What's wrong with GTs routes nowadays?

[Eshnar]

Then say it. In one hand you "complain" about Echoes' not reading your post, on the other hand you do somehow something similar to other posters.

I think if I had to reply to every single post out there, whether just to say "I agree" or not, the threads would become kind of a mess. I'm more interested in starting a discussion and see what develops from it.

 

[Netserk]

Then say it. In one hand you "complain" about Echoes' not reading your post, on the other hand you do somehow something similar to other posters.

Maybe because he already wrote it in the OP?

I also don't expect him to respond to me and say he agrees that there needs to be more ITTs.

 

[cineteq]

I think if I had to reply to every single post out there, whether just to say "I agree" or not, the threads would become kind of a mess. I'm more interested in starting a discussion and see what develops from it.

I'm not saying that you need to respond to every single post. If fact you didn't have to. But your "body language" thus far have been to refute other posters' opinions, which is fine as long as you consider other ideas and debate them as well, that's all I'm saying. Lead by example.

 

[Roude Leiw]

As for the last point, I really do think short stages are just percieved as exciting. In reality, I can't remember any short stage where a long range attack succeded. In some of them there have been attacks, but they all failed (e.g. Huez 2011) and once riders finally realize it they won't even percieved as exciting anymore.

I do not share that view. It is worth more than a try. When you have to attack the armada of todays top team, riding 50 out of 150 or 50 out of 250 km in an attack is morale wise not the same. Short stages start often very fast with a lot of action as time is short to get into the break, the "settle down" part is rather short also then you work to reel in the break, so more action for less time. If you say epic / exiting racing i have the impression that you are looking for Charly Gaul like raids. I find a stage where they fight until the end and ultimately the breaks makes it or not in the last 2 km more exiting than watching someone soloing with the field giving up behind.

Pretty much what others said, reduce the teams, so you don't get the armadas. Dauphine this year had such an epic stage, because Bertis team was not strong enough once the danger was known

 

[Eshnar]

I do not share that view. It is worth more than a try. When you have to attack the armada of todays top team, riding 50 out of 150 or 50 out of 250 km in an attack is morale wise not the same.

But that's a matter of perception, right? It may be better for the morale, but in the end it does not work.

Short stages start often very fast with a lot of action as time is short to get into the break, the "settle down" part is rather short also then you work to reel in the break, so more action for less time. If you say epic / exiting racing i have the impression that you are looking for Charly Gaul like raids. I find a stage where they fight until the end and ultimately the breaks makes it or not in the last 2 km more exiting than watching someone soloing with the field giving up behind.

Well, in the last Vuelta there have been nearly zero fight for the break of the day, iirc. I remember the PRC complaining about that on Twitter (or maybe it was during the tdf?) Most of the times the composition is already determined beforehand and the guys just get away like that, getting 15 minutes in 20 kms. This seem to happen regardless the stage length. I don't really have data, so maybe I'll take a closer look later.
In any case, I'm not asking for Gaul-type stages. I'm asking for sth like Pontechianale 2003, Sestriere 2005, Aprica 2006 and 2010, Gardeccia 2011 and such, just to mention a few examples from the Giro. Nothing impossible nowadays, simply increasingly irrealistic.

Regarding the teams, yes, I agree we need weaker ones.

 

[May0maniac]

But that's a matter of perception, right? It may be better for the morale, but in the end it does not work.

Well, in the last Vuelta there have been nearly zero fight for the break of the day, iirc. I remember the PRC complaining about that on Twitter (or maybe it was during the tdf?) Most of the times the composition is already determined beforehand and the guys just get away like that, getting 15 minutes in 20 kms. This seem to happen regardless the stage length. I don't really have data, so maybe I'll take a closer look later.
In any case, I'm not asking for Gaul-type stages. I'm asking for sth like Pontechianale 2003, Sestriere 2005, Aprica 2006 and 2010, Gardeccia 2011 and such, just to mention a few examples from the Giro. Nothing impossible nowadays, simply increasingly irrealistic.

Regarding the teams, yes, I agree we need weaker ones.

Reducing the team size in GTs to 7 riders could do wonders, the race organizers could also invite more teams, it would make for better racing and more small teams would get a wildcard.

