What is the perfect Grand Tour?

[BlueRoads]

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.

Well, I understand the argument on the one hand, but on the other I still think it would be okay if the teams had about the same budget and had the same chances of building a team to support their chosen riders best. Then if they fail to do that, it's not "unfair" for the individual rider, it's just road cycling.

I mean, I'm torn myself. Do I want the best rider to win? Yes. Do I have a somehow awkward feeling in my stomach when someone else but the strongest rider wins? Yes.
But. Do I believe that the strongest rider is definitely the strongest rider anyway? No. (Clinic issues.)
Do I think that road cycling is a lot more than the strongest rider winning and that's the reason why I watch it while I hardly ever watch triathlon? Yes. Do I, in the end, care more about the excitement watching than the strongest rider winning? Yes.

But my argument is very theoretical anyway since there are immense differences in budgets and I don't have any solution to solve this problem, which I regard as the real root of the problem.

 

[Extinction]

TTT should only be very short, to limit the deficit a high budget mega team/s can inflict on those with less financial means. Otherwise you skew the race in favor of team power, when the GC is ranked individually. Unless you change the formula to each team's highest placed GC rider having his teammates' GC times added. And then see which contender has the lowest compound accumlated time for the entire tour to determine the overall winner.

Of course this is ridiculous as every other stage the individual rider is awarded his own time, all the more significant in an individual TT and MTF.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Well, I understand the argument on the one hand, but on the other I still think it would be okay if the teams had about the same budget and had the same chances of building a team to support their chosen riders best. Then if they fail to do that, it's not "unfair" for the individual rider, it's just road cycling.

I mean, I'm torn myself. Do I want the best rider to win? Yes. Do I have a somehow awkward feeling in my stomach when someone else but the strongest rider wins? Yes.
But. Do I believe that the strongest rider is definitely the strongest rider anyway? No. (Clinic issues.)
Do I think that road cycling is a lot more than the strongest rider winning and that's the reason why I watch it while I hardly ever watch triathlon? Yes. Do I, in the end, care more about the excitement watching than the strongest rider winning? Yes.

But my argument is very theoretical anyway since there are immense differences in budgets and I don't have any solution to solve this problem, which I regard as the real root of the problem.

In a normal stage, there are race tactics at your disposal even if you have a week team. You can stay in the wheels of your rivals even if you're isolated, and can still win with one well timed attack. You can send a teammate up the road in an early break... these are all things that are absent in a TTT. You just need to have a strong team that can power on for dozens of km. So even if it is a team sport, a TTT is simply ruthless.

 

[Extinction]

That goes for everybody though, isolated riders or not. Always being at the front is the key. Of course in the mountains a really dominant team can set it up for its team leader, but theoretically other team leaders can hitch along for the ride. The peloton effect becomes much less significant as it becomes a war of attrition and then the leaders go mano a mano (as it should be). But if the team is mega strong, with a budget to buy the most horespower, then usually they have planned that their leader can finish off the job crushing the other team leaders.

This was how Sky operated. But if you have the strongest rider by a significant margin, aka Pogacar, setting a relentless pace doen't matter when your team leader can't follow his attack.

 

[IndianCyclist]

There are no perfect GTs. A GT is nothing but a plan and no plan survives a battle.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Do I, in the end, care more about the excitement watching than the strongest rider winning? Yes.

That is one of the main reasons why I am against the TTT, because it negatively impacts the excitement in much of the rest of the race by placing an automatic advantage into the hands of those who are best equipped to defend it.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

That is one of the main reasons why I am against the TTT, because it negatively impacts the excitement in much of the rest of the race by placing an automatic advantage into the hands of those who are best equipped to defend it.

it doesn't necessarily impact the excitement in the rest of the race negatively, though. It could also have the opposite affect - by putting the current best GT specialist, Pogacar, at an early disadvantage.

Also, I'm not sure if the dominant TTT teams of the past were always the strongest teams in the mountains.

