mountain ITT. If they want to keep TTT, they should just make it count for the team classifications.

 

[The Hitch]

Change the ttt to an itt.

Points classification is as it should be, though

Sterrato. Hell yes, once every giro.

Time bonuses? Well in this utopia without team time trials (shudders), then sure, dont have them. But so long as people are forced to start a grand tour with minutes to take back, well give them somewhere to take it back, and reward the attempts.

 

[UpTheRoad]

Why should anyone care what David Millar thinks? His criticism (he always cries about the route) should be followed with an official response full of ridicule.

 

[Eshnar]

Why should anyone care what David Millar thinks? His criticism (he always cries about the route) should be followed with an official response full of ridicule.

indeed....

 

[Kwibus]

Because the Giro is very dear to me I'm obliged to respond to these questions.

First of all I'd like to say that I like the Giro because it's pure. Do not try to modernise it too much. The Giro is the most beautiful race there is. Too bad most of the public simply isn't aware of it.

1. The 2012 Giro was a lot of waiting until the last 2 mountain stages. Don't be afraid to put in a real MTF in the first week of the race and I'd definately suggest a bit more TT km's. The Giro is a climbers race, but it's not very interesting if they wait for the last 2km to attack. Preferably remove the TTT and replace it with an ITT. I think the TTT is a beautiful part of the sport, but I don't really like how it affects the GC.

2. An short Mountain stage certainly can be fun and I wouldn't mind seeing one, but definately keep the epic mountain stages. I can still dream last years Queen stage which Nieve won. It was an magnificent stage.

3. Definately keep on using it. 1 stage each year sounds great.

4. Time bonuses for every stage. Allthough 10 seconds for the winner is enough.

5.Like someone else before me allready pointed out. Cavendish lost it by 1 point to Rodriguez. Well balanced if you ask me!

6. I wouldn't mind a long 1000m straight road sprint finish, but absolutely keep on using the technical finishes as well.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

On ITTs, I reckon a template would be something along the lines of:
1 short prologue ITT
one of mid-decent length (30-40km)
one long, challenging one (50-60km).

One in each week. You can vary it; you can replace the prologue with a mountain TT, but in that case you need the shorter of the two normal ITTs to come partway through the first week, placed like the Cholet TT in the 2008 Tour.

Now, obviously this is nothing more than a template; there should always be some variety in race routes; but there should always be enough ITT to give the climbers something they need to take back, and enough mountains to make them feel they have a chance... as long as they attack. Recent race routes have either had far too much ITT for the meagre mountain stages, or had far too little ITT mileage, meaning riders don't have too much in the way of gaps to make up, leading to defensive racing in the mountains. What has been the most exciting GT of recent years? The 2010 Giro. Where the big guns had time to make up so had to make the race exciting from some way out several times. We can't rely on the heads of state to have a collective brainfart and give a decent break more than 10 minutes every time, so another way to create those deficits has to be found.