 

[fauniera]

Reducing the team size in GTs to 7 riders could do wonders

That's a cop out in my opinion and would turn races into lotteries. Just do a decent race design, then you don't have to mess around with team size.

 

[Netserk]

Strong teams can also be used to race more aggressively (and can add more tactical depth). The problem is when the best rider is in pole position with the strongest team.

If Berti hadn't crashed out last year, Tinkoff would have used their strength to force a selection earlier than what happened.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Strong teams can also be used to race more aggressively (and can add more tactical depth). The problem is when the best rider is in pole position with the strongest team.

If Berti hadn't crashed out last year, Tinkoff would have used their strength to force a selection earlier than what happened.

I think a big missing piece is the depth of the field. The playing field has changed, which changes how the races evolve. When everyone had access to the same resources, the top tier was more crowded. The payoff of risky tactics was higher, (and less risky, physically). The improved gains and minimized negatives contributed to the more exciting racing your talking about

[To have this conversation outside of the clinic is like buying the ingredients at a restaurant and cooking them at home...]

With resources less evenly distributed, now, the top tier is less crowded, while the second tier is crowded. And that changes the game. The risk/payoff relationship is much different for a second tier rider, because the behavior of the top tier rider is a huge tactical factor.

Last thing I'll say is that this isn't a chicken-and-egg issue: tactics or route design. There is no "what comes first", and everything needs to be addressed in order to build a solution.

 

[May0maniac]

Well it was just an idea, but i get that team size is not the main problem in GTs.

 

[Roude Leiw]

Well it was just an idea, but i get that team size is not the main problem in GTs.

It actually is, see the racing in WT or other events with reduced team size

 

[May0maniac]

It actually is, see the racing in WT or other events with reduced team size

Yes, bu team size is a way bigger problem in one day races, there are many other ways to improve GTs.

 

[Big Doopie]

What's wrong with GTs routes nowadays?

1. Stages are way too short - no longer tests endurance the way it used to.
2. Nowhere near enough ITT. A GT is supposed to crown the best all-rounder. Not the best teenie-weenie climber.
3. Way too many MTF sprints to decide who wins and loses on the day - again, less of a test of brutal endurance the way it used to be.

GTs are not supposed to be easy. If the riders get tired, they just go slower - makes for far more exciting riding with way more sudden collapses and drama.

Stuff today is weak crap.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

A real problem at the current time is the "final weekend big MTF". It's decisive and it sells the race to the sponsors, but is all too often a damp squib, because either the GC is sorted by then and the climb is neutralized, or the riders are too afraid of the huge final climb and they don't attack. Bola del Mundo was a success in 2010 because the race was close, but did nothing for the race in 2012; Angliru in 2013 and Zoncolan in 2014 did nothing other than add an unexpected name to the list of victors there (both from the break, which reduces a bit of the lustre of the climb). Ventoux 2009 can go in the same file.

The Giro has historically been the best at knowing how to do the final mountain showdown properly, but then, the Giro has the best options for doing so, with the Mortirolo-Aprica, Gavia-Tonale and Finestre-Sestrière options. And even then, if the GC is already sorted you get a tame stage (see 2011). There aren't so many options for this kind of stage in the Vuelta or Tour, plus there is the tendency to sell the big mountaintop finish. After all, what was the most hyped stage of the 2009 Tour? Ventoux. It wasn't the superbly-designed Le Grand Bornand stage, the best stage Christian Prudhomme has ever greenlighted.

Looking back the last few years, there are two things that have really harmed GT design.

1) The final week of the 2011 Tour being very good, and also the success of Europcar meaning massive home interest. The 2011 Tour was hopelessly backloaded, and while there were some interesting stages in the first half of the race, none of these had any real GC impact other than to crash people out; because nobody had lost any time, everybody still had something to protect, so nobody was willing to yield in the péloton and everybody was nervous. This pattern repeated in 2012, 2013 and 2014 whilst also giving total backloading as a successful formula, because we got an exciting climax, with Schleck's long-distance raid, Contador's aggression on the 109km Alpe stage and the GC being settled on the penultimate day in the TT.
2) Contador's ban being backdated and Alejandro Valverde crashing out of the Vuelta, meaning that the 2012 Vuelta was a big duel between the three top Spanish names of a generation; two of which were specialists in short-to-medium length steep slopes, and one of which won the race with an epic raid from distance in a stage you wouldn't have expected it. It became one of the most successful Vueltas with fans, resulting in Guillén repeating the formula, despite the fact he was extremely fortunate to capture lightning in a bottle thanks to a fortunate set of circumstances - it was a very good candidate for the worst designed GT of all time, barely covering a third of the country, looping back on itself constantly and featuring over half the stages ending on steep ramps of some description.

