What is the perfect Grand Tour?

[hrotha]

That would be a crashfest.

Has anyone ever made a serious statistical analysis of the prevalence of crashes before and after the introduction of the 1 km and 3 km rules? Because this sounds like the kind of thing that gets casually thrown around but then again some people say that crashes are just getting worse and worse whenever someone crashes, and maybe it'd be nice to base stuff like this on evidence rather than on pure emotion.

 

[Red Rick]

Has anyone ever made a serious statistical analysis of the prevalence of crashes before and after the introduction of the 1 km and 3 km rules? Because this sounds like the kind of thing that gets casually thrown around but then again some people say that crashes are just getting worse and worse whenever someone crashes, and maybe it'd be nice to base stuff like this on evidence rather than on pure emotion.

I just don't see the merit in maximizing the effect kamikaze sprinters have on the GC battle.

 

[hrotha]

But that's exactly what I'm saying isn't it. Does that effect actually exist. Can it be quantified. At which point the diminishing returns stop making sense and you might as well just have people race.

 

[Red Rick]

But that's exactly what I'm saying isn't it. Does that effect actually exist. Can it be quantified. At which point the diminishing returns stop making sense and you might as well just have people race.

GC riders being held up by crashes in the final 3km and then getting the same time happens quite frequently

 

[houtdffan]

That would be a crashfest.

I don't think so. It wasn't when it was the 1 K rule and really wasn't before the 1k rule.

I don't think you'd be seeing these 5-10km sprint trains, which is what causes the crashes. Riders are in the red for far too long now. Instead, the GC teams would control things, making the sprints safer. See the races before the 3 km rule. GC teams often controlled the flat stages until close to 1K to go

 

[houtdffan]

I'Ve posted this one before the the race design thread (I think the stage started in Briancon and featured Izoard + Vars before Bonette:
https://www.cronoescalada.com//tracks/viewTour/67040
If they fix the sterrato between the Col de la Moutiere and Bonette you could have Mountiere-Bonette/Faux col de la Restefond before and uphill finish in Super Sauze too:
https://www.cronoescalada.com//tracks/viewTour/671267

The 1993 tour did Izoard, Vars, Bonette, and then finished at Isola 2000

Yep, 4 massive climbs in the same stage

Modern cyclists would probably strike over a stage like that

 

[hrotha]

GC riders being held up by crashes in the final 3km and then getting the same time happens quite frequently

Oh ok. I thought you meant that removing the rule would lead to more crashes among contenders, not to them being held up.

 

[Mayomaniac]

The 1993 tour did Izoard, Vars, Bonette, and then finished at Isola 2000

Yep, 4 massive climbs in the same stage

Modern cyclists would probably strike over a stage like that

Nah, that only happens at the Giro, cyclists don't have the guts to strike at the Tour where all the team sponsors have major interests.
Anyway, I don't think that a stage like the Briancon-Auron stage or the one that you mentioned would be too hard, but it after a big MTF and before an easy transitional or sprint stage or before a rest day.

 

[Sandisfan]

Just a side note: I could see a way on the opening day to include a TTT but the split stage rule would have to be suspended for a GT. You could have an 8K TTT in the morning and a 12K individual TT in the afternoon. The TTT would have minimal impact on the overall and those who like the precision of a TTT would get their fix. I kinda like a TTT... If my favorite teams or riders would benefit LOL.

 

[houtdffan]

Just a side note: I could see a way on the opening day to include a TTT but the split stage rule would have to be suspended for a GT. You could have an 8K TTT in the morning and a 12K individual TT in the afternoon. The TTT would have minimal impact on the overall and those who like the precision of a TTT would get their fix. I kinda like a TTT... If my favorite teams or riders would benefit LOL.

I'd rather the TTT be around 70km in length. If a GC contender loses several minutes, too bad. Should have brought more TT doms and fewer climbing doms

 

[gregrowlerson]

Just a side note: I could see a way on the opening day to include a TTT but the split stage rule would have to be suspended for a GT. You could have an 8K TTT in the morning and a 12K individual TT in the afternoon. The TTT would have minimal impact on the overall and those who like the precision of a TTT would get their fix. I kinda like a TTT... If my favorite teams or riders would benefit LOL.

This is like me saying, "I want her 40% for her looks, and 60% for her personality"

 

[OlavEH]

The 1993 tour did Izoard, Vars, Bonette, and then finished at Isola 2000

Yep, 4 massive climbs in the same stage

Modern cyclists would probably strike over a stage like that

We have seen stages at least as tough as this in the Giro the later years. The 222 km to Bormio in 2017 was probably tougher.