The race organizers could use that to their advantage. If there's an uber dominant team that also has the #1 GC specialist, don't bother. But when that's not the case - throw in a TTT every now and then.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

TTTs are boring, nobody gets excited to sit down and watch a sick team time trial. They want attacks, explosions, drama, courage, style, tactics. Team time trial is a dull budget/equipment contest. It's track crying on the road.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Nobody is watching highlights of old team time trials on YouTube, they are watching Contador attack Fuente De, Nairoman on Val Martello, Landa and Contador on Mortirolo

 

[BlueRoads]

TTTs are boring, nobody gets excited to sit down and watch a sick team time trial. They want attacks, explosions, drama, courage, style, tactics. Team time trial is a dull budget/equipment contest. It's track crying on the road.

Nope. Team time trials are what I like watching the most in a GT.
"Nobody" is most definitely not correct, because I'm somebody.
And if there are more of them, so that people actually train for it, it's anything but a pure budget/equipment contest. It requires awareness, coordination between the riders, measuring and aligning your efforts and there are also team interne tactics involved, by determining who takes turns when and how long, do you try to go as far as possible with all riders or do you sacrifice a rider going all out early or mid-term and such. Basically, it's a test of how well a team rides together. Also, if it's done by a capable team it's a pleasure to watch from an aesthetic point of view.

 

[hrotha]

TTTs are boring, nobody gets excited to sit down and watch a sick team time trial. They want attacks, explosions, drama, courage, style, tactics. Team time trial is a dull budget/equipment contest. It's track crying on the road.

 

[Ilmaestro99]

Nope. Team time trials are what I like watching the most in a GT.
"Nobody" is most definitely not correct, because I'm somebody.
And if there are more of them, so that people actually train for it, it's anything but a pure budget/equipment contest. It requires awareness, coordination between the riders, measuring and aligning your efforts and there are also team interne tactics involved, by determining who takes turns when and how long, do you try to go as far as possible with all riders or do you sacrifice a rider going all out early or mid-term and such. Basically, it's a test of how well a team rides together. Also, if it's done by a capable team it's a pleasure to watch from an aesthetic point of view.

You admitted already before that you don't have good taste. You have just proven it .

I just don't understand the appeal at all even after you explained it.

There are no tactics, you just make sure the strong guys pull the most. Keep elissonde or tolheok in the back.

You can't pick out the cool riders like Landa or Masnada or Nibali, there is nothing interesting going on (in my opinion)

But I respect your opinion.

 

[Jspear]

You admitted already before that you don't have good taste. You have just proven it .

I just don't understand the appeal at all even after you explained it.

There are no tactics, you just make sure the strong guys pull the most. Keep elissonde or tolheok in the back.

You can't pick out the cool riders like Landa or Masnada or Nibali, there is nothing interesting going on (in my opinion)

But I respect your opinion.

lol there are some tactics of course. BlueRoads just stated a few.

And you can pick out Landa. He will be the most awkward looking guy on his TT bike.

 

[BigCoward]

I wouldn't mind a 30km TTT where the first 20KM was flat and the last 10km was a 7% climb.
Or even 10km flat, 10km climb, 10km descent. That would shake things up.

 

[houtdffan]

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.

A very long TTT forces teams to decide if they should bring that extra climbing dom, or another flat/TT dom. Can lead to more open racing in the high mountains if teams have fewer mountain goats to control things

 

[Breh]

No. I'm sorry but just no.
You can put together a team of Roglic, WvA, Kuss, Dumoulin, Dennis, Vingegaard, Affini and someone like Gesink or Oomen and you'd still have the favorite for the TTT and arguably the strongest mountain train.
Porte, Thomas, Bernal, Martinez, Kwiatkowski, Van Baarle, Ganna and Carapaz would be the only other team in contention.

The argument doesnt make any sense tbh. There is no other team in the WT that can even try to compete with them on either climbing train or TTT train, let alone both.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

A very long TTT forces teams to decide if they should bring that extra climbing dom, or another flat/TT dom. Can lead to more open racing in the high mountains if teams have fewer mountain goats to control things

Or you could have more difficult rouleur stages and create the same dilemma without giving a free time bonus to the strongest teams.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

A very long TTT forces teams to decide if they should bring that extra climbing dom, or another flat/TT dom. Can lead to more open racing in the high mountains if teams have fewer mountain goats to control things

That could possibly work if the strongest teams didn't have riders who can both climb and TT really well available as domestiques. Jumbo have Van Aert of course, a secondary leader in Vingegaard who TTs very well, and can also bring Dumoulin. UAE have McNulty, Soler and can also bring Almeida next year. Sky had the likes of Kwiatkowski, Porte and Thomas as domestiques/secondary leaders in the Froome era. And that ignores the TT skills of the leaders themselves. In the years they were legitimate competitors, Movistar had nobody at that level for Quintana, let alone AG2R for Bardet, FDJ for Pinot, and so on. The same is true now for any team not named Jumbo, UAE, Ineos or to a lesser extent Deceuninck.