Another thing that has to be done is to spread the decisive stages out. With totally backloaded routes, all that happens is everybody tries to time their form for week 3, and therefore everybody is not at 100% early on in the race and looking to limit their losses ahead of that final week that they're targeting for form, so racing is more conservative. Again, look at the 2010 Giro: Evans and Vino were already in form coming to the Giro, because they had been at peak form for the Ardennes. Therefore they had to make their time up early, because they might struggle (and indeed did) to hold form all the way to the end of the race, where riders like Basso and Scarponi were hitting peak form. Furthermore, you have to give these riders a reason for being in form early in the race - I'm not advocating you put the hardest MTF of the race on stage 4 like the 2007 Vuelta, or even that you use mountain stages at all to this end - but as long as all of the toughest stages are placed in one part of the route's chronology, everybody with GC ambitions will look to the same point in time. It can be with rouleur stages (eg La Grande Motte in the 2009 Tour, Arenberg in the 2010 or even Middelburg in the 2010 Giro, though with the road furniture that may have been a bit too risky from a safety point of view), puncheur stages (Mur-de-Bretagne in the 2011 Tour, Valdepeñas de Jaén in the 2010 & 11 Vueltas, Agrigento in the 2008 Giro), combinations of the above (Montalcino in the 2010 Giro), 'easy' climbing stages that weed out the contenders from the pretenders without creating big gaps (Alpe di Siusi in the 2009 Giro, Aitana in the 2009 Vuelta, less so Sierra Nevada in the 2011 Vuelta - that's an example of one that was TOO easy) or ITTs of varying lengths (Cholet in the 2008 Tour, Ciudad Real in the 2008 Vuelta). Preferably have at least one of each in the first half of the race to blend up the GC, and not leave it all as a final week sprint - a Grand Tour lasts for three weeks, and you should be racing for three weeks. Leave things for the Tadeses as well as the Gebreselassies.. But there has to be something that sets the GC mix early on. Not just for the spectacle, but for safety reasons - one of the problems in the 2011 Tour was that, as the GC mix was still wide open due to a lack of selective stages in the first half of the race, nearly every team was still up the front trying to protect goals; no reappraisal of goals had taken place, and the péloton was a nervous place for it.

 

[hrotha]

Every GT should have around 100 ITT km at least.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

1. NO need for more TT kms. It only hurts the current crop of Italian GC riders. Also, if you have to have a TTT in the race because of contractual arrangements or whatever, make it very short. Rodriguez got a "nice" head start this year.

What the race needs though is more hilly stages with punchy finales, which were sorely missing this year. There was one difficult uphill finish in Assisi, but the rest of the stage was poorly designed.


2. Mix it up. Keep the long mountain stages, but introduce short ones as well. It creates a different dynamic, as you won't necessarily have the same guys at the front.

3. Hell yes. More dirt roads, please. And why limit yourself to one such stage per year?

4. What will10 said. Intermediate bonus seconds in key stages could help to spice up the race more than bonus seconds at the finish line.

5. Sure.

6. Technical finales are fine. The odd easy sprint finish is fine too, but I prefer the more technical finales.

 

[jens_attacks]

Every GT should have around 100 ITT km at least.

amen.........

 

[Kwibus]

Every GT should have around 100 ITT km at least.

Aslong as all of those 100km ain't flat I agree with it.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

Every GT should have around 100 ITT km at least.

I don't see why. More ITT km wouldn't have made this Giro any more exciting. I actually think the opposite, it would have been even more boring then.

If you do more ITT, put them early. I don't like the ITT on the closing stage. It is a lot easier for the climbers to attack if they know how much they need to get back, instead of guessing how much advantage they are going to need.

Also I would put a serious mountain stage in every week. No more riding into form during the Giro.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Get a better balance between flat and other type stages. Too many flat stages will result in many kms of group riding as many teams will bring sprinters and won't engage in breaks.

Think TV broadcast instead of selling printed newspapers. Newspapers wants survival stories with pictures of half dead riders, TV needs 2 hours of relatively solid action.

Keep the Giro in Italy. Good action can be sold everywhere via TV rights.

And for god sake bring Coldeportes to the race next time.

 

[Another_Dutch_Guy]

What if:

- The Porto San Elpido stage would have had some thougher hills nearby the finish.

- Lago Laceno was replaced by a HC climb (Vesuvius?)

- A long time trial was included halfway the second week

I think we would have had a perfect giro!

Besides, I like the idea of changing the point system, because now it's always won by a rider who cares more about the overall classification.

 

[cineteq]

GTs should be for complete riders, no TT specialists or pure climbers should be able to win them.

To encourage racing.
- Balanced parcours
- TTT, ITTs up to 100km total
- Few MTFs
- Most flat stages should be eliminated, maybe leave 1 or 2.
- Bonus seconds left and right, especially in the mountains (Cat 1 and HC). The closest the mountain is to the start, the more bonus seconds a rider can get.
- No team radios