What the races need is to mix things up. The 2015 Vuelta is, believe it or not, a step in the right direction, although it has many, many flaws. The Tour will always have more of a problem in respect of the pacing of its mountain stages, owing to the mountains being in very specific areas of the country (and their reluctance to use the Massif Central with any degree of difficulty) and, worse, the areas of one of those mountain ranges willing to pay all being very close to one another, leading to repetitive and dull parcours, over climbs that all the riders know like the back of their hand.

The issue is less about using the various climbs, it's more about using them smartly. The 2011 Giro was otherwise quite poorly designed, especially for a Zomegnan special. But it did a few things right. We shall leave out the neutralized stage and talk of such things, for they were not part of the planning of course. They had an early, relatively easy mountaintop that sorted the contenders from the pretenders (they used the most famous ever climb for this, Montevergine di Mercogliano), something that all GTs should have an approximation of, because it eases the nerves in the bunch when fewer people are trying to protect something. The penultimate weekend stages were done perfectly. The Sunday stage (the 5-mountain odyssey to Rifugio Gardeccia) would always be in the back of riders' minds and intimidate them, putting them off taking risks to attack the previous day, so the Saturday was an MTF on Zoncolan, a climb that will create gaps simply because of how evil it is. If those stages are the other way round (ignoring geographical constraints) we do not see riders like Rodríguez and Arroyo attacking 3 climbs out, Nibali never attacks on the Giau descent, and everybody waits until the last 5km because they're afraid of the Zoncolan. Similarly, look at the 2009 Vuelta, where the well-designed stage to Velefique was soft-pedalled in fear of Sierra Nevada and La Pandera; then compare to the 2010 Vuelta, where they placed the hardest multi-mountain stage at the tail end of the three mountain stages with the hardest MTF (Lagos de Covadonga) in the middle, with better results, racing-wise. If the hardest MTF has gone, and riders don't have that difficult a finish in the final stage, they can't leave it until then, and then if they must leave it til then, they can't go all in for the final climb; they've got to go earlier. And that leaves us with spectacles like Aprica 2010 or Sestriere 2005.

The other problem is that flat stages simply aren't hard enough a lot of the time to put any pressure on. When a flat stage creates some fun, we've had some great stages - the echelon carnage in the 2013 Tour, for example. Sure, I'm not suggesting they turn it into a total lottery like the Middelburg 2010 slugfest, but while they're trying with the cobbles in the Tour and the sterrato in the Giro, the problem that too many GT contenders are too well-protected in the flat stages is becoming an issue. Before the GC has been sorted out the peloton is too tense and nervous to throw in some real narrow roads like we see in the Classics, so maybe an Ardennes-type stage early on to create some small gaps, then followed by some tough flat stages that test bike handling, strength in the wind and so on would be of use. Or, you know, to break up the order, an early time trial that's of a decent mid-length, like the Cholet one in 2008. Not so long that the time gaps are enormous halfway through week 1, but longer than a prologue and long enough to set the status quo before we get to the first mountains.

And for Christ's sake, it's a Grand Tour. There should be two ITTs of at least medium length, preferably two longish ones.

 

[May0maniac]

I have to agree, you need something that creates some gaps early in a GT.
You have a good point about using climbs smartly, the 2008 TdF did it the wrong way, they had the the Hautacam stage right after the Aspin stage that was +220km long and had a descent finish. Riccò saved the day when he attacked the motobikes, but the other GC favourites soft-pedalled the whole stage to save energy for the next day.

 

[Roude Leiw]

Yes, bu team size is a way bigger problem in one day races, there are many other ways to improve GTs.