 

[BlueRoads]

That could possibly work if the strongest teams didn't have riders who can both climb and TT really well available as domestiques. Jumbo have Van Aert of course, a secondary leader in Vingegaard who TTs very well, and can also bring Dumoulin. UAE have McNulty, Soler and can also bring Almeida next year. Sky had the likes of Kwiatkowski, Porte and Thomas as domestiques/secondary leaders in the Froome era. And that ignores the TT skills of the leaders themselves. In the years they were legitimate competitors, Movistar had nobody at that level for Quintana, let alone AG2R for Bardet, FDJ for Pinot, and so on. The same is true now for any team not named Jumbo, UAE, Ineos or to a lesser extent Deceuninck.

However, if you don't make it a straightforward route and not too long, the gaps aren't that big. And if the team actually trained specifically for that and won some seconds by working smoothly together a team time trial could cost someone like Bardet or Pinot less than they would lose in an ITT of similar length. It's worst for the guys who are actually pretty good time trialers themselves but don't have a team with other good time trialers.
But yeah, of course there is something about it that feels unfair... But I'm weighing things against each other and I don't think the disadvantage some guys get from a 15-18k or something team time trail is so enormous that it cannot be justified.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

However, if you don't make it a straightforward route and not too long, the gaps aren't that big. And if the team actually trained specifically for that and won some seconds by working smoothly together a team time trial could cost someone like Bardet or Pinot less than they would lose in an ITT of similar length. It's worst for the guys who are actually pretty good time trialers themselves but don't have a team with other good time trialers.
But yeah, of course there is something about it that feels unfair... But I'm weighing things against each other and I don't think the disadvantage some guys get from a 15-18k or something team time trail is so enormous that it cannot be justified.

Like I said, Scarponi lost five times as much time in the 33km TTT in the 2010 Giro because he was pegged to the speed of Jackson Rodríguez' TT capabilities than he did in the other 3452km combined. Or take the 2009 Tour TTT, where in 39km, the Schleck brothers gained 18" on Vincenzo Nibali, 1'40" on Denis Menchov, 1'55" on Cadel Evans, and at the end of the race 9 of the top 10 came from the top 4 teams in the TTT. The sole exception was Christophe Le Mevel, who was given a time gift of 5'20" in a transitional stage (on a weekend, just to anger me further) - and who finished 10th. If we're trying to limit the gaps created by the TTT by reducing the distance to avoid prejudicing the competition, then we're acknowledging that it is not part of a fair fight. Just saying that the teams should train specifically for TTTs is far too simplistic, because the people who are better at TTTs could always train for it too.

 

[BlueRoads]

Like I said, Scarponi lost five times as much time in the 33km TTT in the 2010 Giro because he was pegged to the speed of Jackson Rodríguez' TT capabilities than he did in the other 3452km combined. Or take the 2009 Tour TTT, where in 39km, the Schleck brothers gained 18" on Vincenzo Nibali, 1'40" on Denis Menchov, 1'55" on Cadel Evans, and at the end of the race 9 of the top 10 came from the top 4 teams in the TTT. The sole exception was Christophe Le Mevel, who was given a time gift of 5'20" in a transitional stage (on a weekend, just to anger me further) - and who finished 10th. If we're trying to limit the gaps created by the TTT by reducing the distance to avoid prejudicing the competition, then we're acknowledging that it is not part of a fair fight. Just saying that the teams should train specifically for TTTs is far too simplistic, because the people who are better at TTTs could always train for it too.