But I agree that this is a problem, especially in the Tour. Same applies for lower climbs. Where they earlier could have done 5-6 lower climbs like Mente, Portillion, Azet, Pla d'Adet in sucession, they noe rarely do more than 4 like next year's stage to Peyragudes.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

I'm a fan of long TTTs in GTs - just one per GT - even though they are unfair. To balance things out you could think of much more selective mountain stages and increasing the ITT mileage by a lot.

I like how GTs are a metaphor of life. Unfair to the core. Talented GC riders on lesser teams should have plenty of opportunities to stick it to the richest teams, though, even though the deck is stacked against them. Adding long TTTs to the 2022 Tour and Giro routes wouldn't work for this reason, IMO, as it looks like they were designed to keep gaps to a minimum.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The rule should be that only cities with a statue of Lenin either in their central park or outside their town hall are allowed to host Team Time Trials.

 

[Red Rick]

I'm all for the idea of canceling out TTTs by increasing ITTs too. I'm sure top alrounder Wiggins gets punished that way.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

The rule should be that only cities with a statue of Lenin either in their central park or outside their town hall are allowed to host Team Time Trials.

What about Karl-Marx-Stadt with its gigantic monument? There is still a very nice Lenin statue in Schwerin you have to visit.

The absurdity of team time trials, can be well seen in the rules they have been given. In the early 80s, the Tour de France was apparently obsessed with them. There were even editions with two team time trials. In some cases, they went 70 kilometers and more. At the same time, you limited losses with an artificial rule. It happened, for example, that a team like Kelme lost 10 minutes or more to TI-Raleigh. Nevertheless, the riders were then only 2:30 minutes behind in the classification, as it was awarded according to intervals. So what is the point of a team time trial of greater length if you have to artificially dilute it?

One may add that these Tour editions had a completely different dynamic anyway. The strong climbers "died" in the wind, in time trials and on the cobbles. Thus, they went into the mountains with many minutes behind. This created a very different dynamic. They were allowed to break away and break away and break away. Their gap was big enough. That could be very interesting, too, because it created a great battle for stage wins and the mountain jersey. Today, because the Tour de France is up and overrated compared to the rest of the year, Tour stage wins are worth far too much to be permanently given away to breakaways. This is a bummer and creates the same images over and over again.

Individual time trials should be more creative and scenic. Let the riders climb and descend. They even understood that in the very first Tour de France time trial. 64 kilometers over the Iseran with a long descent with flats to Bourg Saint-Maurice. What I really remember are time trials like Sestri Levante in 2009 and Saint-Etienne in 1997, for which you had to ride outstandingly.

The Grand Départ:
I feel that a good Grand Tour should open with something that will offer up potential to open up a gap but will leave people close enough that in the coming days there is a fight for the opportunity to wear the leader's jersey. It absolutely should not be handed on a silver platter to sprinters who have no intention of trying to defend it (hello Marcel). Wearing the leader's jersey at a Grand Tour is an honour and therefore it should be earned. The two methods I prefer for the opening stage are the prologue, and a slightly hilly circuit type race. I don't mind point to point for stage 1 if it's something like Plumelec 2008 or Landerneau 2021, but something like the original proposal for the 2013 Giro's opening is ideal - it might be a sprint, but then the sprinter has earned their right to wear the jersey. The stage might open up gaps but they're not likely to be very large. I like a circuit race as an idea particularly for the Vuelta because it helps attract people for Worlds preparation as well, but also it means you can improve the atmosphere with fans able to see the riders several times. A prologue often has a better atmosphere than starting with a road stage (plus it's easier to police) for a similar reason.

You would really have a lot of very nice opportunities to build an interesting first stage in Bilbao. In general, a Grand Départ in the Basque Country is a great opportunity. Nevertheless, I think it will be everything we already know. So Jaizkibel and Donostia and then the first best way to Pau.

 

[SafeBet]

Instead of looking for the "perfect GT" I am more and more inclined to think we need a wide variation in GT courses to make GT's as a whole, and over a longer period, interesting.

I very much agree with this and I'll add that sometimes I'd like to see an experimental GT which caters to the most spectacular riders of that specific period.
So my suggestion for a perfect Giro today would be something like:

Opening prologue
Queen stage ending with a Mortirolo - Aprica combo as the second stage
Milano - Sanremo in the first week
7-8 demanding hilly / muri stages, at least 3 of which over 220 km
Big flat TT of around 50 km
Sterrato stage in Tuscany
Cobble stage in Lazio
Couple of flat stages with potential for echelon action in the south
Final MTT on Vesuvio or Etna (possibly starting with GC gaps... the purists will kill me for this but I gotta say I enjoy pursuit races).