No it isn't... The longer the race (i.e. GT), the harder it gets on the domestiques. So the better they are (and in the top tier teams we get more and more domestiques who would be GT pretenders in poorer (money wise) teams), the more they can neutralise todays GT. They need the endurance over a 3 week period where in the classics, by doing themselves violence, they can be useful for most of them quite long until the lieutenants take over in the last 20% of the race.

Libertine made (as so very often) a brilliant post around route design and he has definitively a case in point, but also centers the problem quite well, finding towns able to cough up money for the arrival (especially in the TdF) which hampers stage design as well as the infrastructure around the arrival (hotels!!) is another variable increasingly difficult to handle.

So I come back to where I began, the quick fix is decrease team size (without even inviting additional teams, should make the routes safer in the early weeks)

 

[Netserk]

In a Tour where the Alpes are in the third week, I would love if the first mountain stage finished on either Alpe d'Huez or Granon, and then the next day went over Galibier and Madeleine to finish on Valmoral, with the last mountain stage being with a descent finish in either Le Grand-Bornand, Bourg-Saint-Maurice or Morzine. Perfect pacing (especially if there's still a long ITT to come two days after the descent finish).

 

[May0maniac]

In a Tour where the Alpes are in the third week, I would love if the first mountain stage finished on either Alpe d'Huez or Granon, and then the next day went over Galibier and Madeleine to finish on Valmoral, with the last mountain stage being with a descent finish in either Le Grand-Bornand, Bourg-Saint-Maurice or Morzine. Perfect pacing (especially if there's still a long ITT to come two days after the descent finish).

Yes, having 3 consecutive mountain stages and doing it right is not that easy.

 

[Eyeballs Out]

Hard to disagree with many of the route problems highlighted. My own personal pipedream would be for the Tour de France (for example) to be, by definition, a tour of France. Not Italy, not England, not anywhere else in Europe and certainly not in another continent. Want to sell a more demanding route to riders ? Start by getting rid of the long, pointless, transfers. As a spectator, if I want to go and see the Tour de France then I'll go to France. Or is that too difficult ?

Unfortunately like most of the good suggestions on this thread, that's not happening either

 

[Tigerion]

What do people think about having a long TTT? One of the problems is teams strangling climbs to death using a team of climbers. One way to balance that is to have the need for more classics type riders for the TTT.
Limit the climbing strength of a team or suffer a potentially big gap in the TTT.

 

[Bavarianrider]

They are designed to create close races and attract and pleasure, random, non informed viewers rather than, create hard races that crown the toughest and most complete riders. That is waht is wrong.

 

[roundabout]

And there isn't really much wrong with that.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

What do people think about having a long TTT? One of the problems is teams strangling climbs to death using a team of climbers. One way to balance that is to have the need for more classics type riders for the TTT.
Limit the climbing strength of a team or suffer a potentially big gap in the TTT.

Have a couple of tougher rouleur stages (one that begs for crosswinds, a couple using narrow, Flandrien-type roads) so that more flat domestiques are needed or teams have to gamble on not losing too much time on the tough stages) and then have two good length ITTs. No TTTs. Ever.

 

[Tigerion]

Have a couple of tougher rouleur stages (one that begs for crosswinds, a couple using narrow, Flandrien-type roads) so that more flat domestiques are needed or teams have to gamble on not losing too much time on the tough stages) and then have two good length ITTs. No TTTs. Ever.

What is your issue with TTT? That a GC rider that is worse at an ITT can be dragged into a position ahead of a better ITT with a worse team.

 

[guncha]

The routes of TDF are dictated by the money. For instance, this year the organizers wanted TTT on stage 4 but the host cities were ready to pay for road stage only. Therefore, TTT was switched to stage 9... The organizers also wanted ITT late in the second week but the host cities were ready to pay for the road stage once again. Because of that we got just 14km of ITT...

Another example was in 2012 when towns in valleys wanted to host the stages. Because of that the stages with Le Grand Colombier and Mur de Peregue were ruined. Therefore, prolouge+two long ITTs were "balanced" with three mountain stages + single climb MTF Vosges.

It is very simple – ASO cares about the money, not the route. A good route of TDF is exception, not the norm.