Yes, there is something unfair about it, I totally acknowledge that. But then, on the other hand, like I've tried to say, I am thinking - why is it really unfair? If there were more team time trials and the teams had roughly equal monetary means the teams with someone for GC could hire some specialists - they don't need to all go the same team. Of course nobody hires more great time trialists when there is about to be ttt only every 5 years now... if at all. (Also of course the teams don't have the same budgets. You could say though, that UAE have weaker time trialists than Jumbo and they don't have a lesser budget.)
About that reduction, I find it natural to have another element in the race, just like cobbles are as well, which offers something else - but also has its downsides. You just try to not make the impact too big by for instance not having too long distances of too tough cobbles. Because, as much as we all love cobbles and they can and often do reward a certain skill they can also be quite "unfair" and lead to leaders crashing out not by their own fault.
Actually, that happens all the time - people crash out because of something out of their reach. I know these situations are not really comparable, I just want to say that in my eyes a GT consisting of a huge variety of skills, terrains, stages, are what I like, the "fairness" of the win is relative anyway, and I like team time trials enough and think they add something special that is worth it to be okay with the negatives, if you indeed decrease the impact by not making it too long.
About the training, of course the others can do time trial training as well, but here is another element that can even lead to relative surprises.
You picked examples that show one side. There have been enough time trials that weren't won by the strongest team on paper, and I can remember at least some nice Vuelta team time trials (rather short, to be fair) that I can't remember to have had a negative impact on the GC but were, for me, a nice way to start the race.

 

[roundabout]

Like I said, Scarponi lost five times as much time in the 33km TTT in the 2010 Giro because he was pegged to the speed of Jackson Rodríguez' TT capabilities than he did in the other 3452km combined. Or take the 2009 Tour TTT, where in 39km, the Schleck brothers gained 18" on Vincenzo Nibali, 1'40" on Denis Menchov, 1'55" on Cadel Evans, and at the end of the race 9 of the top 10 came from the top 4 teams in the TTT. The sole exception was Christophe Le Mevel, who was given a time gift of 5'20" in a transitional stage (on a weekend, just to anger me further) - and who finished 10th. If we're trying to limit the gaps created by the TTT by reducing the distance to avoid prejudicing the competition, then we're acknowledging that it is not part of a fair fight. Just saying that the teams should train specifically for TTTs is far too simplistic, because the people who are better at TTTs could always train for it too.

For a bit of context

1. 2009 Tour TTT had a few crashes IIRC among the early teams so it is actually an example of a TTT where coordination counted more than usual.

2. Menchov's GC challenge died on stage 1 and it was him who crashed in the TTT (see point 1)

3. Evans had van den Broeck crash and Vansummeren had a flat

4. Nibali and Andy were within 2s of each other in the 56 ITT kms in that Tour.

 

[Cookster15]

Nobody is watching highlights of old team time trials on YouTube, they are watching Contador attack Fuente De, Nairoman on Val Martello, Landa and Contador on Mortirolo

I prefer mountains too but your ideal Grand Tour is 20 stages in the mountains and a ceremonial stage in Milan, Paris or Madrid?

As long as TTTs are not too long eg 1993 TdF 81Km I have no problem with them as long as they are in the first week. They mix up the race and add another dimension.

 

[houtdffan]

Like I said, Scarponi lost five times as much time in the 33km TTT in the 2010 Giro because he was pegged to the speed of Jackson Rodríguez' TT capabilities than he did in the other 3452km combined. Or take the 2009 Tour TTT, where in 39km, the Schleck brothers gained 18" on Vincenzo Nibali, 1'40" on Denis Menchov, 1'55" on Cadel Evans, and at the end of the race 9 of the top 10 came from the top 4 teams in the TTT. The sole exception was Christophe Le Mevel, who was given a time gift of 5'20" in a transitional stage (on a weekend, just to anger me further) - and who finished 10th. If we're trying to limit the gaps created by the TTT by reducing the distance to avoid prejudicing the competition, then we're acknowledging that it is not part of a fair fight. Just saying that the teams should train specifically for TTTs is far too simplistic, because the people who are better at TTTs could always train for it too.

The team paid for bad rider selection. Pay for a better TT rider if you don't want your leader to lose that much time

 

[Red Rick]

The team paid for bad rider selection. Pay for a better TT rider if you don't want your leader to lose that much time

Yeah why don't they just buy better riders.