I know the Van Aert, Van der Poel, Alaphilippe, etc of this world would likely not come anyway but one can dream.

 

[gregrowlerson]

I very much agree with this and I'll add that sometimes I'd like to see an experimental GT which caters to the most spectacular riders of that specific period.
So my suggestion for a perfect Giro today would be something like:

Opening prologue
Queen stage ending with a Mortirolo - Aprica combo as the second stage
Milano - Sanremo in the first week
7-8 demanding hilly / muri stages, at least 3 of which over 220 km
Big flat TT of around 50 km
Sterrato stage in Tuscany
Cobble stage in Lazio
Couple of flat stages with potential for echelon action in the south
Final MTT on Vesuvio or Etna (possibly starting with GC gaps... the purists will kill me for this but I gotta say I enjoy pursuit races).

I know the Van Aert, Van der Poel, Alaphilippe, etc of this world would likely not come anyway but one can dream.

It will never happen, but your first two stages ensure that:

There are less riders fighting for position on subsequent sprint finishers to try to take the leaders jersey, or hold a high gc position.

There are gc relevant stages on the weekend.

The route is most definitely not back loaded!

 

[sir fly]

Team time trials were one of the more exciting features of "Armstrong years".
Something similar could be revived with the present-day teams.

And statue requirement stands.
... to round up the concept.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

The absurdity of team time trials, can be well seen in the rules they have been given. In the early 80s, the Tour de France was apparently obsessed with them. There were even editions with two team time trials. In some cases, they went 70 kilometers and more. At the same time, you limited losses with an artificial rule. It happened, for example, that a team like Kelme lost 10 minutes or more to TI-Raleigh. Nevertheless, the riders were then only 2:30 minutes behind in the classification, as it was awarded according to intervals. So what is the point of a team time trial of greater length if you have to artificially dilute it?

Longer TTT's could favor different teams. It's not set in stone that a team that would dominate a 20k TTT would extend its lead in a 70k TTT. But i understand where you're coming from.

Like i said, i like TTT's, but i don't like that they can skew the outcome of a GC. So my proposition was to work with boniseconds instead of actual timegaps. Or have actual timegaps count towards team classification, but not individual GC (for which you could use bonifications). But the discipline is too interesting to neglect.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

But the discipline is too interesting to neglect.

LOL, yes. Vinokourourov lambasting his teammates in that one TTT was hilarious, BTW. One of my fav cycling memories. The stakes are much higher in GTs. Other TTTs don't have the same appeal (to me)

 

[BlueRoads]

The only problem with team time trials is that the budget difference of teams is so big. Otherwise - well, it still calls itself a team sport.
And of course whether you have a strong team makes a difference on other stages as well.
So the whole situation is a bit absurd, with everyone saying how this is a team sport but nobody wanting the team strength to affect the outcome of a GT much.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

The only problem with team time trials is that the budget difference of teams is so big. Otherwise - well, it still calls itself a team sport.
And of course whether you have a strong team makes a difference on other stages as well.
So the whole situation is a bit absurd, with everyone saying how this is a team sport but nobody wanting the team strength to affect the outcome of a GT much.

Although it is a team sport, it is an individual classification, so that's the reason for the dislike of the TTT impacting the race too much. Riders on the strongest teams are already heavily advantaged by having the strongest teams.

As an example, Michele Scarponi lost five times more time in the 33km TTT in the 2010 Giro than he did in the other 3452km combined and would have been less than 30 seconds behind Basso otherwise. David Arroyo lost the GC because his team lost over 2 minutes in that 33km TTT. If that's a 33km ITT, Arroyo still loses minutes because he's a poor time triallist, but suddenly the dynamic between Nibali, Basso and Scarponi is significantly altered. Instead, Scarponi is punished for his team, because they were pinned at going at a speed that wouldn't drop Venezuelan climber Jackson Rodríguez, their 5th rider.

And that's in a race that people loved. I mean, I could analyse the impact of the TTT on the 2009 Tour.

 

[sir fly]

A glance at the Tour TTTs denies rumours about corruption.
The scores rarely are off the charts.
There was probably some kind of bonus system often applied throughout its history, which means both the organizers and the teams knew the way to address the matter.

The Tour would gain if current contenders would have to face such a test.

 

[Extinction]

Anyone asking for people to race for 4000km over 21 days with no rest days, has no humanity.

How about 4083km over 22 days, with one rest day after stage 17? Tour de France 1986